Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

You're a Kabbalist?

 

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.

 

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.

 

It's unlikely this member is going to respond anytime soon.

http://www.prweforum.com/showthread.php?p=280402#post280402

http://www.sythe.org/showthread.php?t=684080

But it is still nice to refute junk logic/science.

 

I find it fascinating how people reject God based on religions

Also LOL at the narrowminded TC, go preach about the Torah someplace else

 

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.

 

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.

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

That's very interesting!

 

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.

 

Satya... Are you insinuating that Santa Clause is fictional? Thats absurd ! ! !

 

Exactly. Being able to think of something in no way entails material existence of it.

 

I didnt say it proved the existence of God I was simply saying it does provide a moderately logical argument...

 

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.

 

mod⋅er⋅ate

  /adj., n. ˈmɒdərɪt, ˈmɒdrɪt; v. ˈmɒdəˌreɪt/ 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...

 

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...



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.

 

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