Thread: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

Anybody who thinks they can even begin to fathom the origins of the spacetime we reside in is definitely thinking highly of themselves or of sentient, intelligent beings in general. On top of that, I really, really don't think the origins of the universe were made by a character from a book written thousands of years ago by humans who didn't even know the world was round.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

According to science our universe has a beginning and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.

Spacetime as we know it has a beginning.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.

This is not a law; it's an assumption that has served us well.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

The "laws of physics" as you interpret them.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

invalid conclusion. The universe is not an event.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

So now you're slipping in an assumption that the universe is perfect? By whos standards? The creators? Oh, well then no wonder a perfect universe requires a perfect creator.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

How does orderly imply just? How does perfect imply or require intelligence? What is perfect again?

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics)...

What does? this proof?

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

Wait a minute here. You're not a creationist are you?

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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).

Rig Veda is older then the torah. Neither is as old as recorded history. Are you implying that we understand the process of nuclear decay well enough to employ nuclear power but not well enough to solve a simple differential equation by naive integration?

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

As far as I'm concerned, it's still an assumption, not a fact, that the universe is perfect. That's what you deduce a perfect creator from. Back it up. What does perfect even mean.

We've been through this argument. It's becoming exhausting.

Maybe I'll come back, maybe I won't. I'll just leave this here: http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=83708

You say you have proved there is a prime cause.

You do not say how you have proved that this prime cause must have the attributes of God (for instance, conciousness) rather than being a secular natural occurence.

You make no attempt whatsoever to prove that this prime cause was the Christian God, i.e. the God recorded in the Bible, who created man and woman in the garden of Eden, was followed by Noah and Moses, and was born on Earth as Jesus, etc. etc. You have no more proved the existence of this God than you have proved the existence of Allah.

Anders, I agree that everything has a cause. I just don't see your argument that the cause of the universe was something with a mind.

Precisely. It's nothing but a snow-job of latin phrases and incoherent arguments.

Fact: The universe exists

Speculation: The universe had a first cause (alternative; it always existed)
Speculation: This cause was a being of some kind (alternative: it was some other unknown process or means that was not a being)
Speculation: This cause was intentional
Speculation: This being has complete control over this universe
Speculation: This being has complete knowledge of this universe, or otherwise knows about Earth/Humanity
Speculation: This being cares about Humanity
Speculation: This being is perfect
Speculation: [one of the millions of proposed characteristics goes here]
Speculation: This being decided to create lots of contradictory evidence and a very badly written book to demonstrate it's existence to humanity, and one specific book is true but all others are false out of a long list of choices, and this choice has a 90% correlation with the choice of the person's parents.

Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.

Key word: known. There is a lot we don't know

Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.

Assumes universe did not always exist.
Assumes everything about the Universe is known

Your false dichotomy is highly obvious.

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.)

Except you go from any prime cause to automatically assuming it's a creator of some kind. A non sequitur if we're going to use the proper language.

You didn't prove anything with your shitty logic.

Originally Posted by AndersBranderud

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.

Wat. The universe is not an event, why does it need a cause? That is like saying Evolution requires a cause. Evolution being an intangible idea, not an action which requires a cause and consequences. The fact that you are assuming that there once was nothing at all is enough to throw your whole argument out with the bathwater, but I'll continue regardless.

Fact: There is a universe.

What exactly is a universe, then?

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.)

No. That is a complete bastardization of logic.

Saying "Everything has a cause, therefore The Universe must have been created by a conscious entity" is extremely fallacious. Since when has every event in the universe been caused by conscious action? The more logical choice by way of your own argument would be that the universe happened, somehow, rather than a Giant Conscious Mass happened, which then made the universe from nothing.

Originally Posted by Photolysis

You didn't prove anything with your shitty logic.

You're a far more generous person than I am is all I'm going to say to that.

In the words of Pauli, It's not even wrong.

Wat. The universe is not an event, why does it need a cause? That is like saying Evolution requires a cause. Evolution being an intangible idea, not an action which requires a cause and consequences. The fact that you are assuming that there once was nothing at all is enough to throw your whole argument out with the bathwater, but I'll continue regardless.

What if evolution was a stage for conscious progression and expansion?

Better yet, if the universe doesn't have a cause, how did it begin, why did it begin, and why even have it at all if we're suppose to just rot in the ground when we're dead and cease to be? It's just a pointless endeavor. If the finality is the same for everything, there's no point for any of it to continue at all.

If you could, would you explain your paradigm to me, please? You're very argumentative on this topic, especially full with anger in a lot of your posts. PM me even. I'm quite interested in what you perceive to be reality.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Better yet, if the universe doesn't have a cause, how did it begin, why did it begin, and why even have it at all if we're suppose to just rot in the ground when we're dead and cease to be? It's just a pointless endeavor. If the finality is the same for everything, there's no point for any of it to continue at all.

For all we know the universe could be growing an shrinking and the Big Bang is just one of many begginings, which aren't really begginings at all. So saying that it began is an assumption.

I was dead before I was born, since death is the absence of my neural activity. Nobody can comprehend death, since it is nothing at all for the one experiencing it, like deep sleep. You go to bed and a second later your alarm clock goes of. If you realize what death really is and how many times you've "died" since you were born, it pretty much loses meaning. So it doesn't mean that much to me. So I personally see a declaration of death as pointless, pointless.

An atom can't help it but follow the universal laws to bind into a molecule, but we've been given awareness and the perception of choice. Some choose to reproduce, some are scientists and some are artists. The only reason we're here is because of lifes specifical chamical makeup which makes it reproduce and grow. As all animals we're programmed to do the same, survive and reproduce. It's your choice to either be happy or sad with your life. The specific characteristic of the more advanced species is to accumulate information for survival. We've brought it to this point where we get to disect the universe and experience self-awareness. Objectively it seems that humans have gotten to a point where information isn't only passed through the genome or simple social interactions but we externalized it in the form of computers etc. If you just look at some sci-fi movies you can see what we expect ourselves to become. So if you consider your subjective existence important in the larger scope of things, then I see why your life would seem pointless.

Personally I think that the chances of finding out what's going on are just about infinitely remote. But who knows, perhaps we could get this perpetual growth of information and computation which "started" with the first biomolecules to a point which now seems impossible or even godlike as well. Now you can either say that in the light of all this information the universe has purpose or you could just say that the universe exists and it is as it is. Personally, I'd go with the second choice since I see the first option clearly as a projection of human subjective experience unto the universe. I'd rather be agnostic on the subject and be amazed than make up answers form the extremely limited human experience.

Better yet, if the universe doesn't have a cause, how did it begin, why did it begin

Why do people insist on asking this question

"We can't possibly explain this (at least at the moment)"

"Okay ... so give me an explanation"

why even have it at all if we're suppose to just rot in the ground

"Why is that rock on the ground if it has no purpose? Therefore it must be there for a reason!"

"Dude, it's just a fucking rock, it doesn't have a fucking purpose"

As for this question, "why should the universe exist if we'll just rot in the ground" is an unbelievably self-centred question. As if the entire cosmos revolves around humanity.

there's no point for any of it to continue at all.

So, who says there is a point? Is there a point for the existence of the rock I mentioned? No!

You guys are still trying to prove a God objectively..it's not about focusing outside of ourselves looking for the answers to the universe, or God. It's about focusing INwards.

We are a part of a universal mind that can't even be put into words. Where everything is interconnected and permeates all of space and time. Ask anyone who has experienced "being at one with the universe" and you will understand what we are..we are individualized portions of God/The divine( everything in existence ) This is the highest level of awareness you can obtain. And when you are in this state, you pretty much don't care to do anything else except just.......exist...it's like a constant infinite dose of Percocet or Heroin. Better than any drug you can possibly imagine. EVERYTHING is one.

Like I said in another post:

there is no such thing as one of a pair of opposites without the other of the pair. So there is no such thing as objectivity without subjectivity that is equally real and irreducible. And scientists want to reduce the entire universe to objective matter or processes; through its history science has assumed that subjectivity is not real. Just considering it in this very simple light we can see that cannot possibly be true.

The Western world is stuck in this perspective, that the mind isn't really real. And that is because the Western mind has become split in two--the left-brain, objective, rational, logical side, and the right-brain, subjective, feeling, intuitive side. And we are stuck in the left-brain side, so we can only really experience the objective aspect of ourselves and the world. And thus scientists, who are for the most part even more left-brained then the average person, start with the assumption that the mind, the subjective aspect of life, is not real. And it IS an assumption--even though science is supposed to be assumptionless.

SCIENCE is objective, and focuses on the outside world...SPIRITUALITY is subjective and focuses on the inside of your mind.

One is nothing without the other.

All of you skeptics, why not try practicing spirituality. IN turn you'll find out everything you want to know. Spirituality is finding out about the inner workings of your mind/Psyche and in turn a lot of other things.

An interesting book to check out is, "The Self-Aware Universe " by Amit Goswami. You can't prove God, you have to experience it.

Which scientists said that the mind isn't real?

Also, what do you consider spirituality? If it's just introspection, why would you think that being a skeptic would stop someone from doing so?

You see, here comes the problem of defining god again. I have no problem if someone says that there is a state I could achieve, like the one you described. I just don't consider it god. Yes, it can encompass all humanly possible, but for that simple reason I cannot define it as god. If I can experience the objective and I know that it's responsible for my existence then I'll research it. That's what science does. Knowing that I exist isn't a good enough reason for me, I'd like to know as much as possible. Urging me to comatose in a herion like high isn't something I'd like to do.

For all we know the universe could be growing an shrinking and the Big Bang is just one of many begginings, which aren't really begginings at all. So saying that it began is an assumption.

I apologize, I should have corrected myself. Yes, there could have never been a beginning if energy can not be created or destroyed, so this existence has always been here, it's just been taking different forms. Unless if there was a discovery made that energy actually can be created, then this universe could have a beginning.

Of course, when breaching into other types of theories such as M-Theory and String Theory, we're experiencing only the tip of the ice berg when we're talking about dimensions, let alone parallel existences and planes of existences that could be stacked on our very own, or otherwise in another space and time.

I was dead before I was born, since death is the absence of my neural activity. Nobody can comprehend death, since it is nothing at all for the one experiencing it, like deep sleep. You go to bed and a second later your alarm clock goes of. If you realize what death really is and how many times you've "died" since you were born, it pretty much loses meaning.

When you go to sleep, you usually dream if you are practicing dream recall. In your dreams you usually are in a place that isn't even a place. It has no space or time without limitation. At times when we're dreaming, we have instances where we may different people, have different memories, and have completely different beliefs of what is in this reality. When we exist in our modern world, I can agree with you that, yes, it would be pointless to know how many times you've died since you were born. This is why it would all be wiped away and placed into your subconscious. You may believe some people who are born with great talent such as artistic abilities or people who are born with innate drawing to places around the world they've never been to could all be on a genetic level, or it may not be.

So if you consider your subjective existence important in the larger scope of things, then I see why your life would seem pointless.

I would find my existence pointless in a grand design of the existence we live in if all that happens when we die is if we cease to be. If there's an existence beyond this one, my life here is a heartbeat compared to eternal time and would be an interesting experience to travel to when we choose to be reincarnated.

Personally, I'd go with the second choice since I see the first option clearly as a projection of human subjective experience unto the universe. I'd rather be agnostic on the subject and be amazed than make up answers form the extremely limited human experience.

I can understand your point of view, but personally I feel more amazed that our life here is actually quite minuscule in the scope of all reality, should an existence be waiting for us after we die. Even though we are limited, we can still be inquisitive in nature, much like humans have always been, which may result in the discovery of answers we have yet to receive. =D

Why do people insist on asking this question

"We can't possibly explain this (at least at the moment)"

Yes, but we can conduct theories until we are capable of putting them to a test, much like previous philosophers and scientists of the past have done. We may not have the resources to conduct an accurate hypothesis out of this since it will be argued for some time until we can accumulate satisfactory evidence. The point of asking this question is just like any other, though.

Why do we exist? Why are we here? Why have we not encountered other intelligent life, yet? Why is this universe SO massive? There's so many galaxies out there it's sickening to imagine what could be on all of those worlds. We haven't even reached the tip of the ice berg when talking about the broad point of life, and to simply question the complexities of the fundamental structures of the universe grants us a possible conclusion to such questions. Just because something has not been discovered yet does not mean we can't attempt to decipher that answer.

"Why is that rock on the ground if it has no purpose? Therefore it must be there for a reason!"

"Dude, it's just a fucking rock, it doesn't have a fucking purpose"

As for this question, "why should the universe exist if we'll just rot in the ground" is an unbelievably self-centred question.

That depends all entirely on your perception, my friend. Rocks are naturally occurred solidified minerals. Depending on each type of rock, every one of them has derived from a particular source, whether it's from lava or organic matter. They are a result from a progenitor, or rather, an earlier step to the rock cycle. Why it is there could serve a purpose less than human but more for it's environment.

And, to speak of the use of rocks, if you believe in evolution then you can also take into account that rocks have been used by homo sapiens for roughly 1-2 million years when we were still in earlier stages of physiological evolutionary development. They've been used in lithic technological advancement and mining for the extraction of minerals. Uses can be found with anything, and essentially, a purpose can be found within something if you look in a different way.

As if the entire cosmos revolves around humanity.

I'm not saying that the entire cosmos should revolve around humanity. I'm speaking for all forms of life that have developed a consciousness. All forms of organisms could have a begotten form of energy in them, much like what we perceive to be a soul or life force, that is simply experiencing the physical and/or material universe in a body that's capable of harnessing something three-dimensionally aware of itself. Some life forms may not be capable of "housing" such an entity and are, for now, by-products of different compositions in the building blocks of energy (atoms, molecules, and so forth).

So, who says there is a point? Is there a point for the existence of the rock I mentioned? No!

Actually, there is, if you want to see it in a different way. Just because we may not have been able to discover the point of our existence or of the universe around us does not mean there is no purpose at all. If something remains unanswered, it is the duty of the inquisitive mind to theorize would "could" be, and, when capable, conclude the question.

Purpose is arbitrary assignment of meaning by a conscious entity. The universe is not the result of a conscious entity and therefore has no inherent point to it.

Purpose is arbitrary assignment of meaning by a conscious entity. The universe is not the result of a conscious entity and therefore has no inherent point to it.

Just because a conscious entity outside of the human spectrum has not been discovered yet does not mean it doesn't exist. =)

Don't get sucked into this thread. Its obviously a drive by copy/paste with the sole purpose of drawing viewers to the blog that was posted.

Wisely pointed out.

Yes, but we can conduct theories until we are capable of putting them to a test, much like previous philosophers and scientists of the past have done. We may not have the resources to conduct an accurate hypothesis out of this since it will be argued for some time until we can accumulate satisfactory evidence. The point of asking this question is just like any other, though.

We can speculate, and try to create hypothesis, but there's no point demanding an answer as such when you know the answer is "we don't yet know".

Why it is there could serve a purpose less than human but more for it's environment.

They are a byproduct of a process, and there is no requirement for there to be such a purpose. A purpose is an aim to achieve a specific function. Rocks do not have this property.

Uses can be found with anything, and essentially, a purpose can be found within something if you look in a different way.

I was referring to the actual existence of the rock and comparing it to the existence of the universe. There's a difference between something intrinsically having a purpose, and something having no purpose but is later given one by something else.

I don't believe life has any purpose intrinsically, and certainly not in the grand scheme of things, but since I give my life my own purpose (to enjoy it), I find this irrelevant.

Just because something has not been discovered yet does not mean we can't attempt to decipher that answer.

True, but religion is not a valid means for discovery.

Just because we may not have been able to discover the point of our existence or of the universe around us does not mean there is no purpose at all.

You're right, but equally it doesn't mean an object automatically has a purpose simply because the alternative is "it would be pointless". This is what you were suggesting with "why are we here if it is pointless?"

True, but religion is not a valid means for discovery.

Religion has never been the foundation to discovery. That was not my intention as humans attempted to "discover". You can discover things without being affiliated to any form of centralized bureaucratic ideologies.

It's essentially pointless to post in this thread if you've all ready made up your mind. I thought the point of this was to discuss hypotheticals and how the universe could have been created by a conscious or simply had a purpose. Essentially, that's all boiled down to your own perceptive reality, so you can choose whatever answer you want. No one can win or lose here, unless if you're arguing that the Earth is flat. It was a good discussion.

Originally Posted by Absolute

Just because a conscious entity outside of the human spectrum has not been discovered yet does not mean it doesn't exist. =)

And vice versa, of course. Have you never heard of Occam's Razor? It's really god with stuff like this.

And vice versa, of course. Have you never heard of Occam's Razor? It's really god with stuff like this.

I haven't until now. It sounds rather quite fascinating. =D

I've never really got my head around all that Aquinas bullshit. Everything must have a cause, however there can not be an infinite chain of causes, therefore their must be a first cause, (Huge leap of faith goes here), God must be the first cause.
I don't understand why christians insist on trying to offer logic proofs for God's existence when almost every "proof" contains a giant leap of faith somwhere, thus rendering any subsequent conlusions meaningless.