Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

[andersbranderud]

I hope you will find this text interesting.
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in space-time has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time.

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

The most common counter arguments are answered here: bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

[MrFancypants]

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.

[Nemmerle]

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

I hope you will find this text interesting.
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in space-time has a cause.

Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time.

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.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.

We don't know whether things in this universe lack a cause or not, we've only ever seen derivation, the recombination of forms along the line of spatial and temporal interactions - never creation. Whether it occur ex nihilo we really have no idea.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).

That at least seem logically consistent since if there was a cause it would constitute an event, events being properties of time and space it would have to occur within the system, and since nothing within the known universe is under your assumptions meant to have a cause...
Of course if there is an exception to the rule then the rule doesn't apply. Exceptions do not prove a theory in physics they break it/prove it inaccurate.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.

Prove it to me. Perhaps I am god and nothing has ever been created – for you seem to posit that god at least could exist without creation - then there is no universe; all of you being but a kind of dream. In the terminology of Aquinas maybe you are but ‘essence’ that has yet to be granted existence, and time and space and all these other things are nowhere, nowhen to be found. Certainly I have no proof of your existence as anything independent of myself.
Once you're prepared to break down the concepts far enough to allow things to exist outside of time and space, which is the system we rely upon for the derivation of all our concepts, all the assumptions you're working with for your proof break down. The ‘laws’ of physics cease to be necessitating and move into a fuzzy realm of maybe if you want to believe in them.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)

That's not what it means. Reduction ad absurdum is proof by contradiction. It just means you have to jettison one of the contradicting premises. In this case we can jettison a few premises without invoking a Creator so it doesn't hold.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect.

Ah logic. So what rule are you trying to invoke here? Identity seems to be a transitive property but if you want to say that the universe by necessity must mirrors its cause in all properties you end up saying that the universe and the creator are both the same thing - and that doesn't seem to be the claim you're trying to make at all since you've posited different properties for them. That in mind you have to forward some argument as to why you should be allowed to make that move.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just),

You're equivocating again. Why should I accept that order and justice are the same thing? If I go out and rape children there's a kind of order to it, the order of strength over weakness, but what justice may you argue there is in it? Indeed you've argued that in all the universe we find only order - so it seems I cannot do anything other than justice whatever depravities I practice. Which frankly just isn't reflected in the Torah.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it

Order and intelligence are not the same thing. Again you've wished to claim that the entire universe is orderly - but if that's your criteria for intelligence then all things stand equal; are you claiming that comatose vegetables are as smart as quantum physicists?

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from netzarim.co.il)

You've already claimed being Just is contingent only on being Orderly, presumably as a transitive property what with all this talk of mirroring. Being then simply orderly he didn't necessarily do anything of the sort; some of the most orderly societies on earth have been some of the most unequal and work/ed by intentionally keeping people ignorant.

Originally Posted by andersbranderud

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

...
That doesn't really make sense in this language.

[Killer Kyle]

Jewish, andersbranderud? Just asking because I'm wondering.

I think M theory actually supports the existence of God because it includes a never-ending timeline and a higher-dimensional space (hyperspace - 10 spatial dimensions) since God has existed forever both before and after the present.

The big bang theory assumes that time existed at and after the big bang, but not before. Unless you put God into another forever-existing and separate universe, nothing within our universe has ever lasted forever, so there can't be a God like our God. I see the big bang really as his moment of creation. Genesis 1:1 basically.

In M-theory, big bangs are caused by 2 membranes (which contain one or more universes) hitting each other. They also occur more than once.

[Afterburner]

Nemm has sufficiently answered the OP, but I'm curious what you mean by this, Kyle.

I see the big bang really as his moment of creation. Genesis 1:1 basically.

So you don't think God existed before the Big Bang but you do believe in God? This would seem to suggest that God is not all powerful, as "all-powerful" implies permanency. Would you then suggest that God might not even be unique? If you are correct that membranes interacting caused the creation of our universe (of course this begs the question, where did the membranes come from?) couldn't they interact separate from our universe, create other universes, and create other Gods. From a theological standpoint that rather contradicts Christian teachings.

[necrosect]

According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).

No it doesn't; to subquote:

inflation must have had a beginning

You seem to be struggling with reading comprehension here. Inflation is period of our universes history not actually the universe itself. Saying inflation must have had some beginning is not the same as saying the universe must do. Also, I am not saying the universe is eternal just saying that the paper you have linked us is completely irrelevant, just because it has words like "past-eternal" does not mean it is about the very beginining of the universe.


I could stop here, as I have just demonstrated the first line of your reasoning false, so the logic chain is broken but...

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in space-time has a cause.

Citation please?


Also, you can't move from "there is a creator" to "that creator is an intelligent being", in fact moving to "it's a being" is a massive leap. What your argument (even though flawed) actually results in is that "there is a prime mover", this could simply be some causal event and nothing else that does exist outside of the "causal restrictions" you are so arbitrarily applying.

necro xx


edit:

Originally Posted by Killer Kyle

I think M theory actually supports the existence of God because it includes a never-ending timeline and a higher-dimensional space (hyperspace - 10 spatial dimensions) since God has existed forever both before and after the present.

Just out of interest why does that support the existence of god? "allow" for an eternal entity maybe, but not "support".

Originally Posted by Killer Kyle

The big bang theory assumes that time existed at and after the big bang, but not before.

No it doesn't, not necessarily.

In M-theory, big bangs are caused by 2 membranes (which contain one or more universes) hitting each other. They also occur more than once.

Again, not all M-Theories predict this ekpyrotic behavior, it depends on the treatment.

Oh and small correction: Hyperspace = D>3, not necessarily 11/10/etc.

[NiteStryker]

How is there nothing, but an atomic multiplication creates a universe and a god?

[necrosect]

Breach of local energy conservation, well at least for the particles

[Penguin_Unit]

Originally Posted by MrFancypants

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.

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.

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.

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.

[MrFancypants]

Originally Posted by Penguin_Unit

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.

What I am trying to say is that the cause of an effect doesn't necessarily need to be intelligent or even alive. Rain, for example, is an effect caused by natural phenomena and not by some supernatural being (for all we know).

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.

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.

I don't think that is the consensus, or not anymore for that and a bunch of other reasons. But even if you want a theory without a big-bang like start and indefinite existence of the universe you could still get a non-uniform temperature, for example due to cyclic expansion and contraction.