Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

A logical proof of a creator?

  1. Apr 30, 2010 #1
    [Place in correct section if i have not]

    This video was brought to my attention to be, as the title suggests, a logical proof of a creator. Although it is obvious as to which religion the speaker associates himself with, it doesn't seem to interfere with his explanation. I am posting this to ask for criticisms of the logic used by the speaker. I am looking for a logical rebuttal. Please keep this based on fact and try to avoid quoting religious scripture. The speaker does not quote any himself.

    http://www.islamictube.com/watch/a3f572c342dc4bbcda0d/LOGICALLY-PROVING-THAT-THERE-IS-A-CREATOR" [Broken]
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 4, 2017
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 30, 2010 #2

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Typical rant without logic that if we exist something had to personally create us. If you were to use his *logic*, and there had to be a creator, who created the creator, did he create himself? What existed before he created himself? Did he create himself from nothing? Do you see how making up "a creator" doesn't solve anything? Also if you believe something exits, the onus is on *you* to prove it, not on those that don't believe you.
     
  4. Apr 30, 2010 #3

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    However, we know that the universe had a beginning. God is assumed to be eternal - to exist outside of time.

    This idea that everything came from nothing does seem rather silly. That's why I was interested in the ideas of a collision of branes, or a collapse of a hypersurface, to explain the BB. This would presumably mean that the universe or multiverse is eternal, and the problem goes away.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  5. Apr 30, 2010 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    And that's were faith comes in. Which is perfectly fine.

    This guy is trying to say that he can prove we had a personal creator with his illogical rant. You can believe that, but you can't prove it, and he can't say that those that don't believe in a creator have to prove him wrong.
     
  6. Apr 30, 2010 #5

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    One of the other great mysteries that he addresses, or at least implicity so, is the question of why the universe works. It is often mentioned that even the slightest deviation in value of some physical constants, would make it impossible for stable atoms to exist. How is it that everything has just the values needed to make the physical universe possible? Based on our current understanding of physics, there is no known reason why this must be the case.
     
  7. Apr 30, 2010 #6

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm not defending his thesis, just some of his points.
     
  8. Apr 30, 2010 #7

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    It was "the accident" that worked. Obviously the accidents that didn't work, didn't work.

    Who's to say that the same accident that formed the universe didn't also create life forms which we can't comprehend and which we refer to as "gods"? Instead of placing these creatures before the big bang, perhaps they are the by-product of it. "Prove me wrong!" :tongue2: Ok, I'll infractionate myself for that one. But do you see my point?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  9. Apr 30, 2010 #8
    LOL I absolutely LOVE this type of logic.

    To address the post though it's not a mystery AT ALL. People just love to apply mystcs to everything. The universe NECESSARILY must be 'perfect' by it's own standards for existence... It CAN'T be any other way.

    It's like the nuts that use the good ole' 'Earth must have been created perfectly to harbour life because it harbours life.' Uhhh... no? WRONGGG!!!! Try again.
     
  10. Apr 30, 2010 #9
    I think this isn't factually correct... where did you dig that up? (in the context you are using it i.e. cause --> beginning of universe ENTIRELY not just 'our' universe)

    Err, isn't our universes existence 'out of our time' necessarily? The universe itself doesn't exist INSIDE itself AFAIK.

    Assuming god exists solves no problems of the existence of our universe... and belief in such a god just causes more problems for humanity in general than it solves scientifically speaking.

    The universe does not need a cause and it doesn't even need to have a 'beginning' from some cosmological models. (in the context you used previously)
     
  11. Apr 30, 2010 #10

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    You shouldn't be so cocky when making such elementary errors. Yes, clearly we do exist, but the question is, why? The fundamental problem is that we don't know what determines the values of the constants. We don't know if they are driven by some underlying physics that we don't understand, or if they happened by chance. If you look back on the talk about Heim Theory, he claimed to have a model that predicted the values of the constants. Had that been true it would have been been revolutionary.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  12. Apr 30, 2010 #11

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    We have no physics to go beyond the first few microseconds or so, of time. There is no known cause for the BB.

    Space and time necessarily coexist.

    Really? Why not?

    Ah, please provide a source for that one.
     
  13. Apr 30, 2010 #12

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I have heard the suggestion made [no idea if this relates to any formal theory] that universes are constantly bubbling up out of the multiverse, with perhaps millions or billions of failed universes for every one that works. Again, I have no idea if this is anything more than wild speculation; if there is any scientific basis for this idea. It did come from a physicist, that's all that I can say for sure.
     
  14. Apr 30, 2010 #13


    Do you understand that there is ABSOLUTELY NO reason WHATSOEVER, why anything should be understandable, i.e. NOT being mystical??





    Sorry, but this makes as much sense as Dart Vader dancing ballet. Why should the universe be perfect by its own standards? What are these standard of the universe? Is the univese alive and conscious that it sets standard for itself? Sounds like a load of crap.
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  15. Apr 30, 2010 #14

    You can make any untestable model that will fit all the data we currently have(not much) and conclude almost anything.
     
  16. Apr 30, 2010 #15
    Luke, I am your Father...
     
  17. Apr 30, 2010 #16
    True, but isn't it so much fun!
    After all, wars are started over this.

    Yummy!!!!! :devil:
     
  18. Apr 30, 2010 #17
    Yeah exactly so why apply mystics to it? To pretend we understand? Give me a break. That was the entire point. Regardless of if we can understand 'causation of our universe' or not we do not need to invoke mystics. PERIOD Why make unnecessary assumptions???
    I guess I should have said by it's own standards of it's own existence. It NECESSARILY exists the way it exists because it does exist is the whole point. This is not an elementry mistake as Ivan would like to believe. The elementary mistake is presuming that there is a reason for it being this way. (shown in his question 'why?')
    They answer simply is: Because it is.

    I'd love for you to cite for me peer review articles from well known scientific journals where a cosmological model was presented which is 'untestable' and demonstrates that 'cosmology can conclude anything given the data'.

    It's also pretty ironic you posted that last post considering in your last post you defended mysticism.
     
  19. Apr 30, 2010 #18
    Well then, I always love posts that start off with a bit of ad hominem.

    Why do we exist? Because that's how the universe played out necessarily so because we exist! DUH! (circular reasoning FTW?!?!?!) The question itself is an argument from ignorance I think. Nothing is known about existence why should we assume it has a purpose or reason?

    First off what constants are you talking about? No the fundamental problem to the question of causation of our universe is not that we may not be able to understand the underlying physics.

    I thought Heim Theory is non-mainstream, isn't this a mainstream science ONLY forum??? Wow though. Really! Him being able to predict the value of 'the constants (whatever ones your talking about) would have been revolutionary to science! Way to add something usefull in regard to the OP!!!
     
  20. Apr 30, 2010 #19
    Oh, really? Way to make it look like this is an apparent contradiction to what I had stated:

    What does this have to do with what I posted exactly... I can't see any correlation between space/time existing in our universe and the fact that our universe exists outside that scope. The universe is EVERYTrHING including space and time. I posted that as a rebutle to your statement that: God is assumed to exist outside space/time.
    I posed the counter: Why can't our universe exist outside space/time? You have not answered this at all. Simple.
    Name a few problems that assuming existence of God will solve. Just replace all questions about the universe and shove them on to the concept you have of God. They still work; nothings changed!


    What abouuut: Cyclic universe models, Ekpyrotic universe models or the new quantum bounce models??? What about Inflationary models pre-big bang?

    Just as a side: When was the last time you actually studied cosmology or do you just have a average Joes understanding of the universe? I assume the latter because you seem to be under the impression that Big Bang = universe coming into existence.

    It's not, it's the initial conditions and the accelerated expansion that occured. The universe already existed.

    Big Bang theory = The universe started off much hotter and denser than it is today and has expanded over a finite amount of time (13.7 billion years ago) This says nothing about the origin of it all. Maybe it was one of those quantum possibilities that sprung into existence?
     
  21. Apr 30, 2010 #20
    We've all heard the "something must have created everything" logic. But wouldn't a more "logical" reason for faith in a creator be evolution?
     
  22. Apr 30, 2010 #21
    Because you admit that you don't have an answer why the universe should NOT be mystical.
    Everything is still mystical, we don't understand the universe, NOBODY does and this is exactly 100.00% certain.



    You fail to understand that you DO NOT understand the universe. At all. Your belief that you understand the universe and that it's not longer mystical is completely and totally unfounded. Really, it involves too much faith.




    Who dictates which assumptions are necessary and which are unnecessary? Why is the assumption that you understand the universe a 'necessary' one? Why should i believe your assumption?




    You are going in circles and circular reasoning has never been a particularly good method for laying out a thesis.



    As far as i can see, Ivan said Cause, not reason. How do you know there was not a cause? You assumed it, and you can assume anything, we all do at times. While there can or can't possibly be a creator, your reasoning does not in any way turn out to be superior to that of Ivan.




    So you have found the final answer to the biggest question of all times? Sound like faith to me.




    You mean the Big Bang theory is testable and is now beyond any doubt? Would you test it for me please?
    Do you understand that the BB theory will not hold wil at least half of the interpretations - MWI, CI, the Relational interpretation, etc.



    Which part of it didn't you understand? Those models involve a high degree of error margin, due to the fact that our basic physoical models don't work together. They are still speculative and tentative, though they are accepted by the majority. This doesn't mean however, that the minority that rejects them is wrong, as there is no way to test those models rigorously. Do you understand this point?
     
    Last edited: Apr 30, 2010
  23. Apr 30, 2010 #22
    Georg. I think your missing the point completely. There is no need to invoke mystics because it doesn't solve anything. It just brings up the same questions applied to the mystics. No new understanding and better yet: it leads no where. To believe in that requires faith, to utilize science requires evidence. I never once stated I understand everything in the universe. I clearly understand enough to see that it's pointless to invoke mystics though. That's not based on faith, it's based on deduction.

    EDIT: As well yeah, I did use circular logic. Why not? The question is completely useless, just like the answer.

    ERGO: To conclude by some logic that there is necessarily a creator and the universe necessairly had a cause and purpose is wrong.

    As well @ Georg. You seem to be applying the False dilema fallacy towards me. If I say it's not this or this isn't necessary it must necessarily mean I think option 'B' 100%. WRONG! Truth being: I don't know about the 'cause' of the universe, and that's why I don't invoke mystics about it without evidence.(know in the philosophical sense which means it is a true belief.)

    Invoking mystics or a creator means, necessarily, that you think you KNOW about the causation/'birth' of the universes existence as a whole. Nothing I have stated concludes, as some are trying to portray it as, that I know about this. Only that it is pointless to invoke mystics because it is not necessary.

    Did I get my point accross well enough through reptition or do I need a follow-up?
     
    Last edited: May 1, 2010
  24. Apr 30, 2010 #23
    Well, when humans can even begin to understand God, I'm all ears.
     
  25. Apr 30, 2010 #24
    There are certain formulations of "creator" that are logically inconsistent. Could some sort of "creator" exist? Sure. Just not the kinds most people think of.
     
  26. May 1, 2010 #25

    apeiron

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    What do you actually mean by "understandable"?

    A scientist's position since the Enlightenment would be that we can model the world even if we cannot "know" the world. A model is a representation of some framework of causality - a logical, and normally mechanical, representation. It would seem to be an "understanding", and one that excludes any mysticism (as maths makes models crisp, not vague).
     
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook