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).The paper found on Arxiv.org 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 space-time 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 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:
bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)

Anders Branderud

[Bluefinger]

This is going to be fun to dissect apart.

The problem with perfect order is Quantum Mechanics. Perfect order denotes that the universe will be fully deterministic, as any effect must have a cause, and so forth. However, Quantum Theory pokes holes into this by introducing the problem of random effects, without seeming cause. Virtual particles are an example of this. A virtual pair pops into existence at any single time, only to cease to exist as the matter-antimatter pair proceed to annihilate each other as soon as they appear. This leaves the net energy gain/loss of such an occurrence to be zero. This implies that there is a lack of causality in the Universe at the quantum level. Also, the fact is that because of the Uncertainty Principle, we will always have a degree of uncertainty with regards to any measurement we take, and thus the universe cannot be modelled perfectly, or assume perfect order.

Also, chaotic and seemingly random behaviours CAN result in orderly patterns, such as fractals and Mandelbrot patterns. Such patterns are called self-emergent because of the process that leads to such things. Noise can be be used to generate details, such as perlin noise being used to recreate rock patterns, landscapes, etc, because of the fractal nature of a lot of natural features.

Besides, Science doesn't say the Universe has a beginning, only that the Universe as we know it formed in such and such ways. Beyond the Planck time, we have no idea of what occurred or what processes led to the expansion of the Universe into what it is now, simply because we are lacking several key understandings and models in order to allow us to analyse this curious part of the Universe's state. Example, we have little to no understanding of how gravity works at the quantum level.

So yeah:

1. Effects do not require a cause. Quantum Theory shows this to be the case.

2. Uncertainty Principle describes that there will always be a degree of uncertainty with regards to models and measurements of the Universe, and thus there will always be a degree of randomness in the Universe.

3. Science does not say there was an absolute beginning. All it says is that the Universe as we know it formed in such and such ways.

So no. The universe doesn't require a 'cause' in order to exist. Besides, if the Universe requires something to cause it, who caused the Creator into existence? You don't just get a Creator existing without a cause.

And just to note, if you disprove A, it does not automatically mean B is correct. You still have to prove B is true. Disproving A says nothing on whether B is true or not. It just means A is wrong.

OH! Just to ask one thing. Do you believe in both locality and causality?

[dasfuchs]

"And just to note, if you disprove A, or does not automatically mean B is correct. You still have to prove B is true. Disproving A says nothing on whether B is true or not. It just means A is wrong."

Well, that does seem to be a main arguement point with those wanting a god. They think if they can prove A wrong, than their B wins even though they have no evidence B exists and could be anything else from C to Z

A similar idea like this was beaten down here aswell www.imdb.com/title/tt1091617/board/thread/150477002

[Vypernight]

I'm going to play along with this and say it is plausible. Now let's see you prove that this 'Creator' is not the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Odin, Ra, or an extraterrestrial.

[lonelocust]

Your link doesn't work.

A)The first cause argument is as old as the hills and holds no water. Something exists; on that we can all agree. Everyone agrees that SOMETHING exists just because it does. There is no efficacy in pushing the something that exists just because it does from the universe to a creator.
B)The first cause argument and its view of cause and effect demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of time. There is no "before" the universe (even though it had a beginning), because that beginning includes the beginning of time itself. The things that are true inside spacetime are not necessarily true OF spacetime, but even so, it's actually NOT any sort of "law of physics" that everything has a cause. But I'll give that it's generally true that things inside of the universe all have a cause, though demonstrably not deterministically.
C)Even if the universe had a cause in the way we think of it (it might have), the fact that something caused the universe does not mean that someONE caused the universe. We get back to the fact that something, at some point back, exists just because it does exist.

We cannot philosophically answer the question "why is there something instead of nothing"? (I am meaning "something" in the broadest terms, not just mass or spacetime, but the phenomena described by the uncertainty principal itself, or anything concievable.) Even if Yaweh made the universe, and another god made him and another god made it and another god made her and that god is a computer simulation running on a computer programmed by a nerd who lives in a universe that is simulated on another computer that runs on the tortured souls of hell in another universe created by another god created by another god created by a final god, who popped into existence because of a totally different uncertainty principal which is the only thing dictated by a deistic god created by another god run on another computer in a universe created by another god, but that god is the end of it (or even if it's turtles all the way down), the philosophical question of why there is something, whether that something is a universe, a phenomenon we can describe with math, a god, or anything else, is no closer to being answered. The first cause argument and its rephrasing are all clown shoes.

Of course, I'm sure this was just a driveby preaching. It does amuse me that the broken link containing answers to the "most common counterarguments" is appropriately blank.

Edit: Bluefinger did a better job of covering uncertainty and causality. ++

[peanutfan]

Everyone above has done a great job deconstructing the arguments of the OP, so I'll just add:

If you want to debate science, LEARN science.

[Sigmaleph]

The link to the counter arguments was only broken cause it had a parenthesis at the end, the actual link is bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments

Regardless, it's a load of bullshit.
If everything needs a cause, then so does the prime cause, which by definition cannot have one. The prime cause argument is inherently flawed.
Whatever it was that happened first, be it the creation of the universe or an arbitrary number of previous causes, there is no reason to assume it was sentient.
The "order can only come from order" argument is not logic, it's gut feeling masquerading as reasoning. A can come from ¬A. Order can come from disorder, and if it can't you need to explain where your orderly Creator came from.
Order does not imply justice.
A just creator may have chosen to never communicate with humanity.
There is no reason to assume the Torah is the chosen method of communication of the Creator.

And probably a lot more fallacies and unproven assumptions that I missed at first.

[Admiral Lithp]

Wait. Where did you get "Only the Torah is right"?

[Trevelyan]

Today on FSTDT, another tragic drive-by preaching. Tragic in the fact that it failed completely and did not even provide lulz. The same tired old arguments were taken out of the closet, dusted off, and made to walk around the party being extra nice to everyone. However, once logic and reason showed up the arguments fled as there is a long history of it them being given swirlies by logic and reason.

[Admiral Lithp]

Yes, drive-by preaching is really fucking annoying. I don't see how people think it's a brilliant idea to post a TL;DR wordwall without even bothering to refute any counterarguments, or clarify any unclarities that might be raised.

[Vene]

Just in case this isn't a drive by.

Nov 14, 2009 6:20:23 GMT -5 andersbranderud said:

IIt is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in space-time has a cause.

What is the cause of radiometric decay?

You know what, don't answer, it doesn't matter. Radio decay doesn't have a cause, it's entirely spontaneous (source) and all we need is one example to disprove this "law" of physics. And because the premise of your argument is wrong, nothing else follows and your entire post in invalid.

[Admiral Lithp]

Wait, how is it possible for radiometric decay to be random, but for there to be a regular half-life?

[Bluefinger]

Nov 14, 2009 16:37:20 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Wait, how is it possible for radiometric decay to be random, but for there to be a regular half-life?

Because individually, each nuclei has a random chance of decaying. But over a large group, you can statistically track just how many have decayed. Half-lives simply track the volatility of the random decay over a large number of radioactive nuclei.

Does this help to clear things up?

[lumberjackninja]

Nov 14, 2009 16:37:20 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Wait, how is it possible for radiometric decay to be random, but for there to be a regular half-life?

You can't predict which individual particles will decay; only that a certain number will decay within a certain timeframe.

[Admiral Lithp]

Nov 14, 2009 16:44:02 GMT -5 Bluefinger said:

Nov 14, 2009 16:37:20 GMT -5 Admiral Lithp said:

Wait, how is it possible for radiometric decay to be random, but for there to be a regular half-life?

Because individually, each nuclei has a random chance of decaying. But over a large group, you can statistically track just how many have decayed. Half-lives simply track the volatility of the random decay over a large number of radioactive nuclei.

Does this help to clear things up?

Kind of.