Proof for an Intelligent Creator of the universe

Remove all ads!

According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on www.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), 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 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: 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.

(Common counter arguments are answered at bloganders.blogspot.com (left menu) )

 

If I think of a universe (let us name it B,) that includes both this one (lets name it A) and the Prime Cause of A, what is the Prime Cause of B?

Also, anticipating your reaction:
You claim that because causality is necessary in A, it needs to be necessary outside of A: You claim that a Prime Cause, which stands outside of A and is the cause of A, is needed to start A. Because there is no such thing as time external to the physical universe (your exact words,) it seems quite implausible that outside of A, the laws of causality still apply. Without time, the cause and effect cannot be separate and a creator cannot be Intelligent because his thoughts will never change (no time means no change! How else would we notice time?)

You might have a counterargument for this, but I am not going to search through 10 articles all named "Refuting counter arguments against..."

 

St. Augustine, St. Anselm and Thomas Aquinas would approve of this thread.

Long live Scholastics! It's the one thing lawyers and theologians have in common.

 

The lesser one uses LSD, pot, or shrooms, the clearer one's vision is.

In this context I shall be representing Yesod, hmkay? Take a gander at my moon aspect as I reveal it to all fanatics and compliment this more with a quote from Joyce: "Dixon turned towards him, saying in a soft voice: --Did an angel speak?"

 

I hope you will keep your pants on

 

Lo and behold! An enlightened one! You got the gist of it

 

andersbranderud is something of a troll.

Google his name and you'll see why I say this. Loads of forum entries, and very few posts, usually one or two, and all about this thing. That here is a typical example where he's also pimping his cause and blog. Personally I found the forum behind 'where he's' best, it was a on Marijuana Growing board

I personally find the reference to the Netzarim is actually pretty peculiar but telling. Netzarim is the name of a former settlement by orthodox Jews in the Gaza strip. It is also a name for a Jewish sect. Anyway, to me the view that science and a creator are compatible is a sympathetic one.

 

..except, of course he ignored half of his assumption. The half he ignored is the basis of the big bang theory -- in essence, he also used his flawed logic to prove the big bang must have occurred. He has also used several additional assumptions in his argument which he does not make obvious or assumes to be fact -- overall it's a simplistic and ridiculous proof of the order:

My dog has four legs, cows have four legs; therefore, my dog is a cow (which may actually be true for my dog -- she's at the very least a pig).

 

Ah! Herbal remedies! Well, I've heard, that an eagle fern enema will give special insight into the creation! Or was it cancer...

 

T2,
vaguely speaking.

 

I just have to give this one a logical analysis.

Our timespace has a beginning. There may be things beyond that which are not so bound.

Actually, quantum physics isn't so sure of that any more. On some level, they argue that the cause-effect nature of our universe is illusionary and is only the result of the averaging of a near-infinite number of completely random and cause-less events. I don't know that I buy it, but it's a real scientific arguement.

You assume too much here without stating it. 1.) You assume the creator is intelligent. Nonintelligent events may have spawned the universe. 2.) You assume order is perfection. That's pure theology. 3.) You assume order is just. Katrina was orderly (in a physics sense of cause/effect), but it was harldy just. Cancer is orderly, yet you'll find no justice in it, either.

The logical extreme of this is that it should have been available to all men. The Torah was not. You'd be better off arguing that the Law/Instruction was inherrant in us, or that the evidence of God is inherrant in the universe. Also, there are a number of texts that date back as far as the Torah (read, beyond written history and into oral tradition).

This claim, if the above claims are assumed as true, is logical.


On Ragusa's Jewish Sect link, it seems only the "modern movements" bit at the very bottom is relevant, and very different from the rest of the Wiki article, which refers to a long dead sect. There appears to be no connection other than name. I just wanted to make sure that was clear.

 

I came in expecting utter , and look what I got.

Science isn't omniscient, and that makes the entire argument fall apart instantly.

 

I know about what he is and that exhausts my interest I am not into Epistemology.

 

It's just that your wiki link starts talking about a sect that recognizes Christ as the messiah, but still follows the Old Law (Torah) and reject the teachings of Paul as a perversion. An odd group all together. It isn't until the very bottom that you see the old sect died out in the early centuries AD and the modern usage appears to have no connection whatsoever (other than being Jewish Christians).

 

It is not my wiki link, it's wiki's wiki link I in no way endorse the content of what was written there. I simply linked it for informational purposes, and because my curiosity led me there. As for the actual religious views of this guy I'm at a loss as I won't bother trying to find out

 

I'm not sure I understand a single word in this thread. Is this some sort of new age Random Babbling thread?

If so, I say: "Fish".

 

No. This is the thread in which you make questionable fun of religious nuts, is it not?

 

I dunno, I always thought trolls just wanted, like, a reaction and stuff. If (s)he's actually sincere in desiring to persuade people that, like, God is totally real and you should repent and absolve your sins and stuff, isn't that more akin to a Jehovah's Witness?

Arguably an incredibly lazy Jehovah's Witness, but still.

 

For lack of a better word.

 

Well, it could be that (s)he thinks that (s)he's now done his/her resposibility and shown us the way and we should just shut up and follow like cattle. We'd have to prove ourselves worthy of his/her attention by worshipping the infinite wisdom cookie crumb (s)he's benevolently tossed in our most humble direction, perhaps when we're worthy we'd be welcomed into the holiest of the holie, to the fountains of the true wisdom, from which we'll be allowed to slacken our thirst.

Such is the way of the esoteric