Proof of the existence of an intelligent Creator and what His purpose of mankind is

[andersbranderud]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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 Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)

[Akhenaten]

Rubbish

[Twiler]

I don't understand why you think the universe is orderly. Orderly compared to what?

And, who created the creator? If no-one, then why would you assume that the universe needs a cause?

And would you care to name some of these scientists whose views you mention?

[eccles]

I agree with my friend Akenaten. It is not only rubbish, but complete BS.

Where is your PROOF.

We don't want preachers here. :mad:

Oh, by the way. One needs the Hebrew font for that link. I can't read Hebrew.



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)


http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[JFrankA]

Just because science says "I don't know" doesn't automatically mean "god didit".

[Twiler]

What's with fundamentalists using the Cosmological argument and the Teleological argument so much? What have they got against the Ontological argument?

Not cool dude. Not cool.

[eccles]

What's with fundamentalists using the Cosmological argument and the Teleological argument so much? What have they got against the Ontological argument?

Not cool dude. Not cool.
What language is that?



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[Ladewig]

I don't understand why the Torah is more accurate than the scriptures of Hinduism and Zoroastrianism. Would you elaborate?

Also, is Genesis to be interpreted literally (the world was flooded, all spoke the same language before the Tower of Babel)?

[Cavemonster]

Wow,
The only arguments worse than the ones apologists use to prove a creator exists are the ones they try to prove that it is the specific creator described in their holy books.

[JJM 777]

find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)
Why not directly give the link to the website? Unless this is a mass-distributed hit-and-run post to hundreds of discussion forums, some of which were expected to ban any links to websites.

This is what I found, leader of this Israeli Messianic movement seems to be Yirmeyahu Ben Dawid:
http://www.netzarim.co.il/Shared/Yirmeyahu%20Ben-David,%20Netzarim%20Paqid%2016.htm
http://www.facebook.com/Netzarim
http://www.netzarim.co.il/

Funnily enough, another Christian movement with a similar name, Netzarim, lists Yirmeyahu Ben David on their blacklist of false prophets:
http://www.natzraya.org/Articles/Synagogues_of_Satan/Synagogue_of_Satan.html

[Ladewig]

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause.

Carl Sagan was an eminent scientist who didn't believe in an inteligent, personal, omnipotent Prime Cause. I am sure I can find other eminent scientists as well. You may want to remove this line from your "proof."

An orderly Creator 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.

Being just? His scriptures call for rape victims to be stoned (Deuteronomy 22:24) and you call Him just? You have a very perverted sense of justice.

[Tricky]

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause.
Oops. Found your error. Reset constant to variable and reboot.

[Twiler]

What language is that?


Nutkuul do ed, nutkuul.

That's sanskrit for 'I am aghast at the lack of originality.'

[Akhenaten]

Well, that wasn't very proofy, was it.

I have a question, I think.

The OP goes on some about "fundamental laws of physics". Am I correct in thinking that the physical rules for this Universe only apply from a teensy, weensy little bit after the Big Bang?


skøl,

Faroe

[Dorian Gray]

I thought there was going to be some proof in this thread. Where is it?

[JJM 777]

Proof will come in the next mass-distributed message, without reading anything that anyone has commented in the thread in the meanwhile.

[Safe-Keeper]

Not cool dude. Not cool.What language is that?21st century English everyday speech, as spoken by a resident, I believe, of the Western world. The 21st century saw a marked increase in global average temperature which caused panic and widespread destruction, culminating in the tsunami that drove all the inhabitants of the Middle East into surrounding territories, in which they assimilated into more peaceful populations. Nonetheless, heat was considered a bad thing as natural disasters struck elsewhere as well, and soon everyone sat in refrigerators all day cursing everything warm. "Not cool" was a curse word.

A fascinating time period, as it were:).

[Elizabeth I]

Oh, Gawd. Not this again.

BTW, do you suppose this could be one of those students posting on a "hostile website" for class credit? If so, we should be all nice and sweet and then he/she won't get credit because we're not hostile.

[Gord_in_Toronto]

If someone were to light a strawman that large, the flames could be seen from the surface of Mars. :boggled:

[tsig]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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 Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)

I'll have Thousand Island dressing thank you.

[phantomb]

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe . . .

The universe is not a physical occurrence in the universe, so no.

science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

I don't think so, can you back this up?

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause.

Carl Sagan was an eminent scientist who didn't believe in an inteligent, personal, omnipotent Prime Cause. I am sure I can find other eminent scientists as well.

Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, etc.

Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly

Even if we accept that the universe is perfectly orderly, how does this follow?

i.e. Perfect

Equivocation. If the universe must mirror its cause (you still haven't proven this) and the universe is logically consistent (you still haven't proven this), then the cause of the universe must be logically consistent. Nothing more.

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

Absolute nonsense.

An orderly Creator necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it

Why?

and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

How do you know this creator is just? Following your own argument, the only thing we can conclude is that the creator is logically consistent.

Even if we assume that the creator is just (which presupposes a whole bunch of stuff as well), how does that help you determine what the creator must 'necessarily' do? Wouldn't you have to have knowledge of some sort of universal morality?

. . . 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).

Nope, there are plenty of documents older than the Torah which could be interpreted as an instruction manual for life. There were also plenty of people claiming to have received divine instructions themselves.

[~enigma~]

A cult of a cult or to put it quite succinctly...cult2

[PixyMisa]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo
This is just a restatement of the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and we just had a very lengthy thread (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150286) dismantling it.

I don't expect you to read it all, but a browse through wouldn't hurt. Quickly, though, you can't get there from here. The Universe is by definition causally closed, and you cannot infer anything about the existence or nature of external causal systems from causality as it is within the Universe.

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause.No eminent scientist represents that the Universe is perfectly orderly. And no competent cosmologist would ever refer to a "Prime Cause".

Being logically consistent (orderly)Equivocation.

the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly Orderly; i.e. Perfect.Equivocation.

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-CreatorWord salad.

An orderly Creator 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.Begging the question on, let's see, seven separate points.

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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.Begging the question on 11 points, plus equivocation.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof.No formal logical proof has been presented. There's not even the echo of a shadow of a faded memory of a semblance of a formal logical proof.

Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)No.

[LordoftheLeftHand]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. .....

Your exact post has been copied and pasted over a dozen different forum sites.

http://forums.myspace.com/p/4600294/63551978.aspx?fuseaction=forums.viewpost
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/showthread.php?p=634558
http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=15298

Just to list a few. Do you have anything origin to add to this hogwash?

[ParrotPirate]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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 Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)

Brain barf,yet again from the God-did-it-iots!

[Jonnyclueless]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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 Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)

Great......So now where's the proof of this creator and purpose?

[JJM 777]

Your exact post has been copied and pasted over a dozen different forum sites.
My guess is that the person will never return to read anything what we write here. Instead, he may one day return to make another new hit-and-run thread, discussing some different topic.

[Evolved Wookie]

Well, that wasn't very proofy, was it.

I have a question, I think.

The OP goes on some about "fundamental laws of physics". Am I correct in thinking that the physical rules for this Universe only apply from a teensy, weensy little bit after the Big Bang?


skøl,

Faroe

Yep. I can't recall the exact figures, but current physical models only work back to a fraction of a second (seriously small, like, 10e-14 or something) after the Big Bang. They're still working on a model that works at high enough energies and the like to define things further back.

Physics has nothing to say about what happened at the Big Bang. It only infers that since things were very small and expanding, it seems reasonable to assume that before that, they were even smaller.

[JFrankA]

My guess is that the person will never return to read anything what we write here. Instead, he may one day return to make another new hit-and-run thread, discussing some different topic.

Oh, Gawd. Not this again.

BTW, do you suppose this could be one of those students posting on a "hostile website" for class credit? If so, we should be all nice and sweet and then he/she won't get credit because we're not hostile.

I think you're both right and that's exactly what's going on with the OP.

Let's all just smile and nod our heads at him....maybe s/he'll get a failing grade.... :D

[Foster Zygote]

For those who attempt to use cosmological arguments to prove the existence of a creator: Big Bang models of cosmology do not imply a beginning to the universe. In current models there is no "before" the Big Bang. Modern models are still compatible with a universe that is boundless, without any edge in space or time, and yet still finite. The Big Bang model does not provide the creation ex nihilo that you seek in order to justify your predrawn conclusion.

[Foster Zygote]

I think you're both right and that's exactly what's going on with the OP.

Let's all just smile and nod our heads at him....maybe s/he'll get a failing grade.... :D

All of his previous posts were in his first thread, so he may come back.

[Hokulele]

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof.


No.

[eccles]

A member of Atheist Nexus started a tread and posted this link to a YouTube video

How to prove God doesn't exist

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41tcV8tVdBg&feature=player_embedded



http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[six7s]

Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin.
Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 144 for "Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin". (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Reversing+an+accelerating+expansion+to+see+ba ck+in+time+produces+a+universe+that+shrinks+at+a+d ecelerating+rate+as+one+goes+back+in+time+to+its+o rigin%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Now that's just gross!

[Lonewulf]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory.

Actually, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation started the Big Bang theory. Critical Mass has nothing to do with the Big Bang.

[eccles]

After watching that Video consider this:

If anyone remembers Spike Milligan and his famous Goon Show on BBC wireless will remember my alter ego Eccles saying "Everbody's got to be somewhere".

That brings up the question. Genesis 1:1 states that before God created the World there was a void - nothing -nowhere.

SO WHERE WAS GOD?

Of course anyone with brains knows there was no "God". Does logic prove that Christians are brainless? Q.E.D.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert

[fullflavormenthol]

Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 144 for "Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin". (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Reversing+an+accelerating+expansion+to+see+ba ck+in+time+produces+a+universe+that+shrinks+at+a+d ecelerating+rate+as+one+goes+back+in+time+to+its+o rigin%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=)

Now that's just gross!
Wow...someone has been very busy. Incidentally his blog is composed of many of these types of arguments, many translated into Swedish.

[six7s]

Wow...someone has been very busy. Incidentally his blog is composed of many of these types of arguments, many translated into Swedish.Thanks for the tip! More digging reveals more nonsense, this time on YouTube:
zS2qNc188Ps

[Akhenaten]

Yep. I can't recall the exact figures, but current physical models only work back to a fraction of a second (seriously small, like, 10e-14 or something) after the Big Bang. They're still working on a model that works at high enough energies and the like to define things further back.

Physics has nothing to say about what happened at the Big Bang. It only infers that since things were very small and expanding, it seems reasonable to assume that before that, they were even smaller.


Thank you very much, EW. It seems that even if I'm not a world-class physicist, my "working knowledge" will be sufficient for current purposes.

;)


Cheers,

Dave

[Akhenaten]

After watching that Video consider this:

If anyone remembers Spike Milligan and his famous Goon Show on BBC wireless will remember my alter ego Eccles saying "Everbody's got to be somewhere".

That brings up the question. Genesis 1:1 states that before God created the World there was a void - nothing -nowhere.

SO WHERE WAS GOD?

Of course anyone with brains knows there was no "God". Does logic prove that Christians are brainless? Q.E.D.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17227)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/338944a927d97a44d4.png (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17396) Robert


Bel Marduk chased him away and he was hiding in a gap behind the Aten.

[temporalillusion]

Your exact post has been copied and pasted over a dozen different forum sites.

...

Just to list a few. Do you have anything origin to add to this hogwash?

Yeah, on another site I participate on too.. a HOCKEY site!

[six7s]

Thank you very much, EW. It seems that even if I'm not a world-class physicist, my "working knowledge" will be sufficient for current purposesForget needing all that fancy stuff like string theory... anyone who can tie their own shoe laces can debunk the OP

[X]

There's a lot of big leaps in the OP.

Does one of the other postings go into more depth?

[Moochie]

The universe is what it is, isn't it?


M.

[Evolved Wookie]

Thank you very much, EW. It seems that even if I'm not a world-class physicist, my "working knowledge" will be sufficient for current purposes.

;)


Cheers,

Dave

My pleasure!

I completed an honours degree in physics some...bloody hell...ten whole years ago. My capability - with maths especially - has been atrophying ever since. I'm left with little more than a good understanding of how to think scientifically and a somewhat twitchy ******** meter. It's nice once in a while to feel like I'm still edumucated. :)

[Evolved Wookie]

Forget needing all that fancy stuff like string theory... anyone who can tie their own shoe laces can debunk the OP

Shhh! Don't spoil my sense of achievement! :rolleyes:

[Brian-M]

My guess is that the person will never return to read anything what we write here. Instead, he may one day return to make another new hit-and-run thread, discussing some different topic.


Good point, but there's no reason we can't discuss the OP anyway.

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


Is there actually such a law of physics? If so, what is the 'cause' behind virtual particles popping into existance?

[andersbranderud]

Thanks for all of your replies! Time don’t allow me to answer them all. I will answer some statements.

Twiller wrote:
“I don't understand why you think the universe is orderly. Orderly compared to what?

And, who created the creator? If no-one, then why would you assume that the universe needs a cause?

And would you care to name some of these scientists whose views you mention?”

I want to start with rephrasing what I wrote with some additions:

A popular counter argument to the proof of the existence of an Intelligent Creator (found in the left menu) is: “The universe doesn’t have a beginning”.
That statement contradicts science.

The universe has a beginning (Read page 660 – 661 in the book “The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen Hawking”.
The specific section is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university. )

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. The fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time.

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.)

To answer Twillers questions.
1. 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.)

2.
Nothing 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. The unknown state is: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.” Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He also must have a cause. To state this 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.

3.I did not intend any names. I just stated that it is contra-scientifc (which I clearly show in my posts) to state that the universe came into being out of nothing without a Prime Cause.

More answers to common counter arguments are found here: bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments

[rocketdodger]

Yeah but what you haven't explained is why the prime cause needs to be an intelligent creator rather than ... anything else.

Care to explain that?

[dafydd]

Yeah but what you haven't explained is why the prime cause needs to be an intelligent creator rather than ... anything else.

Care to explain that?

I'm agog with anticipation too.

[Third Eye Open]

A popular counter argument to the proof of the existence of an Intelligent Creator (found in the left menu) is: “The universe doesn’t have a beginning”.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_240214ad511b6d0d50.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=17851)

[~enigma~]

I just stated that it is contra-scientifc (which I clearly show in my posts) to state that the universe came into being out of nothing without a Prime Cause.Instead of telling you that you are wrong I'll just tell you to read the paper from Stephen Hawking about the wave function of the universe then restate your error.

[Hux]

He of course is referring to a Christian first causer. He/she would be distressed to learn if it was Allah.

It is interesting (sometimes) to see their vision of a Universe centred upon us. It would seem to me, and any other observer, that the Universe, indifferently, is trying its best to wipe us out. I find that prospect both terrifying and awesome.

[arthwollipot]

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof.That's a very interesting definition of "formal logic" right there...

[Hux]

Isn't the Universe becoming, by degrees, disorderly?

[TimCallahan]

andersbranderud: Your argument is essentially a revamping of the First Cause argument. However,the universe itself could be the first cause: I don't think the Big Bang is necessarily ceation ex nihilo.

In any case, if the whole thing - the universe, the earth, life, evolution - is under the control of a Creator, how do you explain all the chaos, particularly mass extinctions? One might logically assume that the Creator's goal in evolution is to create intelligent life. On planet Earth that means mammals, leading to us. Why, then, would this Creator either cause, or at least allow, the Permian extinction, which nearly wiped out the mammal-like reptiles when they were the dominant form of land-based life and just when they were about to give rise to mammals? As a result of this mass extinction, dinosaurs took over, and mammals and their immediate forbears spent 120 million years scurrying under their feet. That is, they spent nearly twice the time they actually ruled (65 million yar) not evolving much from primitive marsupials and insectavores. This hardly fits a divine plan.

[~enigma~]

I don't think the Big Bang is necessarily ceation ex nihilo.
You are probably right. If the universe is infinite (and it just might be), the "singularity" itself was infinite. Yes, our tiny portion of the Milky Way was probably no more than a few millimeters or less but as long as the universe is infinite...you get the idea :)

[Olowkow]

Rubbish
Just once I'd like to be first to post "rubbish" in this manner. :(
Nice avatar.

[eccles]

God is not the Creator, claims academic
The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

We all know that there is no god.

[Third Eye Open]

God is not the Creator, claims academic
The notion of God as the Creator is wrong, claims a top academic, who believes the Bible has been wrongly translated for thousands of years.

Professor Ellen van Wolde, a respected Old Testament scholar and author, claims the first sentence of Genesis "in the beginning God created the Heaven and the Earth" is not a true translation of the Hebrew.

She claims she has carried out fresh textual analysis that suggests the writers of the great book never intended to suggest that God created the world -- and in fact the Earth was already there when he created humans and animals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/6274502/God-is-not-the-Creator-claims-academic.html

We all know that there is no god.

I started a thread on that actually ;)

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=156301

[eccles]

Just because Genesis is a myth doesn't mean it's untrue

It’s a few days now since we ran the story of Old Testament scholar Professor Ellen van Wolde claiming that the start of the book of Genesis was based on a mistranslation and God didn’t “create” the world, but (simply!) “spatially separated” Heaven and Earth.
The comment thread to that story has, depressingly and predictably, broadly divided between Creationists saying something like “God still made it all” and secularists going “Told you so – it’s all a fairy story”.
It has to be said that the good Professor didn’t really aid her case by adding some really breathtaking silliness by way of commentary. Try this:
“There was already water. There were sea monsters. God did create some things, but not the Heaven and Earth. The usual idea of creating-out-of-nothing, creatio ex nihilo, is a big misunderstanding….The traditional view of God the Creator is untenable now.”
Phew, thanks Prof. I think that’s cleared up the mystery of creation once and for all.
Actually, I think her etymological point about the translation is fascinating. She just shouldn’t have gone off on one, as though she had a seat at top table in The Restaurant at the End of the Universe.
As to the posters on the thread: Hey, guys, get a life (eternal or otherwise).
Genesis is a transcription of ancient Hebrew creation myth. Calling it a myth doesn’t mean it’s “untrue”; it means that its truth is contained in the timeless quest for understanding of transcendental things like God’s provenance over time and space, the mystery of why something exists in the universe rather than nothing, human responsibility for stewardship of the planet and the origins of life. But, sorry Creationists, it isn’t and was never intended to be a piece of reportage about the first week of the universe. And, sorry secularists, a mistranslated Hebraic word doesn’t mean there is no God.
Good. Glad to have cleared that up. Now for the problem of evil…

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ge...an-its-untrue/


__________________

[temporalillusion]

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

Nope. And you are also taking something that holds inside our universe and applying it to the universe itself without any compelling reason. You just need it to be that way so you get your desired conclusion.

You get the initial fact wrong, so everything else is flawed. Not to mention the rest of the flaws everyone else points out.

[Ladewig]

An orderly Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.



I don't understand why the Torah is more accurate than the scriptures of Hinduism. Would you elaborate? Also, please be careful not to make the mistake of believing that the Torah must be true because the Torah says it is true.

Also, is Genesis to be interpreted literally (the world was flooded, all spoke the same language before the Tower of Babel)?

[Jonnyclueless]

Thanks for all of your replies! Time don’t allow me to answer them all. I will answer some statements.


I want to start with rephrasing what I wrote with some additions:

A popular counter argument to the proof of the existence of an Intelligent Creator (found in the left menu) is: “The universe doesn’t have a beginning”.
That statement contradicts science.

No it does not. But let's watch you fail as you attempt to explain how.

The universe has a beginning (Read page 660 – 661 in the book “The future of theoretical physics and cosmology: celebrating Stephen Hawking”.
The specific section is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university. )

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has a beginning there was a first physical occurrence. Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had a cause. The fact that space-time has a beginning implies that this Prime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time.

No that's not what Hawking says. The problem isn't the universe having to have a beginning, it's you not understanding Hawking. He is explaining the beginning of the universe as we now know it. Of course he is quite clear about this and if you did more than try to cherry pick you would understand this. But you didn't read his whole book, you simply quote mined out of context.

Space and time DID indeed have a beginning. But that is not saying there was nothing prior to that. Prior being used loosely as it implies time which is tied to space. Sure the physical universe may likely have needed a cause. That does not mean it requires a supernatural cause or a magical god to cause it. It does not mean there was nothing before the physical universe started 14.5 billion years ago.

And now ask Hawking if he thinks his findings point to a magical god.

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.)

FAIL.

Wow talk about grammar. What you mean to say in your first "fact" is that everything in the universe has a cause. Let's see your evidence. So far you have provided none. Misunderstanding a book you quote mined from does not count. Now what you probably mean is that as far as we know, everything in the PHYSICAL part of the universe has a cause. We don't know this for fact, but if we assume it as fact, then it still does not apply to the universe, just the part that involves space and time. Just because there was no space and time at one point does not mean there was no universe. And even if there was no universe it does not mean that there can be no natural cause for the universe. If you bothered to read Hawking's book you would see where he suggests things such as the universe being created by a white hole. No magical gods or fairies needed.

And can I repeat once again what an utter FAILURE your argument and logic are here?


To answer Twillers questions.
1. 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.)

It sounds like you are misunderstanding the laws of thermodynamics. It is absolutely true that things tend towards disorder in a closed system. Things get recycled because of the energy of the sun.

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.)

The laws of physics are simply observations. They aren't laws like in a court that can be broken. If something happens and is repeatable and constant, it becomes a law. That's what makes them laws. Them happening.

2.
Nothing 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. The unknown state is: “The laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.” Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

No everything in the physical universe does not follow any scientific law. Scientific law (which is a VERY bad term to be using) is simply observation of the universe. Scientific law follows the physical universe, not the other way around. if things fell up, then that's what the law of gravity would be. Things don't fall down because of the laws of science. And yes I know you already understand this, but your explanations are incorrect and misleading.

but more importantly, we all get your obvious point. But you need only say that the burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Trying to use long, wordy, misleading, and confusing statements isn't going to help here.

A common counter argument to the proof I have presented for the existence of a Creator is that He also must have a cause. To state this is as nonsensical as to say that the Creator is bound by the gravitational theory.

GREAT! So you see the error in your own logic then? To say that the universe is bound by the physical part of the universe is the absurdity you speak of. What you want to do is claim that your magical creator is outside of any observation or requirements, but anything natural outside of the physical universe is. Try to make such a claim in a scientific forum and see how much laughter you get. So your magical creator is outside of the physical universe, meaning you have no means what so ever of knowing your magical creator. If you feel it, or see it, or hear it, or communicate with it, then it's within the physical universe. If it's not, then you have no idea about it.

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.

The only proof you have provided is a poor understanding of science. And this is just a repeat of your last paragraph to which my reply to the previous paragraph would be the same to this one.

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.

And yet you already made the very claim that the prime cause needed a cause. YOU have the burden of proof in your claim on the universe. The known state is that we have no evidence for any kind of creator. Now you have to go provide proof of such. And how can you make a claim to have proven a non-dimensional creator and then claim people have to prove otherwise without laughing yourself into a fetus position? I mean did you think about that before you wrote it?


3.I did not intend any names. I just stated that it is contra-scientifc (which I clearly show in my posts) to state that the universe came into being out of nothing without a Prime Cause.

No it's not. The issue against is that you don't understand the science here. Which does not claim that the big bang was the beginning of the universe.

More answers to common counter arguments are found here: bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments

Thank you. Now we know one more web page to avoid.

[Darth Rotor]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory.
"Always" takes us back to scientific theorizing before some of the ideas you address, which makes this statement technically wrong. "Science changed its mind" is an anthropomorphizing of a discipline whose internal disagreements are legendary. I regret to report to you that your unified theory of science isn't compelling. (Hint: if you set up a position that isn't really what something is, and then trash it, you get points off for a strawman argument, not applause for a formal logical proof).
It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.
From what real scientists have told me, conditions at t=0 are undefined, and possibly undefineable in the same way division by zero is undefined.
From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
If we take as axiomatic the idea that matter is neither created nor destroyed, but that it merely changes form, and that energy and matter are the same things in different forms (see nuclear bombs for an example of that) then "popping in" doesn't register so much as "it all changed" for reasons as yet undetermined (A catalyst?) at a time > 0 but still very, very small value of t. Was that catalyst "a thought impulse from God" or something else? Your post considered, this is still unproven, though the idea is interesting to speculate about. If it were proven, we'd not have a thing called an atheist.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo
If by that you mean the catalyst I mention above, maybe, but I think ex nihilo isn't correct, see the matter/energy form change for why.
No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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
That's one way to look at it, but you haven't proved much so far, and the bolded part is an assumption that you don't actually back up. You simply assert it.

Note: Your title was "Proof ... and what His purpose of mankind is" when I think you meant "what His purpose for mankind is."
An orderly Creator 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.
Orderly is an assumption, Just is an attribution (axiomatic?) Life's Instruction Manual within reach. OK, I'll play along ...
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).
As I grok this, the Instruction Manual wasn't originally in written form, but once recorded history happened, the Torah is it. Is that what you mean?
Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.
How did you get there from the beginning of your post, a change in topic, and how does this prove Existence of an Intelligent Creator? :confused: By the way, this web site is peopled mostly by folks who are not religious in any way, shape or form. Who are you trying to convince of what? I am a Christian, and am puzzled at whether or not your Torah grounded Divine Authority makes my religion legitimate or illegitimate. Explain, please?
If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)
That wasn't a formal logical proof. Is Netzarim Hebrew for "confused thinking" or "how to stand logic on its head?"
Actually, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation started the Big Bang theory. Critical Mass has nothing to do with the Big Bang.
As I understand this, that leaves us looking for a catalyst as a productive line of inquiry.
No.
Universal pith. Economy of bandwidth noted. :)
For those who attempt to use cosmological arguments to prove the existence of a creator: Big Bang models of cosmology do not imply a beginning to the universe. In current models there is no "before" the Big Bang. Modern models are still compatible with a universe that is boundless, without any edge in space or time, and yet still finite. The Big Bang model does not provide the creation ex nihilo that you seek in order to justify your predrawn conclusion.
I don't have a current nihilo. What's it like to have an ex nihilo, I wonder? :confused:
I'll have Thousand Island dressing thank you.
*Chuckle*

DR

[Cainkane1]

Scientists have always inferred the origin of the universe by reversing the observed state of the universe. At first, the universe was thought to be static. Thus, science held that the universe simply "always was." Then scientists theorized that gravity must cause the universe to shrink. Thus, science changed its mind, inventing the "Big Bang" Theory. It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate. Reversing an accelerating expansion to see back in time produces a universe that shrinks at a decelerating rate as one goes back in time to its origin. Follow this process to its ultimate and the rate of shrinkage reduces to converge with timespace where both are zero. That is, both shrinkage and timespace stop at timespace=0. Thus, timespace has a beginning.

From timespace=0, scientists hold that nothing in the universe magically "popped in" with no cause. It is a fundamental law of physics that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo; i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace. In contrast to endless opinionating of innumerable pseudo-scientific religionists, science recognizes the necessity of a Prime Cause ex nihilo

No eminent scientist represents that our perfectly-orderly universe can be explained ex nihilo without a Prime Cause. Being logically consistent (orderly), the universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creator—Who must be Perfectly 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 Creator 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).

Religions that contradict Torah, therefore, are the antithesis of the Creator.

If you accept formal logic and science you agree with this formal logical proof. Continued reading of how to relate to the Creator you will find in this website: Netzarim (google it; be sure that it is Netzarim in Ra'anana in Israel)
If an intelligent creator existed he would have done more with the Universe than he has. For instance why do galaxys collide with each other? That isn't conducive to life at all. Why is there only one planet in our solar system where intelligent life exists? Why allow debris from creation such as asteroids to be sharing our orbits with us? Didn't the creator like us enough to clean that mess up? Why didn't the creator give Mars a moon that would provide it with a magnetic field? If he had we'd either have neighbors or we would have a nice wet planet to colonise ourselves. Why create black holes?

Religionists need to answer questions like this. The Universe is too chaotic to have been intelligently created.

[Darth Rotor]

If an intelligent creator existed he would have done more with the Universe than he has. d.
Why do you make this assumption? I don't. I suspect that you are assuming a particularly human character to the term "intelligent" here.

DR

[Hux]

Did he not create us in His image? Assuming human characteristics should not be wide of the mark therefore. One would expect, as Cain Kane indicated, a far different Universe to the one we see now.

A created Universe would show order and design. We cannot claim the former since the Universe is shifting towards disorder as it must. We can see, by simple study there is no design in any of nature and what some of us might suppose to be design is a very poor example. As George Carlin said "This is not the resume of a Supreme Being".

[TimCallahan]

If an intelligent creator existed he would have done more with the Universe than he has. For instance why do galaxys collide with each other? That isn't conducive to life at all. Why is there only one planet in our solar system where intelligent life exists? Why allow debris from creation such as asteroids to be sharing our orbits with us? Didn't the creator like us enough to clean that mess up? Why didn't the creator give Mars a moon that would provide it with a magnetic field? If he had we'd either have neighbors or we would have a nice wet planet to colonise ourselves. Why create black holes?

Religionists need to answer questions like this. The Universe is too chaotic to have been intelligently created.

If I were a believer, I could counter you "argument from disorder" by infering, by wy of a teleological argument, that the grand design is unfolding in time, and the universe isn't finished yet.

That said, I still have a problem squaring the God of teleological argument with repeated mass extinctions. Once again, why would such a deity allow the Permian extinction, which put off the rise of the mammals until another mass extinction wiped out the dinosaurs? D.R., do you want to take a crack at this?

[Darth Rotor]

D.R., do you want to take a crack at this?
Not really.

I find the complaints of "it's not orderly" to smell far too much of "counting the misses and ignoring the hits." I also see a lot of "if I were God I'd do it X way" (a Three O's God) contaminated by our own experiential biases, be we Christian or not.

I also think entropy is a universal constant, or feature.

But otherwise, this is a bun fight I'm not interested in entering, other than to ask about embedded assumptions.

@ Hux: In image? Yes. In completed copy? No. I'd offer an analogy but at the moment, that part of my brain is taking a rest. Maybe later.

DR

[TimCallahan]

Not really.

I find the complaints of "it's not orderly" to smell far too much of "counting the misses and ignoring the hits." I also see a lot of "if I were God I'd do it X way" (a Three O's God) contaminated by our own experiential biases, be we Christian or not. . . . DR

Well, as I said, an as yet unfinished universe would answer most of the questions of order. To put it another way, the imperfections of the universe might simply be part of its dynamism. Consider an analogy. A crystal of pure silicon has a certain perfection to it, but it doesn't do much. Introduce some impurities into it, however, and you convert it to a semiconductor. Then you you can use it for photovoltaic cells and computer chips. So the chaos of the universe may well be an integral part of its dynamism.

Therefore, I would limit the argument from imperfection to only one aspect that I see as troubling for the concept of a teleological God. That would be mass extinctions, which I see a just too chaotic to be part of the work of a creator God. If you want, we could even limit it to one mass extinction, that of the Permian. I again have to ask the question: Why would God nearly wipe out the mammal-like reptiles when they were not only the dominant land animals, but were about to evolve into mammals? This question, of course, presupposes an assumption that God intended to create intelligent life forms and has us in mind.

[Darth Rotor]

Therefore, I would limit the argument from imperfection to only one aspect that I see as troubling for the concept of a teleological God. That would be mass extinctions, which I see a just too chaotic to be part of the work of a creator God. If you want, we could even limit it to one mass extinction, that of the Permian. I again have to ask the question: Why would God nearly wipe out the mammal-like reptiles when they were not only the dominant land animals, but were about to evolve into mammals? This question, of course, presupposes an assumption that God intended to create intelligent life forms and has us in mind.

I don't lose sleep over the extinction of animals in epochs upon epochs before our time. Hmm, I hear some turned into the "dinosaur wine" that powers my car. :cool: Maybe that was the plan, to brew a little dinosaur wine. I am interested in a far more puzzling question: is the universe outside our solar system accessible to us or not? Hawking's admonition a year or so ago (discussed on this forum) that humans need to accelerate the capability to colonize off planet (in the near term centuries following our current one) resonates with me more deeply than the worrying about why dinosaurs died.

The answer to that also holds a possible philosophical answer to what is meant by go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.

The dinosaurs are dead, let's work on our grandchildren's future.

DR

[TimCallahan]

I don't lose sleep over the extinction of animals in epochs upon epochs before our time. Hmm, I hear some turned into the "dinosaur wine" that powers my car. :cool: Maybe that was the plan, to brew a little dinosaur wine. I am interested in a far more puzzling question: is the universe outside our solar system accessible to us or not? Hawking's admonition a year or so ago (discussed on this forum) that humans need to accelerate the capability to colonize off planet (in the near term centuries following our current one) resonates with me more deeply than the worrying about why dinosaurs died.

The answer to that also holds a possible philosophical answer to what is meant by go forth, be fruitful, and multiply.

The dinosaurs are dead, let's work on our grandchildren's future.

DR

First of all, fossil fuels aren't dependant on mass extinctions. Coal comes from the remains of plants, mainly from the Carboniferous Period. They simply died and decayed in an anaerobic environment. Peat bogs are modern day forerunners of coal. Oil isn't mainly from dinosaurs. For the most part, it comes from the anaerobic decay of shellfish in what were, at the time, shallow inland seas.

While I appreciate your foreward-looking attitude, the question of mass extinctions goes toward evidence - by the teleological argument - of a divine hand in evolution, as opposed to it being a combination of natural phenomena and a fair amount of chance.

Also, for the record, and for the sake of accuracy, the extinction fo the dinosaurs isn't my focus. Again, the Permian extinction nearly wiped out the forerunners of the mammals. This is kind of an odd thing for a ccreator God to do, if he was interested in evolution producing intelligent life.

[godless dave]

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

No, it isn't.

[billydkid]

Wow, long title!

[TimCallahan]

Here are some exerpts from "Permian Extinction: When the End of Life Was Near" by Jennifer Viegas on the Discovery Channel website:

The Permian period, which lasted from 290 to 248 million years ago, ended with the world’s most devastating extinction event of all time. Over 90 percent of Earth’s species, including insects, plants, marine animals, amphibians and reptiles, were destroyed worldwide. The Permian is therefore remembered as the time when life came the closest ever to being wiped off the face of the planet.

The Great Dying

Just over 251 million years ago, the Permian extinction event, also called the Great Dying, took place. To this day, no one is certain why so many species and entire ecosystems disappeared. Estimates vary, but it’s believed that 96 percent of all marine life and 70 to 80 percent of all land-dwelling animals perished.

So, how would this fit into the plans of a creator God?

[Hux]

Indeed, there have been six major extinction events in the history of this planet. How does ANY extinction fit in with a creation?

Even supposing the earth was only 6000 years old (no don't, I have a cracked lip)how does one reconcile the abrupt termination of certain animals in the fossil record? Shouldn't they all be at exactly the same level? If every carcass settled after the flood, they should all be in the same strata. Can you explain why they are not?

[Ausmerican]

Just checking in. Is the answer to the thread title still "none"?

[pakeha]

I was curious to see what the YECists have to say on the subject of the Permian Extinction Event.

I found this
Second, perhaps the layers that Gastaldo traced were formed from tidal oscillations that occurred while the earth was still underwater during the year-long Flood. In that case, the geochemical signatures and extinct fossilized creatures found in these P-Tr boundary rocks could be remnants of volcanic debris and floating animal carcasses that were on the earth’s surface during those few days or weeks.

which I found here:
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:xwnZ8zwT5l0J:www.icr.org/articles/view/4569/265/+Permian+extinction+event+explained+creationalists&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=es&lr=lang_en

It is amazing to read the YECists think all the extinction events occured during the Flood.

[Prometheus]

Well, don't forget that the Permian extinction "event" is thought to have taken place over a roughly 3 million year period. It's only an event on a geologic time scale. Over such a long time it wasn't necessarily a violent or painful death that met individual life forms. Heck, the whole thing could have been just a huge decrease in fertility, with most life living normally but just not reproducing. A hypothetical benevolent deity with plenty of time on its hands might even be expected to choose such a method if it decided that it was necessary to "go back to the drawing board," so to speak, in mid-creation.

[Fiona]

That would be rubbish for the last ones: could he not just have raptured them or something if he is so benevolent?

[Twiler]

I considered making a reply here, but before I do so, I would like some sort of assurance that the thread author will post again within the month.

[aviolet4u]

Here are some exerpts from "Permian Extinction: When the End of Life Was Near" by Jennifer Viegas on the Discovery Channel website:

The Permian period, which lasted from 290 to 248 million years ago, ended with the world’s most devastating extinction event of all time. Over 90 percent of Earth’s species, including insects, plants, marine animals, amphibians and reptiles, were destroyed worldwide. The Permian is therefore remembered as the time when life came the closest ever to being wiped off the face of the planet.

The Great Dying

Just over 251 million years ago, the Permian extinction event, also called the Great Dying, took place. To this day, no one is certain why so many species and entire ecosystems disappeared. Estimates vary, but it’s believed that 96 percent of all marine life and 70 to 80 percent of all land-dwelling animals perished.

So, how would this fit into the plans of a creator God?

he had enough of those boring species and wanted humans to take over? Thanks God! :cool:

[Prometheus]

That would be rubbish for the last ones: could he not just have raptured them or something if he is so benevolent?

Do you think the raptured ones left behind a fossile record? ;)

[six7s]

Do you think the raptured ones left behind a fossile record? ;)Nah...

Like birds taking flight, the rapturites leave behind little piles of crap

[Prometheus]

Nah...

Like birds taking flight, the rapturites leave behind little piles of crap

LOL. It'll take me a while to get that image out of my head. Maybe all the turds will come to life and start singing and dancing like Mr. Hanky The Christmas Poo.