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

Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

  1. Jul 15, 2003 #1
    Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

    The universe is ordered and organized to a high degree. The Universe is logical, consistant and mathematical or can be described to extreme accuracy using matematics and logic. The universe has physical laws and rules that are knowable and consistant and that are obeyed and followed precisely at least on a macro scale.
    The universe, if one assumes that the Big Bang actual took place and is the origin of the universe as we know it, has evolved from near total chaos to nearly total cosmos, to the point that stars have planets orbiting them that can and, at least on one, do support a thriving complex life form.
    Both cosmological evolution and life's evolution here on Earth has led to us, Mankind, Homo Sapiens who can know, comprehend, search for and discover both the universe itself and what makes it work as it does. This leaves one glaring unanswered question. Why?
    It is my reasoning that the creation and evolution of the universe shows purpose and intent as does the evolution of life at least here on Earth.
    It is written that Man was created in God's image. I believe that it is not a physical image but a mental image that the statememnt refers to. Our logic and mathematics are solely abstranct products
    of our mind yet these abstraction are able to discribe physical reality to a degree of accuracy that the margin of error has been compared to the thickness of a playing card when measuring the distance to the moon.
    We of course have to modify our theories, laws, mathematics and logic from time to time in order to better model reality but we can do it and do do it. We humans can and do know the universe how it works and why it works the way it does from the largest structures of the universe to the smallest wave particle.
    Our knowledge is not yet total nor complete nor is our understanding. It may never be. But, we do and can know the universe and understand it.
    It is my reasonable hypothesis that Mankinds mind is created via purposful and intentional evolution, both cosmological and biological, in the image of the Creator, God. We are created in his mental image, the same method of reasoning, so that we can know both his creation and him.
    Assuming that the Big Bang did actually start somewhere, somewhen, then it was God who started it; created that moment and energy or caused it to happen exactly how it happened with the exact properties to make it possible to expand and evolve into what it is today. It is God's laws that we discover and call natural or physical laws. It is our minds of the same order as Gods mind, but obviously not the same order of magnatude, that allows us to discover, know and understand Gods laws.
    There is no apparent logical reason why like charges should repel and unlike charges should attract. There is no apparent logical reason why the strong and weak nuclear force, gravity or cosmological force should act the way they do. There is no apparent logical reason that QM and QED should behave the way they do. Yet all of this does behave the way it does and all of this is necessary for the universe to exist and for us to exist.
    The universe is exactly the way it is because if it were not the exact way it is it would not exist at all much less be so ordered and organized that life, intelligent life can come to be, to know that it is and the universe is, and know, or wonder about, God.
    This is all too much for me to believe that all of this is an accident of probability. Not only is the Universe exactly how it must, and can only, be; but, the series of events that came about that inevitably lead to us happened; and, happened in the exact order necessary to bring about intelligent life. This is to me at least too much to be coincidence or accident. It is evidence or support for purpose and intent and that is evidence and support for the existence of God the Creator. This too me is much more reasonable than random happenstance or accident. It is, to me, just as reasonable and says more than the anthropic principle.
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 15, 2003 #2
    An honorable attempt, good buddy :smile:.

    From the very beginning you are making some assumptions that needn't be true.

    For example, the Universe is increasing in entropy, not tending toward order - as you claim.

    Secondly, logic is a by-product of the way the Universe is, not the other way around (as Alexander would have one believe) - so, if the Universe were different, logic would be different.

    Then there's the claim that there are "laws" in nature. While this is a Scientific belief, it is not proven and needn't be held as true by Philosophers (just think of Rupert Sheldrake, and his idea of "habits" instead of "laws").

    Lastly (as far as the above quoted goes anyway), yes it appears consistant at the macro scale, but you didn't even mention the micro scale, where most of it breaks down into chaos.

    Actually, Royce, the evolution toward "cosmos", as you refer to it, is actually a way for the Universe to increase in entropy. You see, every time a "coherent system" is formed, a large amount of heat is released, and heat=chaotic movement of particles.

    And in asking that question you must again leave Science for the broader realm of Philosophy itself. There is very little room (if any) for "why" questions in Science, which is entirely concerned with answering "what" and "how" questions.

    Darwin, who originated evolutionary theory (at least as it relates to animals) would disagree with you. No Darwinian Evolutionist believes in purpose or intent in the evolution of species. An interesting analogy I heard once was: "It'd be like saying that the 'purpose' of the Eifell tower was to produce the last swipe of paint on the top".

    Yes, we can do marvelous things, but that doesn't mean that we were directly designed to do such things.

    Very true, and it is something to be marveled at. Yet, why is this an indication of Divine intervention to you?

    So Strong Anthropic Principle, couple with the belief in the God of the Bible, right?

    Here I have to strongly disagree with you. There is indeed a logical reason: A Universe where these things didn't occur would quickly destroy itself. There could have been (though I'm not saying that there were) many different Big Bangs (possibly even at the same time, according to some Inflationary theories), none of which produced any order, and many of which self-destructed - and ours would just be the "lucky" one.

    Again we are back to Strong Anthropic Principle, which is not too respectable in Philosophical circles nowadays, but you may still be right (Philosophical circles, at one time, accepted that the Earth was flat :smile:).

    I see, so yours is not a Strong Anthropic Principle with a "God" add-on?

    In closing (I have to get off-line soon anyway), I'd like to remind you that I am Advocatus Diaboli, so I don't necessarily believe any of my counter-arguments, nor do I necessarily disbelieve them. But you already know this.
  4. Jul 15, 2003 #3
    Why don't you guys put this hypothesis into the religion subforum?

    Has there ever been in the whole history of science been any valid point that could be described on the merit of the hypothesis that there is a God?

    Name one please.
  5. Jul 15, 2003 #4


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And when mankind was first starting, living in caves or whatever, and had very little understanding of the world, much less the universe, around them, they had a much longer list of "glaring unanswered questions". I may be mistaken, but I believe the oldest known religions were polytheistic, and usually the gods possesed certain elemental qualitys. By reasoning, these ancient people decided that there was a fire god, or sun god, rain gods, wind, earth, you name it, there was a god.

    The problem, is that they start out from a posistion of not understanding. Ignorance. Then, they try to learn about something, say fire. They touch it, get burned, learn not to touch it due to its power. In the earliest instances, fire probably only came to be found by natural causes, lighting hitting a tree. Due to this, it would be considered a blessing from above and considered a great treasure.

    So, due to there ignorance of lighting, the attribute it to some more powerfull being from above. Really, at that point in time, they were right to do so because they did not have any other way of verifying the truth.

    So perhaps we have reached the pinacle of human knowledge. Maybe we will never understand why like charges repel, opposittes attract. But, should we do as man has done all throughout time, when he reaches an obstacle that he can not reason beyond, simply grant it as an ability of some all mighty being? Or should we learn from the past mistakes, be happy for our ignorance, because this means we have more to know, and keep searching for answers?

    Remember those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it.

    Those that learn from past mistakes can save alot a time by not stumbling over the same obstacle, and simply avoid it.

    I mean, your trying to provide solid reasoning why a Creator must exist. Does it not seem reasonable that as a being of infinite ability, he would be able to set the record strait with extreme simplicity? To me, it seems that if someone is all powerfull and expects you to do something specific, there is absolutely no reason why everyone can not be properly informed.

    The mere fact that a god of some sort has not made himself known to all, yet religions claim he is all loving, powerfull, etc. If god truly loves me, the skeptic, who has to see to believe, and is all knowing(not me, god), then he knows I don't worship him properly.
    Since he made the rule that I go to hell for non worship, then it seems his duty, since he loves me, and doesn't want me to be tortured, to properly inform me.

    And since he is all powerfull, and fails to do this, by pure reasoning alone I can determine that 1) god does not exist or 2) god does exist and doesn't care, has forgot, or is not all powerfull and has decided to sit back and see what we do with ourselves.

    But do as you feel you must. If you truly see ignorance as a reason for gods existance, just know that history shows eventually we'll figure it out.

    And maybe one day we'll dig deep enough untill we find god. I remember a claim that there were more texts to be found once technology increased a good deal. Not sure if that was in the bible or some other related text. If we perhaps land on mars someday and find a bible, well, that would be interesting. I think if we find an underlying principle that explains everything else, possibly control it. If we do, we'll label as we do other forces and see where can go with it.
  6. Jul 15, 2003 #5
    A Zen koan from Alan Watts', Behold the Spirit ...

    Well, do you think science will ever get it, by means of all this extrapolation? I'm seriously beginning to think not ... In which case I offer you my own fly-whisk.
  7. Jul 15, 2003 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    And I hold up my own as well, because apparently what they mean is "I have no clue, but I see this, know its real to me and if nothing else, is the one thing we can all agree on."

    And this is why I feel we should focus more on the reality we all know exists 100%.

    Is it a fake matrix type reality? Who cares. Lets make the most of it, cos obviously at the time, its limited.

    Who says science has to answer the question anyhow? Just that science seems to be the only thing looking for a true answer, not just assuming something and setting it in gold.
  8. Jul 15, 2003 #7
    First to all of you thanks for your inputs and gentleness. I half expected to find cannons blazing away at me when I finally got back.

    I debated with myself if this should go in the religion forum or here. I decided that this was the place for it because this is the philosophy forum and the rational reasoning for the support of the existence of God is a philosophic topic. Others may not agree and it may still be moved.

    I will not debate or discuss the scientific merits of any of the examples I sited. They are not in question nor there validity so far as they go. I offer an alternative cause or in the case of evolution whether cosmological or biological another included property, that of intent and purpose. An arrow if you will pointing the way that evolution must eventually go. I do not claim the we Homo Sapiens are the finally or ultimate goal only that we are to date the most complex and intelligent and the first so far as we know that is able to know.

    Once again my main and only point is that from the very beginning, if there was one, until now, this moment in time, in this universe as we know it, there has been precise step, in precise sequence, after step that has led to now and vertually no other possible precision or sequence could have done so. This is from the quantom level to the cosmological level. As I said, this to me is too much to be mere accident and or probability. This to me indicats and supports a mind with purpose and intent in control, a mind so much like ours that we are able to discover and understand it's creation.
    Admittedly our discovery and understanding is not yet complete but it extends from the Planck level to the entire universe itself.

    Megashawn, God reveals himself to us every moment of our lives. Some of us know this and wonder why others can not see this, just as others think we are poor deluded ignorant supersitious fools. So be it.

    To me the koan is simply saying; It is. Accept it. Ask not why or how or make theories, just know that it is and it is real. Thank you, Iacchus32.

    Mentat, some other place some other time we will discuss this piece by piece if you want; but, not here or now, its too late and I'm to tired
    Last edited: Jul 15, 2003
  9. Jul 15, 2003 #8


    User Avatar

    Re: Re: Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

    Interesting quote. Are you saying that in a different universe, A does not equal A?
  10. Jul 16, 2003 #9
    Have you seen my thread on The Center of Existence? It kind of starts out by illustrating the differences between science and religion and culminates in a big "What if" about the possibility of science and religion getting together and doing something useful, like cleaning up the environment. Is this what you mean something to focus on? You might want to check it out.
  11. Jul 16, 2003 #10
    Re: Re: Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

    This is true, as does every other line of reasoning in science and philosophy. In short, okay, so what?

    I am well aware of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the universe is infinit in both space and time then there goes you entropy out the window. It obviously cannot apply to an infinite space and time universe. If the universe did start as a big band 14.5 billion years ago, then according to the hot BB model it started with infinite energy at infinite density with no organized matter but pure energy.
    This is chaos - total lack of organization. It evolved to the present state where there is a high order of organization. This is cosmos. I don't believe that this can be denied reguardless of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Gee, maybe the 2nd law doesn't apply to open vast systems like the universe.

    You know better than this. Where you tired or just in a hurry to get your reply done? Logic is a creation of abstract thought wholly within the mind of Man. It has no basis in reality.
    The ancient greeks first wrote of logic and it is based on semantics and sentence structure. The fact that is is independent of language and age indicates to me that it is a discription of the way the human mind operates, reasons and thinks. Since we are all of the same species our logic is universal to Mankind.
    The fact that it can be applied successfully to the reality of the universe is one of the things that I marvel at and has led me to this hypothesis in the first place.

    Science calls them laws of nature. I merely emulate science for convienence sake.

    Here I think you are wrong. The micro or Planck scale is not chaos just unknown and unknowable even to God according to Hawking. This I think is intentional to avoid a deterministic universe; but, that is another topic that has been explored here before.

    This is a continuation of a previous point. Yes heat is release in a chaotic way but where does it go? It can't leave the universe. This chaotic heat is used by other systems to increase organization and thus decrease entropy. It heats and energizes the clouds in space to form new stars. Here on earth plants use the chaotic light to make sugars and grow new life. Stars, planets, galaxies, galactic clusters are examples of organization and decreased entropy. I don't care what the 2nd law says look around you, look in the mirror. Is that chaos you see or cosmos?

    This is the philosophy forum not the physics formun or any other science forum. That is why this thread is posted here in the philophy forum.

    There was a lot that Darwin didn't know when he postulated his theory.
    It is not wholly accurate nor complete even now nor is it completely random as we are finding out more and more and as you yourself pointed out in the original thread where this was first posted. I detract nothing from the theory only add a possiblity.

    No it doesn't but doesn't exclude it either. However, if we weren't designed to do it, we wouldn't be able to do it, would we?
    That is, unless we are to believe the even more fantastic and unbelievable accidental result of probability that you've mentioned before.

    It is consistent with and supports the spiritual reasons for my belief in God. It is a reasonable conclusion or at least alternative view.

    There is the weak and strong versions of the anthropic principle. How about the Super, as in supernatural, anthropic principle?
    Works for me. The universe is the way it is because God created it this way so that it can support life and ultimately intelligent life such as us. If it were any other way it would not and could not support life even if it could exist at all.
    "Lucky" ? Yeah, we're lucky that God created this one just so. I refuse to believe that all of this is just the result of luck or accident.
    I know that your are still far too young to know or have experienced it; but, when you first hold your first child in your arms and feel the wonder, awe and love whell up in you to the point that it is literally overwhelming, then come tell me it is all the result of an accident.
    In the mean while shut up every once in a while and listen for a change with a quiet mind. You will here God saying "I am." That is all that need be said. From that one simple statement all else follows. Of this I have no doubt.
  12. Jul 16, 2003 #11
    Science (as I've reminded you all so many times) cannot prove or disprove that God exists. It is logically impossible. Scientists may believe as they wish (they are, after all, human), but Science itself is agnostic.
  13. Jul 16, 2003 #12
    Re: Re: Re: Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

    Heck, that's true in our universe (quantum uncertainty, anyone?).
  14. Jul 16, 2003 #13


    User Avatar

    What about it? It doesn't invalidate A=A, unless you try to impose classic physics on the quantum world. In terms of quantum field theory, there is no logical inconsistency.
  15. Jul 16, 2003 #14
    Re: Re: Re: Reasoning for the existance of God the Creator

    While that may be true, it is much more appealing to the sophisticated mind that an experiment be replicable and inductively/empirically verifiable. After all, if I can repeat the experiment, and expect such repition in result every time I do it, then I can go about my life taking for granted that my hypothesis has been "proven" by experimentation.

    It doesn't have to. I already explained to you that - even in the infinite space model - our "local" Universe is still subject to the Second Law.

    Well, I - being the M-Theory enthusiast that I am - don't think it was infinite density or infinite energy, and there are no working mathematical models that explain how this could happen anyway (AFAIK).

    The point is that every bit of "order" that evolves produces a greater amount of disorder (in the form of heat, which is chaotic excitation of particles) than it "resolves".

    I'm sorry, but this is not in the least proven, or even provable. The Universe may be inherently logical, and you cannot logically postulate otherwise (as you would be using logic to try and undermine itself, and that's impossible).

    And yet, isn't your hypothesis based on the idea that the Universe actually is structured an orderly?

    You cannot pick up and drop science as it is convenient to you, and expect to be taken seriously. Either your idea is scientifically grounded or not. If it is not, then you must formulate your own framework for "proving" what you believe in.

    This kind of interpretation of QM is what Tiberius' thread was directed at abolishing. Please remember this: If QM is correct, then no particle is ever in any one place at any one time, but is only probably there. Isn't that chaos enough for you?

    That's my point, this excitation of particles is continually building up, and has no place to go (entropy is increasing).

    Where did you get this from? Heat is the excitation of particles, nothing else. Thus, it cannot be used to increase order, as order relies on being "cold" (or less excited).

    Which eventually become highly unstable and go supernova.

    In there local area, yes, but if you were to look around them, you would notice the huge amount of chaos that there formation produced.

    No offense, good buddy, that's a little weak. After all, I look in the mirror and see nothing of the Quantum affects that are taking place, but they are still happening.

    But Philosophy takes a lot from Science (since Science is itself a branch of Philosophy). I'd like to tell you that Philosophy treats all ideas as having equal merit, but that's just not true. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom, and wisdom is the application of knowledge, and knowledge is taken from that which we observe and deduce to be true. So, since you have not observed or deduced any conclusive evidence (by conclusive, I mean repeatable) for your idea, Philosophy cannot accept it on equal standing with Science (which does yield some conclusive (or, at least, repeatable) "truths").

    Yes, and it is always possible that evolution is a "forward" process, but it still seems like (until we have some proof to support that idea) we are saying the eiffel tower's purpose is the last swipe of paint on the tip.

    Sure, I don't see any logical reason why not. Do you really think God "designed" us to create the H-bomb, and produce such technologies that make us capable of destroying ourselves?

    I don't see why the idea of a lot of accidents, eventually producing the world as we see it today, though not "trying" to do so, is any more fantastic than your concept of God.

    You know, there are a few scientists who have hypothesised that Raptors were semi-sentient. Let's say that that was true (merely for the purpose of discussion). Now, they were obliterated in the same cataclysmic extinction that wiped out all of the rest of the dinosaurs, weren't they? So, if God insituted evolution for the purpose of producing conscious beings, who would then be able to learn about and serve Him, why did He let possible candidates die out?

    I ask you again, what...are...the...reasons...for...your...belief...in...God? (Note: I'm not angry or frustrated, I would just appreciate a direct answer to my question).

    Fine, that can be your opinion. Now, substantiate it with something more than "I just can't believe this all came about by accident", and you may win a following.

    Shouldn't you be saying some of this stuff to yourself? After all, without doubt, there is no learning. You have no doubt of your premise, so how will you learn whether you are or are not correct? Surely this is not the wise course, is it?

    Also, I remind you again: You are talking to Advocatus Diaboli, and I may or may not actually believe any of the things I'm saying to you. It is up to you to counter the argument, not the person.
    Last edited: Aug 25, 2003
  16. Jul 16, 2003 #15
    Alright, I'll concede that point.

    However, I don't think we are all that qualified to think of a Universe where there is a different Logic (I've tried before, and found how deeply engrained our Logic is in the mind).

    Seriously, in our Universe, which has continued existing for so long, I can say that gravity definitely exists, because it has been observed to exist since the beginning of human existence, and no one is going to claim that it's just been a series of coincidences, since the probability is "off the charts". And yet, in some other ("unlucky") Universe, perhaps gravity was never a "Law", but just a habit (as Rupert Sheldrake believes of our Universe), and suddenly the Universe broke free from that...self-destruction isn't too far off.
  17. Jul 16, 2003 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Royce, god reveals himself to us each time he sets a tree on fire with his powerfull bolt of lighting. No, you can't actually see God throw the bolt, but, I mean, what other reasonable explanation is there?

    And then of course, this is only if you can think its reasonable that somewhere in (or beyond) this universe is a being of infinite knowledge and power, who knows about everything happening, and sits back and lets it happen.

    I mean, its like being a lifeguard at a pool. You see a kid bust his head on the board, I personally would jump in and try to save him. God seems like the kinda guy to sit back and watch, maybe grab a bowl of popcorn.

    You make this sound like a scientific process. Do you think you could perhaps write this method of god comunication out for us less fortunate peoples? Maybe a step by step. I've tried meditation, having a "quiet mind". The only thing to be heard is silence, my own stray thought, but other then that, no voice saying "I am."

    Perhaps I've been going at this the wrong way and you could enlighten me and others???

    Do you ever think god wonders "Why I am"?
  18. Jul 16, 2003 #17
    What is meant to say with 'God the creator'? What is God and what has been created?

    Is the material world 'created'? We have to assume, that is not the case. Because for matter to be created, it requires something outside of matter to do that. But matter is considered that which exist outside, apart and independend from consciousness.

    The world exists in only two basic forms: matter and consciousness.

    Matter is the way in which the world exists objectively.
    Consciousness is the way in which the world exists subjectively.

    Which one is primary?

    We know from first hand (our own consciousness) that we did not exist all the time. We know (although that is NOT first hand knowledge!) that the world existed before we became consciousness of it.

    Consciousness itself is therefore acausal, which means: we can not find CAUSES within consciousness itself for it's existence.
    Matter on the other hand exists causal. It is because matter is causal, that matter is an infinite process, without begin or end.

    To account for the fact that consciousness exist, we therefore have to rely on causes within matter.

    Therefore: matter is primary to the world, and consciousness is secondary.

    Now about this issue of God:

    What is God and what did he create? And what is God not and what did he not create?

    God can be thought of as the fundamental principle or idea residing within consciousness itself, that causes us to be able of being aware about the world. To recgonize and be aware that the world itself (outside and apart from our own consciousness) exists.

    But the world is in first instance matter in eternal motion.
    Because matter is the primary substance of the world, which is independend of anything else (including consciousness), this means that matter was neither cr4eated or destroyed.

    Therefore: God did not create the world itself, and God does not exist outside of consciousness itself.
  19. Jul 17, 2003 #18
    You forget or ignore the spiritual world that is outside, relative to us who are inside, space and time. It is that spiritual world that is primary and the ultimate reality. This, the physical world, that we call reality, is the illusion. God is not of our conscience mind but we of his.
    MG if we as parents carry a child constantly in fear that s/he may fall and hurt themselves, the child will never learn to walk on its own. We all must try and fail and get hurt and try again. This is the only way we can learn. That is what we are here for and why the physical world was created, so we can learn to stand and walk on our own.
    As far as meditation is concerned it sometimes takes years. It is not only the constant chatter of our minds that we must learn to quieten, but that of our ego and we must let go and let it happen.
    For one who is used to being in control, that may be the hardest. No matter what or who we are me must quiet the chatter, quiet the control and trust. Let go and let it happen. To try to make it happen, to put forth effort in causing it or controling it is making it not possible to happen.
    There are hundreds of books on meditation, but there is only one way for you to meditate. That way is your way. The way that works for you. Simply let go and let is happen. you will find your way.
  20. Jul 17, 2003 #19
    Royce, you have interpreted the your experiences, in meditation, as evidence of god. This is not a universal interpretation. Others, say a good many Buddhists, experience meditation without the same interpretation.
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2003
  21. Jul 17, 2003 #20
    No that is not the way it is. At first I practiced a form of Buddhist meditation. As I said in another post in response to your post, we all interpret what we experience in terms that we can relate to. We see that which we can understand and accept at that time. Meditation is not a random experience but a path that must be traveled one step at a time. It is our own individual path where we encounter that which we need to encounter and can benifit from the most at that time.
    Only after I had been meditating for years did I turn or was turned to the more christian way. Only then did I begin to find my true self and the spirit of God and of Jesus within. It maybe that it is because of my cultural background that I was led this way.
    I have read and in a small way experienced the Buddhist Void and the One that is all and the Buddha within all of us.
    It may be that I interpet the Buddha within as God and Jesus because that is the way I was raised, in a christian culture. I don't know; but, I do know that it doesn't matter. Buddha or God or Jesus all refer to the same guiding spirit with in us. God has many names and faces. He does not care which name we use or which face we perceive.
    God relates to each of us individually in terms that we individually can best accept, understand and relate to ourselves. There are as many paths to God as there are people to walk the paths. There is no one path or even a preferred path and each path has many side paths down which may wander for a while but we will always be led back to our true path. This is no secret. It is not a maricle. It is the way it is, the way itself.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook