Proof Of The Existence Of An Intelligent Creator

[Anders Branderud]

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 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/labe...er%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

[Fguy]

...

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.

...

Ah, so before there was time, there was a creator?

[aussiemcgr]

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.)

Unless of course the "creator" was an event instead of anything actual. Because in that sense the "creator" would be an occurrence, not a god. There is no doubt that something had to create, but that doesnt mean that any sort of intelligent thing was the cause of it. You cant prove by disproof if you cant narrow anything down... It is simply impossible to prove or disprove any intelligent creator.

[Fguy]

Unless of course the "creator" was an event instead of anything actual. Because in that sense the "creator" would be an occurrence, not a god. There is no doubt that something had to create, but that doesnt mean that any sort of intelligent thing was the cause of it. You cant prove by disproof if you cant narrow anything down... It is simply impossible to prove or disprove any intelligent creator.

So much for proof. You know, whenever anyone claims they have "proof" of this stuff you know they have failed at the most basic concepts of logic 101. It's amazing the way otherwise extremely intelligent people can use such flawed arguments to support that which they wish to believe.

[Dave Reckoning]

So much for proof. You know, whenever anyone claims they have "proof" of this stuff you know they have failed at the most basic concepts of logic 101. It's amazing the way otherwise extremely intelligent people can use such flawed arguments to support that which they wish to believe.

It is another principle of logic that someone or something cannot give what that someone or something does not possess. Human beings have intelligence (yeah, I know, it's getting harder to find the ones that do, but some still do! ) Therefore, whoever or whatever created mankind had to have not only intelligence, but vastly superior intelligence. To say there is no Supreme Intelligent Being is to say that there can be a plan without a planner, a design without a designer, a law without a law-giver, effects without causes, creatures without a Creator. I, for one, cannot muster sufficient blind faith to believe that!

I have a question. Suppose someone had a large crate of authentic Lamborghini parts, enough to construct a fully functioning automobile. He takes those parts and rolls them down a hill (Let's presume that the parts cannot be harmed by this). How many times would he have to roll those parts downhill before the parts would somehow, coincidentally come together into a fully-functioning, running Lamborghini? How about one that isn't running? Suppose we do the same with motorcycle parts? Would you believe bicycle parts?

The fact is, even starting with carefully-designed and machined parts, there is zero possibility that any sequence of random accidents would ever assemble any of the above collections of parts into complete working machines. Only an intelligent being could design and assemble the parts. Yet the atheist would have us believe, on faith, that the designer himself who is vastly more complex, came about by means of random accidents, each having no cause.

No mere creature is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. None of us created ourselves. Logic demands the existence of a self-existent Being (the Cause so perfect as to need no cause) Who Is the Cause of everything, including time itself.

[Fguy]

It is another principle of logic that someone or something cannot give what that someone or something does not possess. Human beings have intelligence (yeah, I know, it's getting harder to find the ones that do, but some still do! ) Therefore, whoever or whatever created mankind had to have not only intelligence, but vastly superior intelligence. To say there is no Supreme Intelligent Being is to say that there can be a plan without a planner, a design without a designer, a law without a law-giver, effects without causes, creatures without a Creator. I, for one, cannot muster sufficient blind faith to believe that!

I have a question. Suppose someone had a large crate of authentic Lamborghini parts, enough to construct a fully functioning automobile. He takes those parts and rolls them down a hill (Let's presume that the parts cannot be harmed by this). How many times would he have to roll those parts downhill before the parts would somehow, coincidentally come together into a fully-functioning, running Lamborghini? How about one that isn't running? Suppose we do the same with motorcycle parts? Would you believe bicycle parts?

The fact is, even starting with carefully-designed and machined parts, there is zero possibility that any sequence of random accidents would ever assemble any of the above collections of parts into complete working machines. Only an intelligent being could design and assemble the parts. Yet the atheist would have us believe, on faith, that the designer himself who is vastly more complex, came about by means of random accidents, each having no cause.

No mere creature is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. None of us created ourselves. Logic demands the existence of a self-existent Being (the Cause so perfect as to need no cause) Who Is the Cause of everything, including time itself.

You quoted my post, so I guess you are talking to me. I really don't see much logic in you admittedly well worded post. The lambourghini analogy is clever but flawed. It just demonstrates a misunderstanding of the concept of statistical entropy. It's an oft-used but faulty argument. Interesting to be sure, but it proves nothing. No I don't feel like debating the validity of Newton's second law. That would take too long.

Anyways. There may be an intelligent creator, I don't know. I wasn't trying to make a case against that, just pointing out the obvious flaw in the original post. If you can explain what "before time" means, I will be impressed.

[aussiemcgr]

It is another principle of logic that someone or something cannot give what that someone or something does not possess. Human beings have intelligence (yeah, I know, it's getting harder to find the ones that do, but some still do! ) Therefore, whoever or whatever created mankind had to have not only intelligence, but vastly superior intelligence. To say there is no Supreme Intelligent Being is to say that there can be a plan without a planner, a design without a designer, a law without a law-giver, effects without causes, creatures without a Creator. I, for one, cannot muster sufficient blind faith to believe that!

I have a question. Suppose someone had a large crate of authentic Lamborghini parts, enough to construct a fully functioning automobile. He takes those parts and rolls them down a hill (Let's presume that the parts cannot be harmed by this). How many times would he have to roll those parts downhill before the parts would somehow, coincidentally come together into a fully-functioning, running Lamborghini? How about one that isn't running? Suppose we do the same with motorcycle parts? Would you believe bicycle parts?

The fact is, even starting with carefully-designed and machined parts, there is zero possibility that any sequence of random accidents would ever assemble any of the above collections of parts into complete working machines. Only an intelligent being could design and assemble the parts. Yet the atheist would have us believe, on faith, that the designer himself who is vastly more complex, came about by means of random accidents, each having no cause.

No mere creature is sufficient to explain the existence of the universe. None of us created ourselves. Logic demands the existence of a self-existent Being (the Cause so perfect as to need no cause) Who Is the Cause of everything, including time itself.

You do know that all of your examples are talking about things that are only capable with the existence of man, right? By that I mean you cannot compare what can only be created by humans to that which can only be created by nature. Nature cannot build a Lamborghini and humans cannot build a creature. And before you try to argue it, genetic engineering is triggered by humans but still essentially created by nature. The fact of the matter is, when we look at the different creatures around us in the world we are not looking at the pure luck of a random events occurring to create it. We are talking about billions of years of evolution, adaption, and failure to create everything from a human to that pain-in-the-ass weed you cant get out of your garden.

Lamborghini's, motorcycles, bicycles, whatever all have to be ASSEMBLED, not created. So to argue an example that has no relevance to the methods in which humans became what they are today is just pointless. Humans are not assembled by grabbing an arm or two, attaching it to a torso, tightening the bolts, throwing in some suspension, and oiling up all the moving bits. Humans are organisms, not machines.

Based on your examples, I would assume you believe that a small robot (sci-fi type robots) would be constructed the same way as a baby. Sure they both have what is essentially arms, legs, and a body (I guess), but the baby is living while the robot is just existing.

I would like to ask one question that is sort of offtopic, but not really. In your opinion, what defines a creature as human: conscious intelligence or bipedal movement? or possibly a different trait.

[Anders Branderud]

Fguy wrote: “Ah, so before there was time, there was a creator?”

My reply: According to science space-time has a beginning. Your question is therefore invalid.
The formal logical rule “burden of proof” requires the person contradicting science, or the logical conclusions of science, to prove his/her point; not merely assuming his/her point. The logical conclusions of science (causality and the science that shows that the universe has a beginning (previously quoted in this blog) is the existence of a Creator. To reject that conclusion, or other deductions derived from scientific premises, is irrational and it is not a scientific approach. If you want to disprove my proof, then one way to do it is to falsify causality. Up until this day there are no scientific data which invalidates causality.

Aussiemcgr wrote: “Unless of course the "creator" was an event instead of anything actual. Because in that sense the "creator" would be an occurrence, not a god. There is no doubt that something had to create, but that doesnt mean that any sort of intelligent thing was the cause of it. You cant prove by disproof if you cant narrow anything down... It is simply impossible to prove or disprove any intelligent creator.”

My reply:
All incidents of orderly (non-random) patterns – for example a formal logical proof or a programming code – we know of has its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being.

By induction an orderly pattern requires an intelligent set of thoughts in a being (at least until monkeys produce and type into a computer a previously undiscovered mathematical proof).

The development of DNA occured because of the initial conditions (including the laws of physics) initiated by the Prime Cause. DNA is an orderly (non-random) pattern (governed by the laws of physics). Thus by deduction, the design of DNA must have its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being – the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is an intelligent sentient being.

The burden of proof is on the person, who contradicts known facts, for example derived by logical deductions based on scientific premises.

A Sentient and Intelligent Prime Cause is per definition a Creator.

Anders Branderud

[Alex]

Has this proof been published in a scientific journal? Has it been peer reviewed? If you're so confident your argument is air-tight maybe you should, but they will just laugh at it. (and just to make it clear here, this is what scientific theory has to go through before being recognised)

Come on guys, no point having a rational "debate" here, obvious troll is obvious.

[Fguy]

Fguy wrote: “Ah, so before there was time, there was a creator?”

My reply: According to science space-time has a beginning. Your question is therefore invalid.

Anders Branderud

OK dude, since you were clever enough to prove the existence of a creator, I figured you would be able to get the obvious point of my question, but I guess not. I was merely pointing out the obvious hole in your "theory". If space/time has a beginning, and if this beginning had a cause, then that cause must have been around before this beginning no? Of course my question is invalid. That is the point. My invalid point is a logical consequence of your theory, therefore your theory is invalid.

I think the following book might be helpful to you http://www.amazon.com/Logic-Dummies-Math-S...e/dp/0471799416

LOL.

p.s. to Alex. You might be right, but the unfortunate fact is that there is a lot of people who believe stuff like this.

[aussiemcgr]

Aussiemcgr wrote: “Unless of course the "creator" was an event instead of anything actual. Because in that sense the "creator" would be an occurrence, not a god. There is no doubt that something had to create, but that doesnt mean that any sort of intelligent thing was the cause of it. You cant prove by disproof if you cant narrow anything down... It is simply impossible to prove or disprove any intelligent creator.”

My reply:
All incidents of orderly (non-random) patterns – for example a formal logical proof or a programming code – we know of has its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being.

One again, do not talk about what is possible only with the existence of humanity. Humans program, humans formal logical proofs. Of course this has a set of intelligent thoughts, these things are not NATURAL so must have intellegent thought in them. Even so, logical proofs and programming code are both intangible, and thus cannot be compared to the existence of humanity.

By induction an orderly pattern requires an intelligent set of thoughts in a being (at least until monkeys produce and type into a computer a previously undiscovered mathematical proof).

The development of DNA occured because of the initial conditions (including the laws of physics) initiated by the Prime Cause. DNA is an orderly (non-random) pattern (governed by the laws of physics). Thus by deduction, the design of DNA must have its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being – the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is an intelligent sentient being.

First off, DNA is almost entirely biology (Molecular Genetics to be specific), not physics. I would highly suggest some research before you start arguing. Not to mention you seem to lack the thought that everything on the planet has DNA, both intelligent and unintelligent creatures. We are talking about BILLIONS of years of failure to come up with several hundred thousand strings of DNA types that are successful.

Let me ask you one question. If DNA was created by a "sentient being," why would said "being" include DNA that contradicts its own existence? I ask because if you do enough research, you will find that scientists have managed to track back the existence of a creature by following its DNA strings.

The burden of proof is on the person, who contradicts known facts, for example derived by logical deductions based on scientific premises.

A Sentient and Intelligent Prime Cause is per definition a Creator.

Anders Branderud

You are basing your "proof" on unfinished facts and unproven deductions. I dont understand how you could possibly argue a creator without having any actual proof. Disproving is not proving.