Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose | INFJ Forum

Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

Discussion in 'Philosophy and Religion' started by andersbranderud, Oct 3, 2009.

Share This Page

Watchers:
This thread is being watched by 3 users.
More threads by andersbranderud
  1. andersbranderud

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Threads:
    1
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    Notesttaken
    According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

    It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
    The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

    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 / Singularity).
    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). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator: 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.
     
  2. Shai Gar

    Shai Gar Guest

    You're a Kabbalist?
     
  3. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    If you accept the premise that everything has a cause, then your argument has a logical flaw.

    What caused the existence of the alleged Intelligent Creator?

    Alternative theories...

    -space and time have always existed in some form
    -the universe sprang into existence from another already existing universe
    -time is eternal rather than infinite, and thus is constantly repeating where the end is the new beginning, thus this universe came into being at the point that this universe died.
    -this universe does not exist and we are merely a reflection of existence.

    All such alternative theories negate the premise that everything must have a cause.
     
    #3 Satya, Oct 3, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  4. NaeturVindur

    NaeturVindur Cuddlemaster
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2008
    Threads:
    86
    Messages:
    3,686
    Likes Received:
    265
    Trophy Points:
    641
    MBTI:
    iNfj
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    The Physics of Christianity by Frank J Tipler takes your idea and completely expands it, thus showing all of its flaws. The basic assumption that you are making, and that is wrong, is that all our current laws of physics are correct and (more importantly) complete. This is a sad mistake to make, especially because it would put all of our scientists out of jobs! We still have a LOT to learn about the universe, so its pointless making these conclusions now. Wait several thousand years, when we understand things much better, then try saying that.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  5. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
  6. Sithious

    Sithious Well-known member

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2009
    Threads:
    39
    Messages:
    1,663
    Likes Received:
    144
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INFJ
    I find it fascinating how people reject God based on religions

    Also LOL at the narrowminded TC, go preach about the Torah someplace else
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #6 Sithious, Oct 3, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 3, 2009
  7. Duty

    Duty Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Threads:
    30
    Messages:
    1,069
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    The cosmological argument has been refuted 10000 times over in the past 1000 years. It's not very convincing as per the refutation outlined by Satya. Additionally, it is a famously non-sequitur line of reasoning as it assumes that, because it is possible for the universe to not exist, then it must not have existed "in the beginning."

    As the article points out, as well, the identity of the first cause is a troublesome matter...the universe could be its own cause, as could another universe (Satya pointed this out too, because he is awesome).


    The cosmological argument is very unconvincing for these reasons.
     
    Blind Bandit and Satya like this.
  8. Duty

    Duty Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Threads:
    30
    Messages:
    1,069
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    I just tried really hard to take this and put it into a formal logical language...and it's a big mess. You have so many assumed premises that I'm having to be way too generous (as in, I'd have to give you a ton of benefits of doubt) and having to try much too hard to figure out what all of those premises are.

    What I did find are some of the obvious fallacies already pointed out, and some possibly more subtle ones:

    1. For the conclusion ("A creator exists") to be true, you have to assume that the set of things that are "Prime Causes" are the exact same set as the things that are "Creators."

    2. You have to assume that the set of things that are "Prime Causes"/"Creators" is the exact same set as "things that created the universe."

    3. Your initial premise is flawed, as already pointed out: "there exists nothing that does not have a cause" is an unproven fact, so we have the fallacy of false premise.

    4. Another premise (I think) is assumed: "for all x, if x exists, then x has a cause, if x has a cause, then x exists" (or more technically: for all x, x exists if and only if x has a cause). This is also unproven: another false premise. Worse, 3 and 4 talk about properties of "existence," which is not a scientific property of things. Ascribing attributes to it immediately puts us out of the realm of "scientific" or "mathematical" and into "philosophical," and "metaphysical": so you can't claim this is scientific or mathematical.

    3 and 4 may seem very intuitively true, but have had many objections in and of themselves (Hume is very notable here).

    5. Even if we grant 3 and 4 true, then we have to apply it to all sets, as it says "for all x," x being a variable and so this statement applies to all sets in our system. Our system includes the set of things that are "Creators." So, for the statement to be true, then the set of things that are "Creators" must also have a cause. The best way to get around this is to assert that things that exist need not have a cause, but instead if things are a cause, then they exist. However, this invalidates the reasoning that things that exist must have a cause, the universe exists, therefore the universe must have a cause.
     
    #8 Duty, Oct 4, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2009
  9. mjgjr706

    mjgjr706 Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    XNTP
    Here is one that messes with my brain... 1st try to think of something that does not exist. I have failed to think of something original in my own mind and I have heard that it is impossible to have an original thought... So then does the question of "is there a God" not actually provide a moderately logical argument for there actually being a God? I have thought about this one not a great deal but it has entered my mind from time to time... So my logical brethren what do you guys think on this... If you guys can also provide me with a list of original thoughts you have had either in the past or recently then those will suffice...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  10. the

    the Si master race.
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Threads:
    479
    Messages:
    14,392
    Featured Threads:
    9
    Likes Received:
    8,781
    Trophy Points:
    1,112
    MBTI:
    ISTJ
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    I was recently introduced to a new concept that the word "God" is a meaningless word. While I don't fully understand the arguement myself at the time it did make some sense. Perhaps someone else could flesh this one out. It was pretty interesting and something I hadnt heard before. Someone else might enjoy reading about that arguement.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  11. the

    the Si master race.
    Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2009
    Threads:
    479
    Messages:
    14,392
    Featured Threads:
    9
    Likes Received:
    8,781
    Trophy Points:
    1,112
    MBTI:
    ISTJ
    Enneagram:
    9w1
    I have heard this refuted as that God is the same thing as a big father figure in the sky. In that way it is no longer an origional thought. I only really see Christianity debated so I couldnt tell you any other arguements for other gods.
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  12. sumone

    sumone down the rabbit hole

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2008
    Threads:
    67
    Messages:
    3,866
    Likes Received:
    222
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    infj
    That's very interesting!
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  13. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    I'll agree that the question of "is there a God" is a moderately logical argument for there actually being a God the moment that "is there a Santa Clause" and "are there leprechauns and unicorns" are moderately logical arguments for there actually being such beings.
     
  14. mjgjr706

    mjgjr706 Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    XNTP
    Satya... Are you insinuating that Santa Clause is fictional? Thats absurd ! ! ! :m145:
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  15. Duty

    Duty Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Threads:
    30
    Messages:
    1,069
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    Exactly. Being able to think of something in no way entails material existence of it.
     
  16. mjgjr706

    mjgjr706 Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    XNTP
    I didnt say it proved the existence of God I was simply saying it does provide a moderately logical argument...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
  17. Duty

    Duty Permanent Fixture

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2008
    Threads:
    30
    Messages:
    1,069
    Featured Threads:
    1
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INTP
    Enneagram:
    5w4
    What is the difference between a fully and moderately logical argument? Logical arguments are ones that meet a certain list of criteria: if it doesn't meet them then it is not a logically good argument, if it does meet them then it is a logically good argument. This particular one does not meet the criteria.
     
  18. mjgjr706

    mjgjr706 Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    XNTP
    mod⋅er⋅ate

    [​IMG] /adj., n. ˈmɒd[​IMG]ər[​IMG]ɪt, ˈmɒd[​IMG]rɪt; v. ˈmɒd[​IMG]əˌreɪt/ [​IMG] Show Spelled Pronunciation –adjective 1. kept or keeping within reasonable or proper limits; not extreme, excessive, or intense: a moderate price. 2. of medium quantity, extent, or amount: a moderate income. 3. mediocre or fair: moderate talent. 4. calm or mild, as of the weather.



    Then please explain to me what criteria this does not fulfill and what criteria this argument was supposed to be meeting in the 1st place...
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
    #18 mjgjr706, Oct 4, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2009
  19. Satya

    Satya C'est la vie
    Retired Staff

    Joined:
    May 11, 2008
    Threads:
    540
    Messages:
    7,284
    Likes Received:
    549
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    INXP
    The premises of an argument set its criteria.

    You have made the argument that people can only conceive of things that exist, and as people conceive of God, then God must exist. Therefore the structure of your argument is such...

    People can only conceive of things that exist.
    People conceive of God.
    Therefore, God must exist.

    To disprove your logic, I merely need to disprove one of your premises.

    As such I present this guy...

    [​IMG]

    He is the Flying Spaghetti Monster. The Divine creator of all things. By your logic, since someone originally conceived of him, he must exist.

    As such, your argument is by no means "logical". It is based on a false premise that there is no original thought aka, that people can't conceive of things that don't already exist.



    For that matter, I will pay you one million dollars if you can provide empirical evidence proving that Jesus is not the son of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
     
    #19 Satya, Oct 4, 2009
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2009
    Moxie likes this.
  20. mjgjr706

    mjgjr706 Regular Poster

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2009
    Threads:
    0
    Messages:
    58
    Likes Received:
    7
    Trophy Points:
    0
    MBTI:
    XNTP
    I started this thing off with an idea that I had thought about off hand a few times, and now I am here defending it as thought I have claimed it to be absolute truth... However I will defend the point for the sake of argument... One of the main points lies in our inability to have an original thought... Thats was a huge point in the argument... Lets take your example of a flying spaghetti monster (I do give you props here because the notion of such a creature makes me sound dumb)... So anyway a flying spaghetti monster in all probability does not exist, however both flying things, and spaghetti I believe we can both agree do exist, right? So therefore in some form the components to your scary lil logical monster DO EXIST... So therfore the "question of God" does in a very vague and non specific way provide a logical argument for the existence of God whether or not you believe that the Italian cuisine has evolved to the extent of ascertaining the ability to fly or being categorized as a monster at this juncture is yet to be specified or determined... However there is a logical leg to stand on here albeit unrefined at this point... And now my friend I hope that every time you sit down to a plate of spaghetti you sit for a moment in amazement at how awesome God is :)
     
    Stop hovering to collapse... Click to collapse... Hover to expand... Click to expand...
Loading...

Share This Page