Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

[Mr. Pedantic]

Untrue. Anything that happens has a rational explanation. If this cup over here falls off the table, something caused it, whether it was unstable and bumped, the result of a tremor of some sort, or other cause, it didn't fall off of it's own accord.

Yeah. But the ultimate cause doesn't have to be sentient.

But as for the claim that everything that happens has a rational explanation - if you look at quantum physics that isn't necessarily true anymore either. Unless you have a weird definition of rational.

Meh. If there's a law for it, then it's rational enough for me.

I thought the general consensus was that the universe has probably been in existence infinitely. A theory which, of course, has it's own massive holes in it, such as the lack of uniform temperature.

That doesn't work, unless you term "infinite existence" as being a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. Otherwise it doesn't fit with experimental observations. I thought the general consensus was that the Universe started with a Big Bang, and that scientists haven't figured out what happened before that. If there was a before that.

[Stratopwn3r]

Did Anders just post this and leave?

[Zamamee]

Sure seems that way.

[Sedistix]

Ironic that this post should be presented, and then abandoned. That method is strikingly similar to many religious propositions. Make the claim and then flee from supporting it.

[Inyri Forge]

Originally Posted by Stratopwn3r

Did Anders just post this and leave?

This exact post has been made on dozens of message boards. His purpose was not to engage in discussion with you guys. What his purpose was I can't say, but it definitely wasn't that.

[andersbranderud]

Hello!

Necrosect wrote:
"Quote : "Citation please?" :
Here is one citation by an Oxford physicist:
http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html"

Nemmerle wrote: "To speak of something occurring outside space time and yet retain this talk of causes and effects doesn't make any sense. Those concepts are contingent upon there being a space time system with things in it. It's entirely because there is already something that we can observe interacting that we're aware of a progression of different things at all; and entirely because it occurs within space time that cause precedes consequence and not vice versa. You're talking about what causes the system under which the things we observed and then called causation can take place, but that concept of, 'cause,' doesn't necessarily apply outside the system of time and space and physical things that it relies upon for its existence."

MrFancypants wrote: “Read only the first half as I don't want to get into a discussion about scripture, but two points come to mind: First, a cause doesn't need a creator. Second: Physical laws break down in singularities, the Big Bang is usually assumed to be a singularity.

Also, if you apply your own reasoning you end up not with an explanation but with an infinity loop. If there was a cause for the Big Bang there must also have been a cause for the cause and so on. So whether you say the Big Bang started it all, a God started it all, or a God that created 20 other smaller Gods is arbitrary.”

My reply:

The report of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde is found here: [gr-qc/9403004] The Impossibility of Steady-State Inflation

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality (which you, Letum, agrees with). Some examples of a statements that is a unknown state: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang;" (or the statement “the laws of causality are not applicable on the first physical occurrence in space-time") Both of these examples contradicts science, i.e. it is a clear departure from the known state. The person who says there are scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

MrFancypants state that the Creator also must have a cause. To state this is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.

The proof I have presented proves that the Prime Cause is the origin of all the laws of nature, including causality. To say that the Creator is bound by causality, is as nonsensical as to say that a computer programmer is dependent on (or becomes a part of) the laws and boundaries in his program that he/she has created.

According to the principle of burden of proof, and the fact that claiming "the Prime Cause needs a cause " is a departure from the known; the person arguing for this statement has the burden of proof. The known state is what I have proved: “There exists a non-dimensional Creator external to timespace, Who is the Prime Cause to the timespace.” To claim that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause is a clear departure from the known facts. There is not a single observable fact that indicates that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause and neither is it possible to derive that conclusion using deduction.

Read also the quote by an Oxford-physicist reg. Causality:
Anders Branderuds blogg: Refuting counter arguments to the existence of a Creator.
“

Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud

[necrosect]

Wow I hate to reference my own thread but this is a prime example. You are referencing articles about science that you have no understanding of. In fact, it seems the blogger you have linked didn't fully understand the reply he received from the Professor of Particle Physics, that or he purposely misintrepted them for the ends of his own argument. He has confused two possible ways of understanding "causality" that are not inclusive. Indeed he may have been better off messaging a quantum phenomenologist in all honesty and the fine details of defined causality are a slight stretch from that of general particle physics. So again - citation? That is actaully relevant.

In any case I would advise you to go and read about this subject as the arguments you have presented are fundamentally flawed, or at best case-specific and largely augmented.

By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

Errr not quite actually. Only for those unbounded in the time-like sector.


Please realise you CANNOT use the laws of a universe with a bounded time-like structure to demonstrate teh existence of a prime mover, let alone infer the "conscience" of this being. This is critically important here. No matter what your argument you are attempting a logical impossibility.


edit: Ok after a more thorough re-reading of the article linked in the blog you linked. Seriously I know this is a pub thread but really WTF?!! This has to stop, that has nothing to do with the discussion here (note to readers, this is more to do with the guy who wrote the blog than the person who linked it to me, still annoying though )

Also why are you still linking the steady-state inflationary theory paper? It's also irrelevant to this discussion and your argument.

necro xx

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

The report of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde is found here: [gr-qc/9403004] The Impossibility of Steady-State Inflation

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality.

Well obviously that's going to be true just by definition: Science is the process of explaining that which has been observed, we occur within a bound time-like structure upon which our senses are dependent. We're not beings that could observe something that doesn't conform to the rules of causation. Ergo science is the domain of causally related phenomena and all your sentence reads is this:

No causally related pheonmena contradicts the causal principle of causality

Which while obviously true doesn't advance your argument any.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality (which you, Letum, agrees with).

Which might be interesting if we were directly talking about space time when we used science, but we're not. We've never observed space time, indeed to do so may well be an impossibility. (And even if we had you're positing we depart from that domain, and when you leave a domain you don't get to take all your inferences with you.)

All we've observed is the interactions of thing occuring within that construct, we take those interactions and we explain them in terms of causes and so on. You can't generalise internally dependent concepts from one domain to a second. From the realm of what goes on inside space time to the realm of what goes on outside it. As you seem so fond of saying that is, 'a law of formal logic.'

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Some examples of a statements that is a unknown state: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang;" (or the statement “the laws of causality are not applicable on the first physical occurrence in space-time") Both of these examples contradicts science, i.e. it is a clear departure from the known state. The person who says there are scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

Causation is a necessitating relationship in a space time construct. You've posited we remove those two things from existence. Since the concept logically can no-longer be infered to apply to the whole domain (and since you're relying on the rules of generalisation that's something you need to do,) the burden of proof rests on you.

[Sedistix]

The collective works of Nietzsche. A damn good read.

[Roaming East]

This whole thread was a troll. You guys realize that right?