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: 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]

Originally Posted by Anders_Branderud

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,
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]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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.

Originally Posted by Moontanman

(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]

Originally Posted by Anders_Branderud

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!