Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

Hey Duty... Dont know if I can do that as my thought may not be correct... LOL
 
Last edited:
Sithious said:
I find it fascinating how people reject God based on religions

Also LOL at the narrowminded TC, go preach about the Torah someplace else
Click to expand...
You are working on the assumption that all religions have a deity that they worship. There is no deity in Buddhism. Everyone is capable of enlightenment. Everyone has a Buddha nature, even Hitler. Buddha's are human beings. When they act in a despicable way they are being overshadowed by the fundamental darkness that we all have and battle with. Siddartha Gutama (also know as Shakimuni) was a man. Therefore religion is not always based on a monothesitic reality.
 
andersbranderud said:
Hello! Thanks for your replies and sorry for a late answer!

Satya wrote: “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.”

My reply:
Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin (in the report below) proves (based on a set of reasonable assumptions ) that the “eternal inflation” cannot be eternal to the past. According to their article space-time has a beginning (that is: not only our universe has a beginning (according to science our universe does not need to be the first universe), but space-time as a whole has a beginning).

The report of cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde is found here: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004

I will now answer your statement “What caused the existence of the alleged Intelligent Creator? “, but first I will discuss about causality and burden of proof. Burden of proof is a very important concept for this discussion.

None known scientific phenomena contradicts the scientific principle of causality. It is a scientific principle with is foundation on many observations. By induction causality is regarded to be true for all of time-space.

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality. Some examples of a statements that is a unknown state: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang;" (or the statement “the laws of causality are not applicable on the first physical occurrence in space-time") Both of these examples contradicts science, i.e. it is a clear departure from the known state. The person who says there are scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

The argument that the Creator also must have a cause is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.

The proof I have presented proves that the Prime Cause is the origin of all the laws of nature, including causality. To say that the Creator is bound by causality, is as nonsensical as to say that a computer programmer is dependent on (or becomes a part of) the laws and boundaries in his program that he/she has created.

According to the principle of burden of proof, and the fact that claiming "the Prime Cause needs a cause " is a departure from the known; the person arguing for this statement has the burden of proof. The known state is what I have proved: “There exists a non-dimensional Creator external to timespace, Who is the Prime Cause to the timespace.” To claim that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause is a clear departure from the known facts. There is not a single observable fact that indicates that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause and neither is it possible to derive that conclusion using deduction.

To y’all: Have a nice weekend!
Anders Branderud
Click to expand...

Oh good grief. More pusedointellectualism.

Nothing you provided proves that there is a "Prime cause" or that such a thing could exist without having been caused by something else. All you are doing is simply arguing that anyone who doesn't agree with you is nonsensical, and that is not a valid, reasoned argument.

Now let me introduce you to something called the Burden of Proof fallacy.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/burden-of-proof.html

You are making the claim that there is a "Prime cause", and you have provided no evidence to support that assertion, so the best you can do is argue that the burden of proof lies on people to prove that there isn't. That is a fallacy of logic and something that someone who claims to be knowledgeable of formal logic should know.
 
Last edited:
The only logically factual point we can make about 'the beginning' is that Something has always existed.

Something does not spontaneously appear from nothing. This is borne out from experience.

What has always existed? The Universe as we know it? Unlikely. We have strong evidence that it had a 'beginning'.

Beyond that, no there is no logical evidence for or against a Creator. Though I would argue that we have good philosophical argument against certain potential Creators.

Myself, I think it is likely that Intelligence has always existed due to the philosophical problems of the alternative. It isn't in any way provable though.
 
Oh, yes, some people evade the problem, saying that they do not support any religion, only God. That's not possible, because every single believer got the idea of God from some pre-existing religion. When we were kids, we were enjoying the food, the sun, the flowers... until some adult told us about God. I haven't met a person who would claim to have invented the idea of God for themselves, without any previous knowledge about such thing.

Sithious said:
I like this argument better, although flawed

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
7. Therefore, God exists.
Click to expand...
Even the very first statement is flawed. Because we cannot assume that any abstract concept we think of is really possible. The actual probability may be strictly zero. There is similar paradox in the roots of different axiomatics of set theory. Assuming the existence of a maximal concept is an almost certain recipe for absurd.
 
enfp can be shy said:
Oh, yes, some people evade the problem, saying that they do not support any religion, only God. That's not possible, because every single believer got the idea of God from some pre-existing religion. When we were kids, we were enjoying the food, the sun, the flowers... until some adult told us about God. I haven't met a person who would claim to have invented the idea of God for themselves, without any previous knowledge about such thing.

Even the very first statement is flawed. Because we cannot assume that any abstract concept we think of is really possible. The actual probability may be strictly zero. There is similar paradox in the roots of different axiomatics of set theory. Assuming the existence of a maximal concept is an almost certain recipe for absurd.
Click to expand...
Well, we can't even define the 1st line in the argument. Maximally Great Being. This is actually an empty term that defines nothing and explains nothing. Show me Maximally Great. Either in reality or a theoretical view of Maximally Great will do to define the trait that the term is referring to.

Used to be Imagine a Perfect Being. Which was still an empty concept.
 
Proof Against:
george_bush.jpg
 
Satya said:
Nothing you provided proves that there is a "Prime cause" or that such a thing could exist without having been caused by something else.
Click to expand...

But Satya, I think you haven't grasped the crucial point: it's turtles all the way down!
 
The gods love an atheist, gives them something to aim for.
Posted via Mobile Device
 
enfp can be shy said:
Oh, yes, some people evade the problem, saying that they do not support any religion, only God. That's not possible, because every single believer got the idea of God from some pre-existing religion. When we were kids, we were enjoying the food, the sun, the flowers... until some adult told us about God. I haven't met a person who would claim to have invented the idea of God for themselves, without any previous knowledge about such thing.
Click to expand...
But this isn't entirely true either. Your arguement is regressive, it's like saying I'm a creation only because of my parents, and they because of their parents, and they because of their parents, but the first parents had to come from something (I'm not saying it's God, just giving an example of a regressive arguement).

Your arguement would actually be saying that there was a God somewhere, because people couldn't come up with it on their own. If no one invented God, well then where did the idea of God come from? Either someone invented God or something/someone (god) gave humans the idea of God.

Also, your arguement doesn't prove that someone couldn't believe in God without following a religion. Sure, religion could have helped supply them a concept of God but from their they could have morphed it into their own ideas. Just because they believe in God doesn't mean they practice or follow any of the rules a religion has. Your arguement is speculation. For all we know, if we let kids grow up without any interference from already educated adults (as in no interaction what so ever) that somewhere down the lines, the kids lineage could come up with the idea of God. I'm not saying it would happen, but I'm not saying it couldn't. It's a possibility

enfp can be shy said:
Even the very first statement is flawed. Because we cannot assume that any abstract concept we think of is really possible. The actual probability may be strictly zero. There is similar paradox in the roots of different axiomatics of set theory. Assuming the existence of a maximal concept is an almost certain recipe for absurd.
Click to expand...
Actually we can assume that any abstract concept is possible. Even if the probability is strictly zero, we're still measuring probability, thus it is possible.

Sure it could come completely crazy, but you can't assume that because it's absurd that it isn't possible.

There are some things we can be 100% are impossible. A 2 sided triangle for example. It's impossible because of the properties we give the definition of the word triangle. A triangle is made of three sides where the sum of it's three interior angles equals exactly 180 degrees, no more no less. Sure, we can entertain the thought of a two sided shape but it will never be a triangle by our definitions (and is impossible to imagine a 2 sided triangle).

We can imagine a God, or a flying spaghetti monster, and as improbable or absurd as it sounds, it's still possible.
 
Last edited:
mf said:
We can imagine a God, or a flying spaghetti monster, and as improbable or absurd as it sounds, it's still possible.
Click to expand...
I believe in Deity but I disagree with this statement. You can't 'Imagine God'. To Imagine God you would have to be able to really imagine something infinite and not simply say 'It's what I am imagining, but infinite'.

Case in point. Imagine an infinite series of numbers. Is there now an infinite series of numbers in your head? No. You imagine the finite and then say 'but infinite'.
 
Solar Empath said:
I believe in Deity but I disagree with this statement. You can't 'Imagine God'. To Imagine God you would have to be able to really imagine something infinite and not simply say 'It's what I am imagining, but infinite'.

Case in point. Imagine an infinite series of numbers. Is there now an infinite series of numbers in your head? No. You imagine the finite and then say 'but infinite'.
Click to expand...
That's assuming you see God as infinite.
 
mf said:
That's assuming you see God as infinite.
Click to expand...
True. But most people who posit God posit:

Perfection. Omnipotence. Omniscience. Omnipresence.

Many tack on Omni beneficence. (Omnibenevolence)

none of these traits are actually 'imaginable'. I wouldn't even agree that they are reasonably definable for the purpose of testing.
 
Last edited:
Solar Empath said:
True. But most people who posit God posit:

Perfection. Omnipotence. Omniscience. Omnipresence.

Many tack on Omni beneficence. (Omnibenevolence)

none of these traits are actually 'imaginable'. I wouldn't even agree that they are reasonably definable for the purpose of testing.
Click to expand...
I guess I'm not understanding your objection.

I agree that we can't really imagine the infitiness of something, because then it wouldn't be infinite. But can't we imagine the idea of infinite? And by imagining the idea that something has no end we entertain the possibility that it is true, even if we don't understand it?

When I say we can imagine a God, I don't mean that we understand what that necessarily means. We imagine that it's perfect, omnipotent, and what not; that it's beyond definition. But by entertaining the idea of perfection, doesn't that mean there is a possibility of perfect? Even if we don't understand the extent, imgagining it tests the possibilites, thus making it a possibility.
 
mf said:
I guess I'm not understanding your objection.

I agree that we can't really imagine the infitiness of something, because then it wouldn't be infinite. But can't we imagine the idea of infinite? And by imagining the idea that something has no end we entertain the possibility that it is true, even if we don't understand it?

When I say we can imagine a God, I don't mean that we understand what that necessarily means. We imagine that it's perfect, omnipotent, and what not; that it's beyond definition. But by entertaining the idea of perfection, doesn't that mean there is a possibility of perfect? Even if we don't understand the extent, imgagining it tests the possibilites, thus making it a possibility.
Click to expand...
I'm speaking merely in terms of imagining as it relates to the Ontological Argument. I contend that we can not 'Imagine God' in a way sufficient to require His being, because we haven't truly 'imagined' it, only supplied it as an undiscovered theoretical attribute.

I agree we can 'Imagine the Infinite' well enough to merely discuss it. We just have to be careful to not assume that we really understand what is implied by the terms in the same way as we understand, say, an 'Imagined Orange'.

Edit
When I say we can imagine a God, I don't mean that we understand what that necessarily means. We imagine that it's perfect, omnipotent, and what not; that it's beyond definition. But by entertaining the idea of perfection, doesn't that mean there is a possibility of perfect? Even if we don't understand the extent, imgagining it tests the possibilites, thus making it a possibility.
Click to expand...
I am only bringing it up because we keep inching ever closer to the Ontological Argument. :)
 
Last edited:
Solar Empath said:
I'm speaking merely in terms of imagining as it relates to the Ontological Argument. I contend that we can not 'Imagine God' in a way sufficient to require His being, because we haven't truly 'imagined' it, only supplied it as an undiscovered theoretical attribute.

I agree we can 'Imagine the Infinite' well enough to merely discuss it. We just have to be careful to not assume that we really understand what is implied by the terms in the same way as we understand, say, an 'Imagined Orange'.
Click to expand...
Alright, thank you for clearing that up for me.

I would tend to agree with you. Just because we can imagine it doesn't mean it exists or that we should argue that it does exist because we can imagine it.

I was trying to say that because we can imagine it it's possible, nothing more. I'm definitely with you in that the ontological argument doesn't work (and if that's what it sounded like i was getting at, I wasn't. Descartes does have an interesting approach to it in his 3 and 4 meditation, but even then it's fallible.)
 
mf said:
Your arguement is regressive, it's like saying I'm a creation only because of my parents, and they because of their parents, and they because of their parents, but the first parents had to come from something (I'm not saying it's God, just giving an example of a regressive arguement).
Click to expand...
I wasn't proving the (non)existence of God here. Only the disability to claim one's faith is not heavily influenced by existing beliefs (which was mentioned in a quote above). It's not regressive, I'm talking about present times only. In present times, all of us get the concept of god from other people, not from our own interaction with reality - which should be the main source of knowledge; not people, not books (blindly).

mf said:
For all we know, if we let kids grow up without any interference from already educated adults (as in no interaction what so ever) that somewhere down the lines, the kids lineage could come up with the idea of God.
Click to expand...
That happened in the past, because the world around people was full of dangerous and unknown phenomena; knowledge environment is changed since then.

mf said:
you can't assume that because it's absurd that it isn't possible.
Click to expand...
Fine. We are done then.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top