Proof of an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

[andersbr]

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 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 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/label/counter arguments)

Anders Branderud

 

[madness]

So you repeated the Cosmological argument given most famously by Thomas Aquinas. It has already been well refuted by Kant, Hume and Bertrand Russel. It is an interesting argument, but it does not prove the existence of God.

 

[andersbr]

So you repeated the Cosmological argument given most famously by Thomas Aquinas. It has already been well refuted by Kant, Hume and Bertrand Russel. It is an interesting argument, but it does not prove the existence of God.

Hume assumes that "a priori reasoning" is not valid. In science deduction is a valid tool to derive knowledge. Humes statement contradicts science.

If you think Kant's or Bertrands Russels counter arguments are more valid, then please paraphrase them and post their arguments in this thread.

Anders Branderud

 

[DaveC426913]

PF rules:

Discussions that assert the a priori truth or falsity of religious dogmas and belief systems, or value judgments stemming from such religious belief systems, will not be tolerated.

 

[gonpost]

First question. You said: "...orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect"

How did you conclude this? It seems to me that you suddenly equated orderly with perfect.Second question: Is the universe perfect if it requires god to be perfect?Third question: Do you consider randomness to be orderly? Quantum tunneling is fundamentally probabilistic. Wouldn't the most orderly thing be for there to be no chance...no probability?

If you answered yes, then the universe is not perfect. If you answered no, then keep going.

Yet if there can be chance, then would a universe where everything is based completely off of chance be orderly? If everything had a chance of happening from a given cause (ie given some random cause, any outcome that exists in the universe could happen as a result of that single cause), would it be orderly?

If you answered no, then the universe that we live in is not perfectly orderly. The universe is only relatively orderly (relative to the crazy second universe i just described).

If you answered yes, then I have to ask you...would the second crazy universe really be perfect? No matter your answer to that, the point is that order is relative. Thus, if you're equating orderliness with perfection, perfection is relative. But I believe that perfection is not relative by its definition...it is, after all, the pinnacle. Anything less or different is not perfect. (We're talking on a universal scale...after all, we can have two different tools that are perfect at performing different jobs).Upon giving this more thought, I've come to conclude that the prime cause could have created this universe perfectly in regards to its purpose, as given by the prime cause (assuming the prime cause has this strange desire to give things purpose). Thus, given a random universe, each could have been created perfectly for what it's supposed to do. That's similar to my tool example from earlier. So you can essentially disregard the third question that I had.

But if that's so, then why bother creating the entire universe at all? Motivation to create implies imperfection (you create so that you have something which you did not before). If we were created for something as simple as "for the hell of it" or "because it pleased him", then he is imperfect. He was either somewhat bored or not perfectly happy. Shouldn't god be the perfect narcissus, perfectly content to admire himself for the rest of eternity? For the record, I may agree that there was a prime cause. I just have problems giving that prime cause any sort of personal characteristics.

Observation: I've heard this argument line several times, and the furthest anyone ever gets is showing that there was a prime cause, but they cannot show that there is a personal god, or even that the prime cause didn't die when it made the universe.

Other observation: Being orderly does not necessarily imply being just.

 

[Math Is Hard]

Locked for religious content.