Proof of 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 (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, i.e. a Creator.

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 http://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: [If you want to debate, do it here. If you want to advertise your blog, do that here. /Mod]

Anders Branderud

[billy423uk]

you can't go from assumption to fact just by saying
"this is so" lol.
that's a giant leap no intelligent person would take.
and you can't have proof with out proof.
we know of black holes because we see their effects on surrounding space.
we see no god effects, people say they do but we don't. what those people mean is "they feel gods effects" if as you say cause and effect plays a role then it could simply be an infinite cycle of universe, expansion, implosion. etc or some such thing. why does it have to be a creator? if everyone died in the universe would there still be a god?

[TheFiveSisters]

Just because science and logic as a whole cannot describe or explain what caused the known universe to exist and run does not mean that anyone can assume it was an ethereal being behind the scenes creating everything and running and micromanging trillions of billions of little repetitive details fround throughout it.

Sorry, just because science can't give facts and a logical explanation to how this world started does not mean religious proponents are correct and get a free pass to spread their ideas without being called out for a lack of proof or evidence on their part.

Besides, anyone with sense and not weak and emotional knows the world is random and there is no celestial order.

[Bamimi]

Quote:Just because science and logic as a whole cannot describe or explain what caused the known universe to exist and run does not mean that anyone can assume it was an ethereal being behind the scenes creating everything and running and micromanging trillions of billions of little repetitive details fround throughout it.

Actually it does....people hardly need a reason to 'assume' anything. so thats sort of silly to say.
Is it just me who notices that amazingly it is "anyone with sense and not weak and emotional" who knows are only those who thinks as he does?...hah.
We do not have any proof (ergo we cannot know.) that there is nor that there is not any celestial order frankly. A lot of interpreted supported theory, but no proof. (sadly, just because someone thinks a face on a potato chip/pancake or whatever poses proof, it does not in most scientific communities.) I have np saying I'm agreeing with billy423uk though really.

[nVeve]

(30th October 2009 02:07)TheFiveSisters Wrote:  Just because science and logic as a whole cannot describe or explain what caused the known universe to exist and run does not mean that anyone can assume it was an ethereal being behind the scenes creating everything and running and micromanging trillions of billions of little repetitive details fround throughout it.

Sorry, just because science can't give facts and a logical explanation to how this world started does not mean religious proponents are correct and get a free pass to spread their ideas without being called out for a lack of proof or evidence on their part.

Besides, anyone with sense and not weak and emotional knows the world is random and there is no celestial order.

yes we do. -.- we are the expantion of a cigulaity a bubble floating among other universes. we can record how fast the universe is expanding and how long it has been around with the echos of the boom once it was made. u know when u turn your radio to no station and u here that crackle noise. the majority of that is the echo of the universe being formed. microwave left over of such a great force they still eccho in time. -.- and sooner or later even the stars will die out not cause they are gone but they are so so far away theres it trillions of billions of other universes but we can't see them or get to them yet. and i doubt everyone of them thinks as god as u do. your talking about an iinfinite type of people, races, beings, dimensions. so to say your god made everything is just a flawed way of thinking since your god aint everything elses god. me i'm more i luv the word gods. so i belive in the gods not god

[TheFiveSisters]

(30th October 2009 10:41)Bamimi Wrote:  Actually it does....people hardly need a reason to 'assume' anything. so thats sort of silly to say.
Is it just me who notices that amazingly it is "anyone with sense and not weak and emotional" who knows are only those who thinks as he does?...hah.
We do not have any proof (ergo we cannot know.) that there is nor that there is not any celestial order frankly. A lot of interpreted supported theory, but no proof. (sadly, just because someone thinks a face on a potato chip/pancake or whatever poses proof, it does not in most scientific communities.) I have np saying I'm agreeing with billy423uk though really.

(1) There's no proof for any god or supernatural being. Therefore there is no reason to entertain such moronic, ignorant beliefs. Anyone who does so is fucking weak and foolish. I'm not wrong. You are and anyone else who holds any such thought like this or wishes for it to be true.

(2) You really need to learn how to type out your thoughts in a more comprehensive way and to address others in the forum properly instead of lumping together two previous posters and not addressing them.

[Bamimi]

(30th October 2009 17:11)TheFiveSisters Wrote:  

(30th October 2009 10:41)Bamimi Wrote:  Actually it does....people hardly need a reason to 'assume' anything. so thats sort of silly to say.
Is it just me who notices that amazingly it is "anyone with sense and not weak and emotional" who knows are only those who thinks as he does?...hah.
We do not have any proof (ergo we cannot know.) that there is nor that there is not any celestial order frankly. A lot of interpreted supported theory, but no proof. (sadly, just because someone thinks a face on a potato chip/pancake or whatever poses proof, it does not in most scientific communities.) I have np saying I'm agreeing with billy423uk though really.

(1) There's no proof for any god or supernatural being. Therefore there is no reason to entertain such moronic, ignorant beliefs. Anyone who does so is fucking weak and foolish. I'm not wrong. You are and anyone else who holds any such thought like this or wishes for it to be true.

<As well as there being no proof their isn't. just because I have never seen or been shown proof of a 30+ft oarfish, indeed no one ever believed in such a thing until like 50 years ago, doesn't prove it doesn;t exist. it's existed all along just fine. anyone with half a brain should realize just because there is no proof, hardly proves anything 'does not' exist. I bet you were one of those kids who put his hands over his eyes and claimed other people couldn't see him, or did you claim they didn't exist because you couldn't see them at the time? trust me, just because you lack information the universe continues fine, and there is a lot of things in it that are not proven to exist yet.>

(2) You really need to learn how to type out your thoughts in a more comprehensive way and to address others in the forum properly instead of lumping together two previous posters and not addressing them.

Well even though I do appreciate you looking out for my best interest and telling me how I 'should be'. I think I'll just continue on with my own path and well sorta laugh at your ignorance.
You tell me I need to learn how to type out my thoughts, and sometimes I actually agree with you, I could certainly do that better, as most could, it was however you who just got done trying to tell people they cannot 'assume' something without proof when that is the specific definition of assuming, so your just not making any sense at all really.
All your doing is applying your stagnant beliefs onto what everyone else should think, and leaving no room for personal growth for yourself, because evidently you seem to think your logic is evidently infallible...sorry but it is very fallible, as your not really using any logic at all, just belief.
I did not lump together two previous posters. I quoted you, and said I agreed with him...that isn't lumping you together as it is two separate distinctions. I know it seems as if I am attacking you, but I am not. I am pointing out the obvious flaws in your non logic, since it was part of the discussion when you brought it into the discussion.
Hope I was articulate enough in the response. my apologies if I wasn't. I personally do not 'believe' there is a god, I'm just not ignorant enough to claim I know there isn't when it's obvious I nor anyone else could. If you can dispute any of my logic instead of just saying "ha your a moron, because if I haven't had it proven to me that it exists, it doesn't" as your logic, then by all means do it. r continue as you will, it is a free world...or should be anyways, I'm all for you being able to belief what you want without logic, in any case if you so choose to be ignorant. (note that is the definition of ignorant, without the quibble of logic over knowledge.)

[toblakai]

Lawrence Krauss gives a talk on our current picture of the universe, how it will end, and how it could have come from nothing. Krauss is the author of many bestselling books on Physics and Cosmology, including "The Physics of Star Trek."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo

Download Quicktime version
Small: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspace...sm-new.mov
720p HD: http://c0116791.cdn.cloudfiles.rackspace...eb-new.mov

enjoy the bursting of your bubble...

[jamesri]

the only question i have is this , if we have a creator , then who created that? shuh sha![/size]

[Bamimi]

(31st October 2009 03:42)Toblakai Wrote:  enjoy the bursting of your bubble...

That was a brilliant conferance, thank you, it reminds me of the many many many other brilliant conferances in the past that have already been disproven of course, but tell me two things. 1).Did you actually watch it, and 2) who did you address the "enjoy the bursting of you bubble..." comment to exactly?
In his own words "Theorist always know the answer, they're just sometimes right." Krauss is a very intelligent person. far more so than I surely, I wouldn't even try to argue with his brilliance, so instead I'll use his brilliance to argue my points for me, it shows very readily how they do not mean anything like claiming god doesn't exist.
first off he says right off "experiments all over the world are looking for dark matter, we havent found any yet." Does that mean it doesn't exist? I think he'd tell you otherwise. Of course the difference being is that logic and theory gives a explaignation for it existing, just like many of the elements on the periodic table that were not found before we knew they existed, and well 'god' is such a large term, and one so outside the box of physics that we have no theories about it at all, except debunking possible thoughts on its definition. ie how the universe came to be in existance, which he presents a brilliant theory about, but openly admits the observance of such hits the wall with his explaignation of plasma having the effect of scattering and absorbing radiation. but he still outright says at this time, we cannot observe it, and if we cannot then we cannot say such a thing as a god didn't create it. Sure he says its highly super uber highly unlikely, but then again as he points out, we're here....just a highly super highly unlikely to of happened, yet obviously did.
temporary matter within the dark spots has moved into the area of highly supported theory, and I do not disagree with it. I also do not see it as anything that presents any proof denying a god either however.
He also likes to attack the obvious weak points of a so called god. saying god designed the universe for us is very weak obviously. even 'if' there was a god, and indeed the entity was omnipotent, why would it care about us at all, we don't matter anymore then a parasite living on our skin, and there are zillions surely, matter to us. I doubt they worship us, but hey ya never know right? I havent spoken with em and asked.....but that hardly says the entity didn't indeed create us, or create that which eventually created us.
He allows for physics itself to be local. He doesn't like it, but he allows it and its a very important point. if such a allowance, which is really common sense, is true then there is nothing to say god isn;t as I've mentioned before, outside the locality of our physic observance or structure. He himself gives the ultimate point. granted nothing says god is, or there are different localities, but once more the possibilities are not shut out that there isn't by far.
<sarcasm>He presented a brilliant analogy of string theory also, </sarcasm>

"the universe remains mysterious"
my question is, if quantum fluctuation did create the universe, why hasnt it done it again, evidence suggests it hasnt because it'd be effecting our current universe. he claims they'd be moving away from us, but if expansion is in all directions it doesnt fit. If you believe as he does, then why couldn;t we say God has moved away from us much faster since he started into being much prior, and has moved into a accelerated rate away from us faster then we have the ability to ever allow observance....yet god being farther developed may have the ability of effect and observance on us still. remember he makes the situation of after 100,000 years we won;t be able to know anything exists out there due to rate of acceleration.....does that mean nothing is out there? how silly is that...with his graph of lines of intersection for the creation of material in this universe, it is clear that a entity that was made prior to any of that creation would be outside the boundaries him and others setup using their very large triangle. their theories make sense but not extrapolated. his model of the universe is a shot in the dark based on very little data as well, at least how he explains it here.....I mean really, "it doesn't quite look like that"..."it doesn't quite look like that." ..."but well it's close to looking like that so yahoo! thats it!"......no.....this is why his theories are not laws yet, even though they sound good at a lecture wrapped in a neat package he made for presentation purposes.

Not of course saying there is a god, but really this guy did nothing to deny the possibility still. What he did do however is what has been done for the longest time and that is show that religion is a belief based system from lack of understanding, and science as usual is a belief based system from understanding. but everyone should already know that. they should also know that even though that may be, it still doesnt mean religion is wrong.

* Bamimi is still waiting to see some bubble burst, thank you very much.

p.s. Me saying it was a brilliant lecture was not sarcastic btw. it really was, and thanks for it.