Thread: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

You can't even be sure that the two hands you used to type that message exist. How do you expect to indefinitely prove the existence of a divine creator? You may have a good idea, but you cannot know for sure. Just thought I'd point that out.

Rofl! Good one, UM.

Hello and thanks for your replies (the respectful ones)!

PhilosopherStoned wrote:
1.“Spacetime as we know it has a beginning.”

My reply:
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)
If you disagree with their research the burden of proof is on you to falsify it.

Read more about the burden of proof in this post: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/...existence.html

2. “This is not a law; it's an assumption that has served us well.”
My reply: Causality is not an assumption. It is a well established scientific fact.
Read more here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/...existence.html

3. ” 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.”

Reply: The term "orderly" is being used in two, contradictory, senses; the cause of the confusion. The human-perceived "state" of a subsystem (often relatively infinitesimal) of the universe seems to tend toward "disorder." (Though that is arguably untrue since it, e.g., a decomposing material or carcass, usually depends on a small fragment of the universe, which, in its totality, always obeys "orderly" laws of physics and mathematics. Decomposing wood or animal carcass turns to soil and is recycled in an orderly—i.e., inerrantly conforming to orderly laws—system. Thus, increasing entropy is an integral part of an orderly (always obeying orderly laws) universe; not a contradiction of it.)

There is no known exception to the laws of physics. (If there were, our understanding of the laws of physics would be refined to incorporate the phenomenon.)

Out of time limit I can't answer all your replies, but you will the most common counter arguments in the blog linked above.

Anders Branderud

Originally Posted by branderudanders

Hello and thanks for your replies (the respectful ones)!

PhilosopherStoned wrote:
1.“Spacetime as we know it has a beginning.”

My reply:
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)
If you disagree with their research the burden of proof is on you to falsify it.

Read more about the burden of proof in this post: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/...existence.html

This paper claims to demonstrate that inflation cannot recede eternally into the past. I am saying that space-time as we know it had a beginning but that we cannot extrapolate from that that spacetime itself has a beginning. We certainly cannot make that extrapolation when we do not even know what spacetime is! There is no burden of proof on me here. I'm just stating obvious truths. Nothing in the paper contradicts that.

Originally Posted by branderudanders

2. “This is not a law; it's an assumption that has served us well.”
My reply: Causality is not an assumption. It is a well established scientific fact.
Read more here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/...existence.html

That's ok. I'll read more here. Got anything to say?

Originally Posted by branderudanders

3. ” 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.”

Reply: The term "orderly" is being used in two, contradictory, senses; the cause of the confusion. The human-perceived "state" of a subsystem (often relatively infinitesimal) of the universe seems to tend toward "disorder." (Though that is arguably untrue since it, e.g., a decomposing material or carcass, usually depends on a small fragment of the universe, which, in its totality, always obeys "orderly" laws of physics and mathematics. Decomposing wood or animal carcass turns to soil and is recycled in an orderly—i.e., inerrantly conforming to orderly laws—system. Thus, increasing entropy is an integral part of an orderly (always obeying orderly laws) universe; not a contradiction of it.)

This doesn't address my point in any way. By either definition, you are making the assumption that the universe is orderly.


Are you going to quite spamming or engage in debate?