Proof for an Intelligent Creator

[Anders_Branderud]

Undoubtedly many people have religious experiences. An important question is if all (if any) religious experiences also indicate a communication with the Creator of the universe. Many devotees of all religions would answer that the religious experiences that the followers of the other religions have only are brain constructions, and that they are not indicators of a communication to the Creator. Or could it be that the followers of all religions originates from the Creator; which would imply that the contradictions and conflicts among all religions reflect an intrinsic and internal cognitive dissonance and dysfunction within a self-contradicting Creator? We will go through some basic formal logical argumentation about the Creator to be able to answer that quest.

 

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. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator.

 

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 Tor•âh′ , 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 Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator: http://www.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.

 

Anders Branderud

[freeztar]

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.

 

Let me stop you there.

 

It's funny how everyone that has "proof" of a creator starts with the premise that there must be a creator.

 

Doesn't that destroy any semblance of logic?

If not, I'd suggest studying logic, starting with Aristotle.

[Anders_Branderud]

freeztar,

I am sorry.

 

Here is the proof:

 

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) 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.)

[Buffy]

L'shanah tovah!

 

Please read our rules and the notes on the Theology Forum. Our Theological discussions here are limited to discussing the sociological and phenomenological implications of religion, and any discussion aimed at advocating a particular interpretation of religious texts or beliefs is considered proselytizing and offensive to those whose beliefs differ.

 

In this respect your post is a perfectly self-referential representation of why we don't permit such discussions.

 

There are plenty of other places on the internet to have this discussion.

 

Ignoring this warning will probably result in an unpleasant experience for all.

 

Vegetarianism is harmless enough, although it is apt to fill a man with wind and self-righteousness, :phones:

Buffy

[Moontanman]

I am personally amazed at how these creators always have to be perfect. I would like to see just why all these creator stories either arrives at (usually very quickly) or starts out with a perfect creator. Somewhere in this paragraph would seem to be lodged the logic of a need for a perfect creator, i can't quite make it out but i am sure it is in there somewhere.

 

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. Therefore, no intelligent person can ignore that our purpose and challenge in life is learning how we, as imperfect humans, may successfully relate to a Perfect Singularity-Creator without our co-mingling, which transcends the timespace of this dimensional physical universe, becoming an imperfection to the Perfect Singularity-Creator.

 

 

(isn't the idea of singularity being challenged now by Hawkings?)

 

If indeed the presence of the universe requires a creator it would seem to follow that the creator had to have a creator and his creator or hers a creator and so on. Is it turtles all the way down?

[CraigD]

I am personally amazed at how these creators always have to be perfect.

I find this remarkable, too, the more so because many popular and influential creation stories written before and after the Torah’s.

 

For example, Sumerian texts from around 1800 BC (vs. the Torah’s 500 BC, or by some scholarly hypotheses, as early as 950 BC), such as the Enûma Eliš, depict some combination of a birthing process and a war between non-thinking primal goddesses such as Tiamat and reasoning, order bringing gods such as Enki (although attempting to describe all the deities in these stories as simply enemies or allies is gross oversimplification) – clearly imperfect gods.

 

Platonic Greek philosophers ca 400-300 BC were largely responsible for formulating the cosmological argument of a creative “prime cause”, an argument that was very influential in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and appears to be the core of Ander’s ideas. Although most Jews, Christians, and Muslims today subscribe to the idea of a perfect creator, this wasn’t a dominant assumptions among the Platonists (I won’t try to summarize their thinking here, as it’s complex, and my understanding of it too superficial).

 

Some churches go beyond ascribing mere imperfection to the creator of the universe, even subscribe to the Gnostic concept of an essentially unwise and evil Demiurge who is defeated by the benevolent deity of the major modern religions.

I would like to see just why all these creator stories either arrives at (usually very quickly) or starts out with a perfect creator.

Me too. Getting at the why of the popularity of a creation story – or any other religious idea – is a major theological challenge. I’m personally resigned to just knowing as much about the question as I can, and so having several likely whys to ponder.

(isn't the idea of singularity being challenged now by Hawkings?)

It’s questioned by nearly all physicists focused on the question. The idea of an actual singularity – a region of space with zero volume and non-zero mass – is essentially a classical physical one, fitting poorly, or at best controversially, into modern physical models.

 

But the theology of creation stories is, I think, challenging enough without mingling it with the deep problems of physics. Or perhaps not. Philosophy seems to me delightfully and frustratingly without hard rules.

[C1ay]

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

 

This is a theory, not a fact. Any logic that relies on it as fact is flawed.

[Moontanman]

I wasn't referring to singularities in general but the supposed original singularity but I guess it would carry through to any singularity. I also don't see why the "Prime Cause" has to be an intelligent creator, maybe some super-being's pet took a dump and shunted it to another dimensional plane because it stunk so bad. Maybe universes pop up all the time like bubbles in beer (not original I know) maybe it was a random fluctuation in some weird super dimensional plane that just randomly spits out universes. We just happen to be in one that allows us to exist and question the idea of what caused the universe! this is all getting to much I think I'll either go with the Raelien's or the book of urination, or the Pagans, at least the Raeliens and the Pagans have naked girls written in to the whole idea!

[paigetheoracle]

To say God is perfect is to say he/ she/ it is unchanging, which contradicts what we see in the physical world. To say we are imperfect, implies we need to change and as life is change, this is something that will happen automatically anyway (see my latest thread in Philosophy Weight Room plus this quote from the Tao 'People do not change, until the pain of staying the same, outweighs the pain to alter'). Bringing psychology into this - it would appear God is egotistical as he is unwilling to alter* and Man has low self-esteem as he 'needs' to alter. If religion teaches different things that lead their followers into conflict with other faiths, then to me it looks like none of them have got it perfectly right and man therefore is imperfect as a belief that everything is perfect as it is, would lead to everyone leaving everyone else in peace (tolerance or live and let live, not kill or be killed). To me these differing accounts have more to do with anthropology than religion (or conquest and slavery as opposed to freedom and independence: 'On your knees to Zod' Superman 2 or was it 1?).

 

* This is not implying that God 'is' egotistical as the above point clarifies.

[skeptic griggsy]

Not only can each religion allege that those religious experiences are ones own mental states: scientists have that already established! NDE's and OBE'S and fasting- or- or drug -induced experience illustrate that. Jonathon Harrison of " God, Freedom and Immortality " notwithstanding, atheist himself, errs in finding that we naturalists woud beg the question against such in part but instead t'is supernaturalists who beg the question that He directs the experiences. as Ockham's Razor also notes.

John Hick alleges that all those experiences testify of the same fundamental reality. How can hat be then?

To define HIm as perfect begs the question as we have no evidence for that and the same for His nature being good despite Aquinas.

Dr. Persinger's helmet can induce those experiences. Anoxia can inducesND's AND ODE's.

I refer to Dr. Susan Blackmore's studies as evidence for m y contention. See " Dying to Live."

The Cosmos's order and regularity speak of themselves rather than of intent behind them See what Quentin Smith mantiains about the Cosmos ever recreating itself trough its parts.

After all quantum tunneling makes for eternal Existence. T'is one bang after another.

So as Rudiger Vaas maintains, we have a duality here.

To find that intent bespeaks of animism! writ large a!

[Boerseun]

I want to see a "perfect creator" defend his decision to create child molesters, rapists and killers.

[CraigD]

Dr. Persinger's helmet can induce those experiences. Anoxia can inducesND's AND ODE's.

I agree with the general thrust of you post, Griggsy. :phones:

 

:xparty: I recommend caution, however, in citing Persinger’s “god helmet” experiments with even such guarded language as claiming they show that magnetic brain stimulation “can induce” mystical experiences, because, in properly controlled (that is, double-blind) experiments, no such device has actually been observed to have such an effect.

 

For some discussion and links on the subject, see the 2007 and 2009 posts Persinger’s "god helmet" =/= Ehrsson's telepresence rig and Michael Persinger’s credibility and surrounding discussion.

 

Unfortunately, despite it clearly being an unsupported, fringe theory, that Persinger’s helmet experiments, or something essentially like them, are well-established mainstream neuroscience, is repeated at many science forums, science and general periodicals, newspapers, and blogs, and otherwise well-researched and wonderfully written science fiction stories (notably, the 2003 Hugo Award winning novel Hominids).

 

At hypography, at least, we can be careful to counter this trend. :friday:

 

Magnetic stimulation of the brain has been unambiguously demonstrated to produce replicable and dramatic effects, such as causing the perception of flashes of light, and strongly effecting performance on memorization and perception tests, though such effects are observed with devices that generate much stronger fields than Persinger’s helmets. (see the wikipedia article Transcranial magnetic stimulation for a summary and some links).

I want to see a "perfect creator" defend his decision to create child molesters, rapists and killers.

Theologically, the absence of divine intervention to prevent these behaviors has been explained ad nauseam over the centuries, the dominant one being, I think, that such behavior must be permitted to allow the exercise of free will, and thus permit true moral judgment and decisions – the old “if we could do no wrong, we could do no right” argument.

 

Zoologically, these behaviors are explained as simply something most animals, including humans, occasionally do. Anthropologists note that the “wrongness” of such acts – even seemingly morally unambiguous ones such as killing of people who in no way threaten the killer – is culturally relative, permitted and even venerated and encouraged in some cultures and times, abhorred and invoking sanctions as strong as execution in others.

 

None of these many explanations, IMHO, support the hypothesis of an intelligent creator of humans, the Earth, or the universe.

[coldcreation]

I am sorry.

 

Here is the proof:

 

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) 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.)

 

That's not proof.

 

Here's proof:

 

Address of Pope Pius XII to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, November 22, 1951.

 

THE PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN THE LIGHT OF MODERN NATURAL SCIENCE

 

 

Enjoy...

 

 

:shrug:

 

 

 

CC

[skeptic griggsy]

Craig D, the link notes that the Swedish team still has to investigate to determine his claim, in effect!

The Center for Inquiry supports his claim.

Anyway, whatever its status, other matters as you note do confirm neurotheology's claim that all religious experiences are ones own mental states at work as Susan Black more emailed me in agreement. ;):shrug:

Jonathon Harrison, I think errs in claiming that we naturalists would partially beg the question against Marian-induced religious experiences, but I counter that no, the supernaturalist woud beg the question in assuming divine intent behind the experiences.

Indeed, there exists no intent behind Nature as science notes; to posit intent would be to contradict natural causes rather than the intent being the Primary Cause.:eek_big:

Intelligent Creator, no, because were He to exist, then He would perforce depend on the law of causality to act in accordance with the built-in order and regularity of Mother Nature.

Arguments for Him make the case against Him!:shrug::eek_big:

[sman]

Anthropologists note that the “wrongness” of such acts – even seemingly morally unambiguous ones such as killing of people who in no way threaten the killer – is culturally relative, permitted and even venerated and encouraged in some cultures and times, abhorred and invoking sanctions as strong as execution in others.

 

 

This is wrong...that is, incorrect. :shrug: All human cultures have strict proscriptions against murder and rape. Different cultures deal with these issues in different ways, but all cultures deal with these issues - it's a cultural universal.

 

Only reason I'm butting in is that I get concerned when I see the phrase "culturally relative" writing off universal atrocities.

[Donk]

This is wrong...that is, incorrect. :shrug: All human cultures have strict proscriptions against murder and rape. Different cultures deal with these issues in different ways, but all cultures deal with these issues - it's a cultural universal.

 

Only reason I'm butting in is that I get concerned when I see the phrase "culturally relative" writing off universal atrocities.

Different cultures have different laws. Abortion is legal in many parts of the world, but some call it murder. If someone is executed and then found to be innocent, is that murder? If so, what should be the punishment? If a soldier kills "in the line of duty", is that murder?

 

Is an arranged marriage "rape"? An enforced marriage?

 

Cultural universals are often culturally relative :eek_big:

[sman]

I think it's a pernicious attitude, "culturally relative". Now, the force behind this trend of thinking among academic elites, something like acceptance of other cultures, I welcome.

 

I'd love to discuss it but I'm afraid I've driven this thread off topic.