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

Ah, so before there was time, there was 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

There may or may not be a God, but can all agree on one thing, he is not living on Mount Olympus.

1) Why not? You have claimed that using human comparisons is invalid, but a claim is not a proof.
2) Humanity is just as much a part of nature as the plants and lower animals. So, what is so "un-natural" about rational thought?
3) Wrong. Biology is totally dependent on the laws of physics. The sciences are all mutually dependent on each other.
4) Advocates of Creation/Intelligent Design are perfectly aware that all living things contain DNA. And DNA is a very complex molecule that itself cannot be explained by chance combinations, not even billions of years of them. Look, one DNA molecule is itself more complex than that Lamborghini mentioned above. Yet atheists would have us believe that these incredible things came about by chance.
5) I do not know, nor do I need to know.
6) Many things that cannot be seen can still be proven by their effects. We know gravity exists by the undeniable effects it has. Science is still at a loss to explain just WHAT gravity is, even after centuries of studying its effects. We can validly deduce causes by their effects, to the point that we can know for certain that there are no effects without causes. The Creator is the perfect Cause that needs no other cause, He Who created time itself.

Science can no more replicate evolution in the laboratory than it can replicate creation. Both are religious beliefs as to how everything came to exist. I choose to believe in the one that does not contradict the known laws of science, which is to say, a plan requires a planner; laws require a law-giver; creatures require a creator; effects require a cause.

1) And you have claimed the existence of a Supreme Being, but there is no actual proof to back that up.
2) I didnt say anything about rational thought being unnatural, I am saying that algorithmic design is not natural, it is man-made. All animals have rational thought, some are more instinctive than others, but only humans have algorithmic design. If you can find another animal that can create an equation, I'll retract this.
3) Wrong. Biology and Physics are two independent categories of science which are both considered 'Natural Sciences'. To be frank, Biology is the study of living organisms and Physics is the study of non-living systems. They are complete opposites. Perhaps you are thinking of Biophysics.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_science
4) It is not a matter of happening by chance. The fact that we are what we are today is chance, but everything in the world is essentially just chance. The mere random events that had to occur for the two of us to even be here arguing is just pure chance. The buildup of chance over long periods of time can seem to be "Fate" but essentially is just an even that happens because of the direction chance took you. The construction of DNA is not chance, but the genetics that are built up in human DNA is. Chance is not always random however. Chance can just be a happening. Billions of years of failed DNA strings had to exist to form the favorable traits that give humans, and all animals, the most favorable opportunity to survive on Earth. To some, this is chance. Do a little bit of research on Evolution to understand how this all works. It is called Natural Selection.
5) The question still stands and avoiding it does nothing for your argument. If you cannot think of a logical answer, then you should admit a flaw in belief.
6) Science HAS determined what Gravity is, and it is Physics that explains it. Gravity is the FORCE which forces objects with mass towards each other. The greater the mass, the greater the gravitational pull. Since Earth's mass is so much greater than the mass of a human, we are drawn to its center of mass, the core. The reason the Moon travels around the Earth is because the mass of Earth is greater than the Moon. The reason the planets travel around the Sun is because the mass of the Sun is greater than the planets. This is why weight is not relative, while mass is. Because if you were to put a 10lb object on a different planet with a greater mass than Earth, it will weight more than it does on Earth. However, its mass remains constant because mass is the measurement of the amount of inertia an object displays while weight is the measurement of force the object has directed to the object of greater mass. That measurement of force changes with a greater or a less gravitational pull.

And to your last statement, the "Science Theory" (or whatever you want to call it) is NOT a Religious Belief.
Religious Belief is defined as a mental state in which faith is placed in a creed related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine. Such a state may relate to: 1 the existence, characteristics and worship of a deity or deities; 2 divine intervention in the universe and human life; or 3 values and practices centered on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
The understanding that creatures evolved is not faith, it is not related to the supernatural, sacred, or divine, it does not reference the existence of a deity, it does not reference divine intervention, and it does not involve a spiritual leader.

I suppose some DNA is much more complex than other.

Anyways, There is no natural law that says that says a chance combination cannot occur that leads ultimately, maybe not right away, but ultimately, to some kind of life.

Perhaps you think it is a natural law that says order cannot arise from disorder? Sorry, that's not what the law says.

Anyways, I'm not trying to argue in favor of macro evolution, just that this particular argument in no way precludes it.

Where to begin? (1)The fact that material things exist is proof of a creator. Just as the existence of automobiles is proof that humans existed to "create" them, so the existence of humans, who are clearly not self-existent, is proof of a superior Being Who Is self-existent.
(2) It's perfectly true that no sub-human animal can create an equation, nor can any of them reason, in the sense of distinguishing right from wrong, or forming abstract concepts. So what?
(3) The current manifestations of the intellectual disciplines known as "biology" and "physics" may indeed claim to be independent of each other. This does not alter the demonstrable fact that the realities that are studied by biologists are very much dependent upon the laws that are observed by physicists.
(4) So you admit that you believe that your existence is ultimately the result of chance. I say "believe", because you cannot prove it. No scientist can replicate this series of "chances" in the laboratory. If "creationism" is unscientific for its inability to reproduce creation in a lab, then accidentalism must also be regarded as unscientific. True science recognizes that there are no "happenings" without causes. As a believer in God, I don't have to believe in either chance or fate. In point of fact, I have done much research on evolution, and am quite familiar with "natural selection", which is a fact of nature recognized long before Darwin hung that name on it, and which is in itself insufficient to explain the origin of either life or matter.
(5) The existence of "DNA that contradicts itself" may prove there is much that Science does not yet understand about Creation, but that is a far cry from an argument against the existence of God.
(6) Of course gravity is a force. Of course it can be measured, even predicted. That does not explain WHY a mass exerts this force on other masses just by being, nor the mechanism by which it occurs. That is why there are plenty of scientists still trying to find out exactly what the underlying reality behind gravity IS.

There are other definitions of religious belief you failed to mention.
Religion, properly, is the relationship between God and His rational creatures, specifically as pertaining to the recognition by the latter of their duties to the former. By analogy, it has also been defined as any belief in something for which there is no empirical proof. Under this latter definition, evolution is a religious belief. When you can produce empirical proof of one species evolving into a different species, when you can produce empirical proof of life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter, when you can produce empirical proof of existence spontaneously arising from nonexistence, then you will be within the realm of "science". Until then, evolution is a belief based on faith in the teachings of Darwin and his successor high-priests of that belief system.

Tell me. Does being an atheist make you happy?

God bless you.

It's all very simple, If the mindset (for the want, and withstanding, of better terminology and varies amongst volitionalists) is your "MAN" (given to Creationism) you are natural (not of MAN Made reasoning or thought occurance) - If mindset is your "HUMAN BEING" (given to Darwinism) you are un-natural (of MAN Made reasoning or thought occurance).
If you correctly supposition to "think" you are wrong, on the other-hand, if you correctly reason a "thoughtful occurance" you may possibly be reasonable in (or for) comprehension.

Hope this helps you out.

Edit 27MAR10 09:53 (UTC): The truth is hard to see and when seen it is even harder to react upon as you have to give up what one holds dear if you choose to believe the truth as it is given freely to you ... nothing here or above in my initial reply to easily purchase as it cannot be purchased.
Men do not "think" it is rather "thoughts occur" to MAN and by the/an instilled ability to reason is able rationalize .. everyone is uniquely qualified but the unreasonable "think".

Just so you know, I'm not ignoring you. I'm doing a job hunt right now and when my life settles down again I'll continue our debate.
But to answer your simplest question, yes I am very happy. I honestly cannot imagine being much happier than I am. My life is filled with unusually lucky and fortunate things happening to me. My friends always tell me how unfair it is. If, and its a big if, there was in fact a God, then he must really like me even though I don't believe in him, lol.




That confused the hell out of me. I consider myself a smart person, but I got lost in that each time I attempted following it. I'm not sure what side of the argument your on.

Is this basically what your saying:
Word "MAN" = Creationism = People are natural
Word "HUMAN BEING" = Evolutionism = People are unnatural

If I'm wrong, please correct me so I can understand where you are going with this.


**BTW, to everyone. The study of the evolutionary theory is called Evolutionism, not Darwinism. Evolutionism goes back at least to the 6th century with Anaximander. Although the theory was improved upon and became more publicized thanks to Charles Darwin, he was not the first to propose the theory. Similarly, the Bible was not the first to propose the idea of organized religion. It had existed LONG before the Bible. The similarities in the previous organized religions all follow the idea of creator(s), so it was been named Creationism. Please respect that so we can keep the debate organized and consistent.**

You know Ben Stine did a video on this call Expled. if you want to watch it its really good

Sublimation is the transition of a substance from the solid phase to the gas phase without passing through an intermediate liquid phase
http://www.globalsublimation.net

Have you ever been on Olympus?

Well, I read the whole thread & I can't understand where the argue is?
As an Atheist myself, all I support is that everything (including life) can
happen in chance. There is no need for a Supreme Being to create anything.
But I don't exclude that possibility. That would be arrogant & non-scientific.
& no, I'm not an agnostic.
God-believers on the other hand support their theories with blind belief &
don't allow themselves (& to others) to think that there is a possibility that
everything could happen by pure chance. Who is the arrogant here, considering
that both sides have no evidence or proofs?

Even if there is a God, you really think that you would be able to comprehend
its existence? The "existence" (if that word has a meaning for a "being" like
that) of a God, who would be so mighty & powerful to create space of trillions
of kilometers which lasts for billions of years? That being & its existence
would be too complicated for us to understand. & since it doesn't "belong"
to this Universe & its laws, this being wouldn't have any meaning to us.
It's like the other (seven if I remember right) dimensions that exist "under"
the four of ours. They are there but they have no meaning for us, like the
third space dimension of ours wouldn't have any meaning for a being living
in only the two space dimensions.

So, you think that that "Supreme Being" would have any meaning for us?
That we could simply say "it exists" & we would be right? Wrong. "Existence"
for us implies three space & one time dimensions. How can you say that
something exists outside of our Universe, if there are thirty space & ten
time dimensions? You can't, that is meaningless. It may exists, it may be
dead already, it may haven't been born yet or it may have never existed.
Or there could be other scenarios that none of us could ever imagine.
That is not a paradox, that is just something with no meaning in our Universe.
It's like Super Mario or people from The Sims are trying to understand which
God made them. But they will never understand because they can't reach or
comprehend our four dimensional Universe.

All of the above would require extensive knowledge of Quantum Physics
from me in order to explain better & from you in order to understand my
point. I hope you managed to understand something, considering that
English is not my native language.