Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose
Offline I hope you will find this text interesting.
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://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 the universe 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 www.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: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)
Anders Branderud
- Login to post comments
The problem I have is the following:
1) that the first cause has to be a creator with intelligence, aka god.
2) Quantum mechanics has shown that there can be effects/causes without prior cause per se, basically random event occurring on the quantum level that require no cause for it to occur.
3) Why is god the exception to the rule of first cause? basically what created god?
4) Universe had a beginning, that beginning was due to some event (the big bang), that event was triggered by a quantum event, which caused a cascade event (look a plausible cause without a creator).
5) your not eliminating all the possible events, your just saying, I have no clue, god did it.
Wow you are making a lot of assumptions on this...seriously.
You are talking about something that leads to the creation of pocket universes. Not the beginning of time.
You have made a terrible mistake in trying to understand this article. I only know of the concepts of this from physics courses I have taken, but someone else will no doubt show up here to tackle this that knows more about the subject than myself. I would be interested to know if you are sure that the paper from this one scientist in 1994 represents the entire scientific community as well. Let alone the scientific community of today (2009)
No one knows if there was a beginning to space-time. To assume that is incredibly unscientific.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Read my sig.
It says:
Without the laws of causality, no causes would be operative. The laws of causality must therefore exist before any cause can operate which would in turn mean the laws of causality cannot be the result of any cause. These are laws which cannot be caused even by god.
Or it should.....
How can not believing in something that is backed up with no empirical evidence be less scientific than believing in something that not only has no empirical evidence but actually goes against the laws of the universe and in many cases actually contradicts itself? - Ricky Gervais
Welcome to the forum!
I agree that our universe requires a cause, but I don't see why this cause is necessarily an intelligent being. Additionally, intelligence is a characteristic of advanced life forms, animals on Earth. You are stealing a concept when you state this cause is 'intelligent.'
Intuitively 'orderly' structures do not require intelligent design.
The Torah is not as old as recorded history. There are also religious scriptures older than the Torah.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Skitsnack.
LOL This is too funny.
We all know the universe was created when fire and ice came together in the ginnungagap and fromt he melted ice came Ymir and the mighty heifer, whom Ymir suckled from. Then Odin, Vili, and Ve slew Ymir and we got Midgard out of his body.
This required no intelligence.
ciarin.com
<3 Penn
Actually, according to Ovid, there was always something, which was chaotic. Then that something started to stabilize, then some unnamed god (and was a male god apparently) did some stuff and then you have the universe. Just thought you'd like to know the TRUE creation of the universe.
There is no 'perfection' in reality, and no logical requirement for it.
That sort of discussion reflects totally obsolete concepts of metaphysics, which is based on a string of intuitive assumptions which reflect our evolutionary-derived instincts.
The universe is mostly random/chaotic, with some elements which we perceive as expressing some interesting complexity and/or orderly structure.
In the simplest cases, orderly structure only needs a collection of identical components, and beautiful regular crystals can form out of disorganized liquid solutions. So 'order' certainly is not a signature of intelligent design. It forms out of disorder in every snowstorm - in the beauty of a snowflake crystal.
On a grander scale, the formation of a star and accompanying planets is understood to form out of a disorganised cloud of gas and dust in a process which for which we have one or more highly plausible paths, entirely consistent with all scientific principles. It is far harder to observe, of course, but we are getting closer to that possibility as we get ever more sophisticated astronomical satellites following on from Hubble. So we may hope to see such systems in various stages of formation, which is how we deduce the path of processes which take far longer than a human life-time.
No solar system could ever be described as 'perfect' - orbits are never precisely circular, nor exactly spaced according to some elegant math formula, or all neatly aligned in the same plane, etc, etc.
Complexity as such can arise every time a number of certain combinations of simple chemicals, which have some chemical affinity for each other, collect in a puddle, and start reacting and forming more complex molecules, which in the vast majority of cases are simply 'sludge'.
Even the variety of rocks and minerals we see on and under the surface of the earth are the result of such processes, formed out of a relatively small number of elements. Again, no guiding intelligence required.
Obviously, the chances of getting just the right sort of complexity to generate self-replicating molecules, the minimum starting point for the evolutionary process to kick in, is pretty small, but given that there are at least 100's of billions of planets in the Universe, there is plenty of scope for at least one to 'hit the jackpot'.
And the Universe arising out of the Big Bang has been shown to have a net zero mass-energy content, since gravitational energy is logically negative in comparison to the other forms of energy and the energy-equivalent of matter, there is no violation of the law of conservation of matter-energy either.
Even if we insist every event requires a cause (which quantum theory shows is not necessarily so, at least in such a simplistic form), there is no logical or scientific requirement that a cause be equivalent to or greater than its effect, in any sense. So there is no logical argument whatever that whatever initiated our universe was anything like a 'God'. A random quantum 'twitch' of just the right kind and magnitude is all that is logically required, if anything.
So there are no logical grounds for the existence of God.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
You were lied to, my friend. Accept the one tru way. Hail the Æsir and Vanir!
ciarin.com
Per LatinCanucks post, this is not necessarily true.
Second, why does this presume that the same holds true for the universe itself? That would be a fallacy of composition.
"Prime Cause" and creator are not necessarily the same thing. Why is it necessary to posit "creator" for "Prime Cause"
Order and logic do not imply teleology. This is an ontological leap, in that it asserting teleology when there is not necessarily any teleology to assert.
Why not the Koran, the Bible, The Vedas, the Book of Mormon, or some other holy book?
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
The painful christian argument that the 'perfection' of the universe and the world and everything in it reflects the creator utterly discounts the fact we live in the midst of a complete shit fight.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Great everything needs a creator. Remind me what created God? And what created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created God?
What made you present an argument that an unbrainwashed 7 year old could debunk? Religion!
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
BLASPHEMER!!!! It was Papa Smurf! He sneezed and plant life came out of one nostril and animal life came out of the other one and you KNOW it!
Liberate your mind. Fuck religion.
No lol, Hesiod agrees. I've named two credible scientists, so far you haven't named one.
No lol, you haven't.
ciarin.com
Quote: “Great everything needs a creator. Remind me what created God? And what created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created God? What created the thing that created the thing that created the thing that created God?
What made you present an argument that an unbrainwashed 7 year old could debunk? Religion! ”--End of quote
Many words, but no where have I implied: “everything needs a creator”. I doubt that a 7-year old can debunk the proof when no one else has succeeded (for example all of the arguments posted to me (Quantum mechanics and Causality, definition of "perfect", et.al., including yours, are already answered on my blog - the link I posted in the first post). To debunk the proof one needs to debunk one of the scientific premises: For example 1. The time-space has a beginning; 2. Every physical occurrence has a cause.
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.
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.
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. 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"
A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He 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.
[And read more here supporting every physical occurrence in this universe has a cause.: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html]
Anders Branderud
Considering our universe there's no possibility time existed before this universe began and at no time as we understand time, has the universe not existed.
As there was no time before the universe existed there is no external first cause required to set time in motion. It is possible that this universe itself is as eternal as it is possible for anything to be.
You might claim your god had no first cause but there is no proof of this and nor is there proof of your god's eternal nature - in fact there is no proof of anything before or beyond this universe and the burden of proof falls
on you to show there was a time before the time of the universe and that your god, as prime cause, inhabited it.
Even if we were to accept that the universe had a first cause - that the big bang had an ignition point (if the big bang occurred that is) - there's nothing to suggest that this first cause needs to be the christian god
or any god at all and the burden of proof is still on you to show that before time a Jewish godman (with an outstanding sense of humour) was rustling about in the darkness hunting for friends.
An ignition point that may or may not have set in motion the universe and the physical laws governing the universe is not god and such an ignition point has none of the normally accepted properties of god, including
unprovable and unlikely qualities like omnipotence, omniprescience and "supreme justice" as well as good old human rage, hatred, homophobia and vindictiveness - all qualities we typically associate with a loving personal
saviour.
So numbat - show us all how it is that before time existed and before physical laws existed, a being existed that had qualities we can describe and comprehend now, in this time, using the physical laws of our own universe.
P.S. And another thing - stop claiming to have presented 'proof' when all you've done is regurgitated contentious premises.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
What you are doing is making a categorical error by suggesting that things in the universe have a cause, then suggesting that the universe itself has a cause. This is a fallacy of composition.
As I stated earlier, you are making an ontological leap from prime cause to creator. There is nothing about a "prime cause" to suggest that it is a being.
Second, there is that about order implies teleology, yet somehow you jump from "order" and "law" to creator without really explaining how. Your blog does not really answer these objections.
“Hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid.”
With all your proof, you have yet to prove that A) the prime cause is an intelligent being, B) a god that would match any god of religious origin, C) eliminated all possibilities of a natural phenomena that is simplistic in nature, as a quantum fluxuation.
Your argument is as follows, there is a prime cause, all things have a cause, the cause is a creator with intelligence. Why does the prime cause (creator) have to be an intelligent being, or a being at all? Where is your proof of such thing? Your making a leap from prime cause to creator without actually providing any logical evidence at all.
If there really is an infinite intelligent being as the ultimate cause of all things, there is absolutely no justification for any human mind to assert with any confidence at all the ultimate nature and motives of such a being. In such a situation, all certainty of knowledge is gone, since It could change anything and everything at a whim.
Any assertion of its good-will toward us would be pure speculation or desperate hope with no way to know whether it was true.
As latincanuck says, the leap from 'first cause' to any particular God is totally without logical justification.
Quantum events, such as the radioactive decay of unstable atoms, are common events for which we observe no apparent cause. All we can say is that their energy states predict a statistical probability that they will decay in any given time period.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
I'm going to make an objection to your argument based on this opening statement. Vilenkin and Bonde were not the first two cosmologists to have a problem with Steady-State theory. Steady-State has largely been dead since the 1960s. I'm having difficulty getting a copy of the full PDF so I can only imagine that their paper was published in response to work by Hoyle et. al. in 1993 which tried to resurrect the theory.
All Bonde's paper really seems to cover is the idea that the universe cannot extend an infinite amount of time into the past and that there must have been a singularity. That's no big deal. We've known that for ages. What we cant comment really comment on is what came before (if there was a before) the singularity. There are lots of theories - and each as valid as, if not more so, god.
Forget Jesus, the stars died so that you could be here
- Lawrence Krauss
Critical flaw detected:
"It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause."
The universe is not inside the universe. Your cornerstone crumbles, your argument is self defeating. No further effort necessary.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I'm just wondering, even if your argument made sense (it doesn't) and there was an intelligent creator, how do you know it's a "he"?
Liberate your mind. Fuck religion.
I suppose Anders has become the new whipping boy.