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.