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

Logical Proof of Intelligent Design

  1. Oct 23, 2003 #1
    Logical Proof of Intelligent Design:

    The universe is defined as the totality of all that exists.

    Within the universe, cause precedes effect.

    If cause, then effect:

    If A then B


    Therefore B

    The purpose of "cause" is to create an effect.

    Cause and effect are mutually dependent. If there is no effect, then there is no cause:

    If not B then not A,

    not B

    therefore not A

    The universe creates its own purpose. If it did not create its own purpose, it would be totally chaotic, or, it would be totally deterministic. We observe the universe as a system with consistent laws, therefore, it is not totally chaotic.

    The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe, so the universe cannot be totally deterministic.

    Therefore, the universe creates its own purpose.

    Purpose implies intent, intent implies mind, mind implies intelligence.

    If the universe is an effect, and the cause of the effect is within the universe, then the universe creates itself.


    The universe is an intelligent mind.

    Russell E. Rierson
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 23, 2003 #2


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    i dont think something can create itself.
    it can duplicate itself into something else which have the same propeties as the original but is it the same (it's like saying when you duplicate something does the duplicant the same as the original ie, the same emotions, mind etc).
    i dont think we are wittenessing self creation in form of the universe who is creating itself.
    if it was true how can you tell if it's not right now creating itself once more.
    something creating itself is paradoxical and i think defy the cause and effect principle which gave because if universe is creating itself then the cause is the universe and the effect is the universe and thus no change has occured.
    and from this it implies that you believe in the theory of fred hoyle (steady state).
  4. Oct 23, 2003 #3
    Isn't it a misnomer to say that the "Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principal" assures us of anything other then the fact that we cannot measure the two items, at the same time, that does NOT mean that both don't occur simultaneously, only our ability to percieve it is limited, it is NOT a proof that the Universe actually functions that way, or that uncertainty rules in any fashion, way, manner, other then in our measuring of it.
  5. Oct 23, 2003 #4
  6. Oct 24, 2003 #5


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    You keep posting this, and you keep getting told that Quantum Mechanics asserts that the uncertainty lies much deeper than perception. It is built into the structure of the quantization program, via the commutation relationships which imply deep uncertainty.

    It's just captious to say, well maybe it isn't the way quantum mechanics says it is, while ignoring the success quantum mechanics has had in predicting and explaining all those non intuitive experiments. Has all the discussion of Bell's inequalities and the disproof of local hidden variables theories meant nothing to you?
  7. Oct 27, 2003 #6

    I agree with the idea that the universe and everything around us is the creation of an intelligent mind. But how could something that did not exist beforehand create itself no matter how intelligent. Its like giving someone a brand new laptop, and when he asks you how it got there you answer, It has an intelligent mind and it created itself. He'd sure think you're giving a bad joke.:wink:

    Check out this article for further evidence:
  8. Oct 27, 2003 #7
    I agree partially with the idea that Universe is creation of of intelligence but i also agree that Universe has no initial creation point-of-time or in time. I.e. time and physcial Universe have existed eternally.

    It may be that intelligent mind via biologic incarnations exist eternally with the rest of physical Universe in order to give Universe purpose otherwise a Universe without intellgent mind(s) to observe it has no purpose.

  9. Oct 27, 2003 #8
    The only problem is, that if we do not examine the cosmos from an anthropic point of view, the concept of an intellegent designer is illogical. It leads to an infinate list of banalities.

  10. Nov 2, 2003 #9
    Yes I can agree with your train of thougt but if the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle explains that both the position and momentum of a particle, cannot be determined precisely, and this uncertainty is an intrinsic property of the universe. Then there has to be first and observer and second a free will decision to imbed the purpose by observing.
  11. Nov 9, 2003 #10

    just testing something, carry on.

    Attached Files:

  12. Nov 9, 2003 #11
  13. Dec 24, 2003 #12
    Nice post Russell. I am sure it ruffled some feathers here, but I wanted to suggest a site for you (and others):


    Not saying I believe it, or don't believe it, but interesting nonetheless.

    p.s. For people who want to know what the site is; it is a site that attempts to show how science proves the Bible true. Again, not saying one way or the other I agree, but interesting nonetheless.
  14. Dec 28, 2003 #13
    (In response to the original post)

    Unfortunately there seems to be a flaw in your logic, I will attempt to identify it before discussing some other problems that I had with your post.

    As someone using Logic to prove Intelligent design, you are no doubt aware of the various fallacies which we must strive to avoid in the development of logical arguments. For the sake of others who may not be familiar with Logic, I cite Wesley C. Salmon's book Logic, in which he explains the fallacy of equivocation.

    (pg. 135)

    This then is your cue to wonder where in the original post was this fallacy committed?

    I will show the absurdity of your argument by using the word 'purpose' in the way that you have used it in the first quotation(1), and then committing the fallacy of equivocation just as you have(2), finally we will look at the resulting apparently Logical Proof(3).

    (1) The purpose of a cause is to create an effect just as much as the purpose of a stone hanging in the air is to fall. In this case, by 'purpose' you and I mean something like 'the result of'
    The result of cause is the creation of an effect
    The result of a stone hanging in the air is the stone to fall.
    (2) According to your post, Purpose implies intelligence.
    (3) This leads us to the surprising conclusion that the stone must have intelligence(B/c the stone's purpose is to fall), in fact, if every cause has a purpose (to create an effect right?) then every cause is intelligent.

    The problem is that you switch from 'result of' type purpose in the first quotation to 'aim or a goal' type purpose in the second quotation.

    In scanning over your post I have a few more comments to make:

    Many would of course disagree with this definition, given the rising popularity of ideas such as Baby universes and eternal inflation. Technically we can disregard this point however and assume that the above definition is one that you have created for the purpose of this argument.(Like in math when you have some given from which you work a proof)

    Given your definition of the universe it does not seem possible for there to be anything outside of the universe, therefore these words are redundant.

    Based on your statement that cause precedes effect, it is impossible for the cause to be within the universe if the universe itself is the effect. The second quotation is fallacious if the first is true. The cause(within the universe) does not exist until after the effect exists (the universe)....Huge Problem

    This doesn't seem to hold any meaning because of the ambiguous use of 'purpose' and 'chaotic'

    That I can agree with!

    I'm out of time here for now but I would love to hear what all of you have to think about my first post. I certainly hope that you (Russell) are not personally offended and can accept my suggestions and criticisms in a mature way.

Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook