• C++ Programming for Financial Engineering
    Highly recommended by thousands of MFE students. Covers essential C++ topics with applications to financial engineering. Learn more Join!
    Python for Finance with Intro to Data Science
    Gain practical understanding of Python to read, understand, and write professional Python code for your first day on the job. Learn more Join!
    An Intuition-Based Options Primer for FE
    Ideal for entry level positions interviews and graduate studies, specializing in options trading arbitrage and options valuation models. Learn more Join!

Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose

I hope you will find this text interesting.
According to science our universe (space-time) has a beginning (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written by the cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and Arvind Bonde.)

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. Causality and 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).
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.)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-CreatorWho must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly"not capricious," as Einstein put itCreator (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 subjectshumankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His Torah, 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 Torah which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isnt 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.

The most common counter arguments are answered here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)

Anders Branderud
 

GoIllini

Market Crises= Gray Hair
This proof is actually Aquinas's first-cause argument; it's been around since the middle ages.

One interesting thing to note is that we do not live in a causal universe. However, you can extend a corrolary of Aquinas's first cause argument to a first number/first order argument. Pi= 3.14159, rather than 67.324. The number Pi had to have come from somewhere; another number, a function that takes other numbers as parameters, or a "random" number whose probability distribution is determined by other numbers.

Those numbers had to have come from other places, and we can trace it back to a number/constant/physical setting in the universe that had to have been "picked". We call the thing that "picked" this number God.
 
You take as fact the statement "No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause." This pretty much begs the question. Perhaps the universe itself exists without a cause. In the scope of human knowledge, quantum physics is relatively new. We have yet to prove the existence of the Higgs boson, we still haven't resolved quantum effects with gravity, there's a whole lot about the earliest moments of the Big Bang that we don't know yet. Saying "we don't know of any such thing therefore God/Creator/MagicMan did it" just seems like a cop out.

Not to mention that there has yet to be any verifiable evidence of a being that is "non-dimensional and independent of space-time". Why would I be any more willing to believe in such a weird, undefined being than in a universe without cause? What does "non-dimensional and independent of space-time" even mean? How can a being which is "independent of space-time" have any effect on space-time, which it clearly must if it is said to have "created" the universe?

This isn't so much an argument for Intelligent Design as it is an attempt to wave away objections using ill-defined, obfuscatory language.
 
This proof is actually Aquinas's first-cause argument; it's been around since the middle ages.

Didn't Aquinas (or some other theologian of the period) also give three or four other proofs for the existence of God? Summa Theologica should now be required reading for all MFE students.
 

Bastian Gross

German Mathquant
Albert Camus - the myth of sisyphus

I recommend to read the essay"The Myth of Sisyphus" by the french Nobel Prize in Literature -winner Albert Camus.
 
Did anyone visit the site of the OP (link in first post).

Hello! My name is Anders Branderud and I am born 1984. I am studing Information Technology in the Royal Technical High school I like to exercise (for example running and swimming), read a lot of news (especially foreign news and news in Israels newspapers), reading science articles/books, talking with people, discussions, to take photos I do practise the Instructions found in Torah - part of the Jewish Bible. This I do because I have formal logical reasons for the existence of a Creator and His purpose of humankind (read more about this in a post in the left menu in my blog).
 

Bastian Gross

German Mathquant
"The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" by Douglas Adams

<dd> Now it is such a bizarrely impossible coincidence that anything so mind-bogglingly useful [the babelfish] could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as a final and clinching proof of the nonexistence of God. The arguement goes something like this: :-ss
</dd><dt>
</dt><dd>"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing." "But," say Man, "the Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED." "Oh dear," says God, "I hadn't though of that" and promply vanishes in a puff of logic. :D =D> :-k

</dd>
 
Miket wrote: interesting argument, although i think you're missing something. you haven't proven that the prime cause is equivalent to a sentient Creator.

so assuming your arguments have proven that "There is no prime cause" is false, it does not imply that "There is no Creator" is false.

My reply:
Thanks for your reply!
All incidents of orderly (non-random) patterns for example a formal logical proof or a programming code we know of has its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being.

By induction an orderly pattern requires an intelligent set of thoughts in a being (at least until monkeys produce and type into a computer a previously undiscovered mathematical proof).

The development of DNA occured because of the initial conditions (including the laws of physics) initiated by the Prime Cause. DNA is an orderly (non-random) pattern (governed by the laws of physics). Thus by deduction, the design of DNA must have its origin in an intelligent set of thoughts in a sentient being the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is an intelligent sentient being.

The burden of proof is on the person, who contradicts known facts, for example derived by logical deductions based on scientific premises.

A Sentient and Intelligent Prime Cause is per definition a Creator.
Anders Branderud

---------- Post added at 05:09 AM ---------- Previous post was at 04:57 AM ----------

Adam wrote:
You take as fact the statement "No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause." This pretty much begs the question. Perhaps the universe itself exists without a cause. In the scope of human knowledge, quantum physics is relatively new. We have yet to prove the existence of the Higgs boson, we still haven't resolved quantum effects with gravity, there's a whole lot about the earliest moments of the Big Bang that we don't know yet. Saying "we don't know of any such thing therefore God/Creator/MagicMan did it" just seems like a cop out.

Not to mention that there has yet to be any verifiable evidence of a being that is "non-dimensional and independent of space-time". Why would I be any more willing to believe in such a weird, undefined being than in a universe without cause? What does "non-dimensional and independent of space-time" even mean? How can a being which is "independent of space-time" have any effect on space-time, which it clearly must if it is said to have "created" the universe?

This isn't so much an argument for Intelligent Design as it is an attempt to wave away objections using ill-defined, obfuscatory language.

My reply: Causality is a scientific principle with its 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. To state that there is a scientific phenomenon which contradicts causality is a clear departure from the known state.

Therefore you have to that your point (you have the burden of proof), not merely assume it.

The formal logical rule burden of proof requires the person contradicting science, or the logical conclusions of science, to prove his/her point; not merely assuming his/her point. The logical conclusions of science (causality and the science that shows that the universe has a beginning (previously quoted in this blog) is the existence of a Creator. To reject that conclusion, or other deductions derived from scientific premises, is irrational and it is not a scientific approach. If you want to disprove my proof, then one way to do it is to falsify causality. Up until this day there are no scientific data which invalidates causality.
You wrote: Perhaps the universe itself exists without a cause.

My reply: This is an assumption that contradicts science, and therefore the burden of proof is on you to prove that statement.

You wrote: How can a being which is "independent of space-time" have any effect on space-time, which it clearly must if it is said to have "created" the universe?

My reply:
To repeat what I wrote in my first post: 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.

The logical proof I presented proves that an Intelligent and Sentient (see my post 10 minutes ago) Creator created space-time. This proves that it is possible for a Creator which is "independent of space-time" to initiate space-time.

Anders Branderud
 
Why are there no posts about unintelligent design? The Gnostics argue that the cosmos was created by idiot gods ("archons"). Why this silly assumption that the universe is ratuionally designed on rational principles when everything we experience and suffer indicates otherwise and points to flaws in our cosmos?

It we see a faulty piece of code do we conclude the programmer was a genius? Why then are people arguing for "intelligent design" for a piece of work that is flawed and shoddy?
 
Why are there no posts about unintelligent design? The Gnostics argue that the cosmos was created by idiot gods ("archons"). Why this silly assumption that the universe is ratuionally designed on rational principles when everything we experience and suffer indicates otherwise and points to flaws in our cosmos?

It we see a faulty piece of code do we conclude the programmer was a genius? Why then are people arguing for "intelligent design" for a piece of work that is flawed and shoddy?

It happened only a couple of times:), but I agree with you here.
Humans are driven by fear, rage, gluttony, ego and all other sentiments much more than ration. In fact logical thinking is applied in some cases, but the entire life is build on something else.
If we extend to society, I am not sure about rational portion either. A lot of the main goals are set for "irrational" reasons, if there is no bias of course logic can apply.
It is pretty ironic that creationism is considered intelligent design, when ration is secondary in most religions.:)
 
Even if we posit you an intelligent creator argument, what makes you so certain that it is the Hebrew God, and not one of the numerous other Gods that arose at the same time or earlier? Hinduism has texts dating to ~500 years earlier than Judaism, and the Egyptian pyramid scrolls and sacred texts date almost 2000 years prior to the Torah. Can you use an objective, and non-arbitrary means by which to determine that their God is not the "true" God, and the Hebrew God is?
 
If there is a creator, his (or her) purpose is sadism -- he or she enjoys inflicting suffering and misery on the sentient beings he or she has created.
 
i wish I could say somethin.....but this debate never ends.....

its probably better to shutup and just live and enjoy life
 
Top