[Guest]

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-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"not capricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore, necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us within it and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both the universe and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary to His 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 isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.

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

Anders Branderud

[Guest]

Very nice Anders, however, but lets look at this logically.

If all things require cause, then that means that there cannot be a beginning, for as all ends must have means, so must means have means. Therefore, there can be no Prime Cause, because then it would need a cause. Being independent of space and time would denote it's inexistence. However, even if it were to be independent of space and time, it would still need a cause, which would in turn need a cause, down to infinity. Therefore it wouldn't really be the Prime cause and it wouldn't have a neccessity of being. EDIT: Thus nullifying it's neccessity

Or in other words...

Your proof is invalid.

Edited October 20, 2009 by Romulus064

[Guest]

I hope you will find this text interesting.

According to science our universe (space-time)(Universe ≠Spacetime)has a beginning (http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9403004).This paper is written bythe cosmologist Alexander Vilenkin of the Tufts university and ArvindBonde.) (The above articlenecessitates a theory for the beginning of our universe. Do not, however, get your hopes tohigh. Our universe, is not theonly universe in existence, our universe is but a small speck in whatscientists call the multi-verse. Our universe as we know it began in a state of highly compressedmatter. This matter expandedoutwards when the force exerted by dark energy, a repulsive force, overcame thepull of dark matter. This startedthe expansion of the universe. Originally, Scientists predicted that the universe would then collapseupon itself in a theory called the big crunch. It became increasingly apparent however, that the universewas actually accelerating outwards. This is where the multi-verse comes in eventually, our universe willintersect with other universes. Chunks of our universe will gradually bind together with pieces of otheruniverses to form “mini-verses” Ifthese “mini-verses” reach critical mass, they will explode and form a universemuch like the one we know today. Thus we see a cycle of causality.

It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that everyphysical occurrence in the universe has a cause. Since space-time has abeginning there was a first physical occurrence(But we cannot say that space-timehas a beginning). Causality requires that the first physical occurrence had acause. Causality and the fact that space-time has a beginning implies that thisPrime Cause is non-dimensional and independent of space-time(Or it doesn’t existbecause it needs a cause).

To conclude the above paragraphs:

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

(Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator).

Ergo: There is no universe. False)

Fact: There is a universe.

Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a falsestatement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof)(Or at least itwould if the proof was true, which was false).

(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, theopposite is true: There is a Creator.)(“”)

(And this is where I leave you to rant about God)

Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderlywould be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause /Singularity-Creator—Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderly—"notcapricious," as Einstein put it—Creator (also implying Just), therefore,necessarily had an Intelligent Purpose in creating this universe and us withinit and, being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a"Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of Hissubjects—humankind.

It defies the orderliness (logic / mathematics) of both theuniverse and Perfection of its Creator to assert that humanity was (contrary toHis Torah, see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia afterthe first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Mosesand the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's InstructionManual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recordedhistory. The only enduring document of this kind is the Torah —which,interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" aspopularly alleged). (Some of the text is a quote from www.netzarim.co.il)

The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’tself-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts eachother (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is theantithesis to the Creator.

[Guest]

“If all things require cause, then that means that there cannot be a beginning, for as all ends must have means, so must means have means. Therefore, there can be no Prime Cause, because then it would need a cause. Being independent of space and time would denote it's inexistence. However, even if it were to be independent of space and time, it would still need a cause, which would in turn need a cause, down to infinity. Therefore it wouldn't really be the Prime cause and it wouldn't have a neccessity of being. EDIT: Thus nullifying it's neccessity

Or in other words...

Your proof is invalid. ”--End of quote

Thanks for your reply!

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

You wrote: ” If all things require cause, then that means that there cannot be a beginning, for as all ends must have means, so must means have means.”

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

It is a law of formal logic that a person stating the unknown has to prove his/her departure from the known state. The known state is that everything in this physical universe follows the scientific law of causality. One unknown state which many person states: “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.

For the person wanting to read more about Causality I recomend this post: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html

To y’all: have a nice day!

Anders Branderud

[Guest]

Hi Anders, welcome to Brainden. Counter arguments to yours vary and personally I like to steer clear of discussions of whether space time is finite or infinite as I think this is beside the point. Personally I think we have no reason to suppose that some possible physical systems, finite or infinite, can be said to "exist" to a greater or lesser extent than any others do, but that's just a background idea to illustrate why I consider the finite/infinite issue irrelevant.

Actually I think you've come very close to making the correct counterargument yourself, in the last post. I agree that the principle of causality cannot be applied to the creator, since, being outside of space and time (and physics as we know it), it would be inappropriate to apply a time-dependent principle such as causality to infer the creator of a creator. Different rules, if any, apply. In fact it would be inappropriate to apply such a principle any place outside of space-time as we know it, such as using it to infer that a creator did something "before" the beginning of time to make space-time happen, or to edit what you have said:

According to the principle of burden of proof, and the fact that claiming "the timespace 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 we observe, the timespace. 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 timespace 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 timespace Prime Cause and neither is it possible to derive that conclusion using deduction.

[unreality]

Anders, your logic up until a point is reasonable if not sound, although personally I have no clue if the Universe has been around forever or if it came into being somehow, or if it just began and anything before is irrelevant, that is, it began at the beginning, and it did begin as soon as possible which is the beginning... infinitely back maybe, or maybe not. What i'm saying is that logic can often fail in the infinity. Maybe there has been causation forever, maybe not.

So let's assume there was a Creator external to the universe; not bound by the universe's rules. Okay sure... I'll go with that. But you have to your admit that your connecting it to the Torah is a bit of a stretch. Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow? I don't see that connection.

[Guest]

...if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow? I don't see that connection.

I didn't mention that for fear of muddying the waters, but now you have done, I can't resist chipping in. Proof of a first cause "creator" of some kind wouldn't even imply the existence of a god (and if such a first cause did happen to be a god, it may not be the god Anders chooses to believe in, but one of the many others that people have thought up over the years, or some unknown god, perhaps without human characteristics or any interest in humankind). Even if Anders' initial argument held water (it doesn't), it would imply nothing specific, and to call the connection to the Torah "a bit of a stretch" is putting it mildly!

[unreality]

yep That's why I said Creator, not God. A Creator doesn't have to be an intelligent pseuodbeing, it could be a hyperplasmatic supercollision in another universe, or a brief logical thought in a plane of pure existence, or what have you

[Guest]

yep That's why I said Creator, not God. A Creator doesn't have to be an intelligent pseuodbeing, it could be a hyperplasmatic supercollision in another universe, or a brief logical thought in a plane of pure existence, or what have you

My money's on what have you. Praise be to what have you!

[Guest]

Unreality wrote: ”Anders, your logic up until a point is reasonable if not sound, although personally I have no clue if the Universe has been around forever or if it came into being somehow, or if it just began and anything before is irrelevant, that is, it began at the beginning, and it did begin as soon as possible which is the beginning... infinitely back maybe, or maybe not. What i'm saying is that logic can often fail in the infinity. Maybe there has been causation forever, maybe not.

So let's assume there was a Creator external to the universe; not bound by the universe's rules. Okay sure... I'll go with that. But you have to your admit that your connecting it to the Torah is a bit of a stretch. Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow? I don't see that connection. ”

My reply:

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

It has much more weight than your personal opinion.

Why should your personal opinion matter on this issue? According to science the universe has a beginning. If you don’t agree you have the burden of proof on you to prove your point. Otherwise, the scientific way, is to use the current science and by deduction and/or more scientific research arrive to new conclusions. And it is possible to falsify current science – like the scientific principle of Causality – but no one has yet done that.

“Maybe there has been causation forever, maybe not.” – According to your personal opinion yes. According to science, there has not been a causation forever (please reread my previous post carefully).

“So let's assume there was a Creator external to the universe”

We are not assuming anything.

You wrote: “Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up”

Let’s discuss why this universe is orderly and not chaotic.

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.)

To y’all

All the best,

Anders Branderud

[Guest]

Sorry Anders, but you seem to be missing the point(s) of what both Unreality and I are saying:

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

It has much more weight than your personal opinion.

That report simply states that the current inflationary model is not past-eternal. Once we get back to the big bang, that model ends. There are then various models proposing a succession of bang-crunch universes or universes spawning other universes that can then take us back further. I can't comment on their validity and don't consider it relevant since as I explained, the finite or infinite nature of time has no bearing on this issue. We don't know and (for this issue at least) it doesn't matter.

Incidentally, what do you make of my debunking of your principal argument in Any comments?

You wrote: "Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up"

You're missing the end of the sentence there (whether we describe the universe as orderly or chaotic is beside the point. In many ways, it is both).

Unreality wrote: "Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow?"

Could that possibly have been an accidental omission on your part?

[Guest]

That report simply states that the current inflationary model is not past-eternal. Once we get back to the big bang, that model ends. There are then various models proposing a succession of bang-crunch universes or universes spawning other universes that can then take us back further. I can't comment on their validity and don't consider it relevant since as I explained, the finite or infinite nature of time has no bearing on this issue. We don't know and (for this issue at least) it doesn't matter.

ditto

[plasmid]

Afraid I don't have tons of time to spend on message boards and probably won't be around to follow up on this (otherwise I'd have posted about Phronism on dawkins.net by now... should be much freer in early Dec tho...). But to cut to the point of your argument, you seem to be asserting that you have a scientific proof that the Torah must be valid. As unreality and octopuppy have already pointed out, arguing that there must be a creator does not prove that the creator was described accurately by one particular bunch of people a long time ago but not by other bunches of people who lived even longer ago, or by other bunches of people who lived more recently. But there's one other thing that I can't help but wonder since I happen to be a biologist (sort of):

Why you are trying to use a scientific argument to assert the validity of a book that speaks of demonic possession as the underlying cause of human disease?

Edited October 24, 2009 by plasmid

[hugemonkey]

There is not "prime cause" because time is not linear.

There is no beginning (or end) of time just as there are no edges to the universe spatially. Space and time are the same thing anyhow.

The "boundaries" of the universe have more to do with the limits of the laws of physics (the speed of light, etc.) than they do with actual physical edges. Like what octopuppy said, the superdense universe theories (although catastrophic for matter) do not require that the universe be reduced to an actual singularity. The universe as we know it (including our distant observations) is just a tiny piece of the whole picture.

[Guest]

Sorry Anders, but you seem to be missing the point(s) of what both Unreality and I are saying: That report simply states that the current inflationary model is not past-eternal. Once we get back to the big bang, that model ends. There are then various models proposing a succession of bang-crunch universes or universes spawning other universes that can then take us back further. I can't comment on their validity and don't consider it relevant since as I explained, the finite or infinite nature of time has no bearing on this issue. We don't know and (for this issue at least) it doesn't matter. Incidentally, what do you make of my debunking of your principal argument in Any comments? You're missing the end of the sentence there (whether we describe the universe as orderly or chaotic is beside the point. In many ways, it is both). Unreality wrote: "Can you tell us your argument again for, if there is a Creator of this chaotic imperfect universe, how it ends up being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow?" Could that possibly have been an accidental omission on your part?

Dr Mario Livio describe their report in his book ”The Accelerating Universe” and writes that they proved based on a set of reasonable assumptions that time-space must have a beginning. Also clear by only reading the abstract: “Next, some necessary conditions are formulated for inflationary spacetimes to be past-eternal and future-eternal. It is then shown that these conditions cannot simultaneously hold in physically reasonable open universes.”

Nr. 2: “being manifested in the Torah and only the Torah somehow”

First of all I want to clearly show why an orderly universe implies an orderly Creator… and what the chain of reasoning are that lead up to that the Creator must reveal His instructions to humankind.

“All incidents of orderly patterns – for example a formal logical proof or a programming code – we know of has its origin in an orderly set of thoughts in a sentient being.

By induction an orderly pattern requires an orderly 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 occurred 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 orderly set of thoughts in a sentient being – the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is orderly.

The line of reasoning for orderliness is:

a. Orderliness in creating a creature implies an orderly purpose.

b. The conspicuous Intelligence of the Creator implies the orderly purpose be non-trivial.

c. A non-trivial, orderly purpose for creating a sentient and intelligent created-being with free will implies a non-trivial, free-will decision.

d. An intelligent and orderly purpose involving a non-trivial, free-will decision implies a means for the sentient and intelligent created-being to make an informed decision.

e. An informed decision implies access to an orderly formula that enables the sentient and intelligent created-being to discern the non-trivial purpose in order to make an intelligent and informed decision. (Ideally, the decision should be orderly but, alas, few humans seem to concern themselves beyond their hedonistic materialism.)

The line of reasoning for justice is utter simplicity: just implies orderly (consistency in fairness, etc.) while injustice implies inconsistency, divergence from orderliness—disorderliness—relative to fairness, equality, etc.

The inability of a person to grasp the reasoning above implies lack of intelligence.

Why Torah?

Answer: The reasoning I presented implied this: “Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. ”

How long has Torah been available?: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/10/did-first-homo-sapiens-have-any.html

Have a nice weekend!

Anders Branderud

[Guest]

Why you are trying to use a scientific argument to assert the validity of a book that speaks of demonic possession as the underlying cause of human disease?

There are no demonic possession in Torah. Where did you read that?

Anders Branderud

[Guest]

So what are your opinions on writings that incorporate the teachings of the torah, like the bible?

[Guest]

“All incidents of orderly patterns – for example a formal logicalproof or a programming code – we know of has its origin in an orderly set ofthoughts in a sentient being.

False. Most incidentsof orderly patterns result in observation by a sentient being, in which weinfer a logical explanation, predict the outcome of an experiment, and pass onthe knowledge to the next generation. These patterns are observed by sentient beings, not created. Man did not create gravity.

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

Above Statement nullified by nullity of previous statement.

The development of DNA occurred 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, thedesign of DNA must have its origin in an orderly set of thoughts in a sentientbeing – the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is orderly.

Nullity begets nullity again.

The line of reasoning for orderliness is:

a. Orderliness in creating a creature implies an orderly purpose.

(Axiom of idiocy: Need I say more?)

b. The conspicuous Intelligence of the Creator implies the orderlypurpose be non-trivial.

(I consider myself a very intelligent person, but I do worthlesss*** all the time. Plus we can’ttell how smart something is if we can’t observe it. And it can’t be that smart if it doesn’t exist.)

c. A non-trivial, orderly purpose for creating a sentient andintelligent created-being with free will implies a non-trivial, free-willdecision.

(Besides the obvious fact that this proof is built on a foundationof falsity, did the thought ever occur to you that maybe freewill is anillusion? That will is simply themajor consencus of the chemical signals in the neurons of the human brain?

d. An intelligent and orderly purpose involving a non-trivial,free-will decision implies a means for the sentient and intelligentcreated-being to make an informed decision.

(The very fact that we are intelligent implies that we will becapable of making informed decisions. Some of us have no choice but to be informed.

e. An informed decision implies access to an orderly formula thatenables the sentient and intelligent created-being to discern the non-trivialpurpose in order to make an intelligent and informed decision. (Ideally, thedecision should be orderly but, alas, few humans seem to concern themselvesbeyond their hedonistic materialism.)

The line of reasoning for justice is utter simplicity: just impliesorderly (consistency in fairness, etc.) while injustice implies inconsistency,divergence from orderliness—disorderliness—relative to fairness, equality, etc.

(Justice is not about orderliness, it is about equality. If I act in such a way that negativelyaffects my neighbors well-being (parasitism) It is called injustice. If I do otherwise, it is just.) Justice has it’s flaws though. If all things are treated fairly, thenevolution does not follow it’s orderly course towards an organism better suitedfor it’s environment.

The inability of a person to grasp the reasoning above implies lackof intelligence.

Ahhh… The Axiom of Faith: When a child is very young, two adults can succesfully plant this intotheir childs mind if they are both strong in the same faith. Subliminally, this teaches people thatthose that do not believe what they believe are unfaithful, and stupid. However, I quote Galileo in saying,Doubt is the father of invention. It is skepticism that bears the fruit of intelligence. The above proofs, and comment, implythe inability of the idiot that wrote them to see things in perspective. It’s stupidity is like that of a child whowill refuse to believe that two pieces of his 500 piece puzzle do not fittogether. It’s reasoning so shakythat the vibration from the dropped pin could knock it down.

[Guest]

The inability to grasp the reasoning may imply a lack of intelligence, but having a problem with your premises and conclusions does not.

Insinuating that people who don't accept your conclusions lack intelligence is foolish, insulting, and does a great disservice to your argument.

Skepticism in healthy doses greatly helps one to be intelligence, but there are those who take it too far.

ie people who believe the govt of the USA brought down the WTC, birthers, etc.

Romulus you do harm to your owm position when you try to refute the OP's argument in your last post. You either deny the principle of causality flat out or are saying that it does not apply in the OP, but your evidence either says nothing about cause and effect or is simply a post hoc, ergo propter hoc fallacy. Then the rest of your argument is based on the initial unsupported premise that causality does not exist/apply and is laced with ad hominem attacks and begging the question.

Let's keep this discussion going on an intellectual level.

[Guest]

Since this is a reply to my post I'll put my own reply up though Romulus has said much of what needs saying:

Dr Mario Livio describe their report in his book "The Accelerating Universe" and writes that they proved based on a set of reasonable assumptions that time-space must have a beginning. Also clear by only reading the abstract: "Next, some necessary conditions are formulated for inflationary spacetimes to be past-eternal and future-eternal. It is then shown that these conditions cannot simultaneously hold in physically reasonable open universes."

As I mentioned, the finite or infinite nature of space-time is irrelevant, so I'll not enter into arguments about which it is. To talk about a "beginning" is perhaps a little deceptive though. The apparently sequential and linear nature of time is an illusion that does not hold up in instances of extreme space-time curvature, which is one of the reasons why cause-and-effect is an irrelevant concept here (another reason is that drawing inferences about anything outside of space-time takes us outside the realm of what is known or observable, so no such conclusions could be derived using principles which are clearly a feature of space-time).

"All incidents of orderly patterns – for example a formal logical proof or a programming code – we know of has its origin in an orderly set of thoughts in a sentient being.

Wrong. There are plenty of orderly patterns within mathematics, but these are not created. The example you gave of a formal logical proof is illustrative of this. Possible solutions are the feature of a problem. The person thinking up the proof simply perceives an aspect of logic that was there all along, which is why the same proof may very well be arrived at independently by someone else. It is discovered, not created. There is also an abundance of orderly patterns which occur naturally in the physical world. You may think that this is because God designed nature, but that would be an assumption and using it as the basis of an argument for God's existence would be circular reasoning. Besides, naturally occurring patterns can be shown to arise inevitably as a consequence of the laws of physics, so the only possible "design" involved is a selection of physical laws fine-tuned to allow complex patterns to arise. But unless you assume that our physics, our universe, has been specially selected from all possible universes to be the only one which "exists" (consider what, if anything, that word means in that context), no selection of physical laws has been made. There's simply nothing left for God to do.

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

I think we've established that pattern does not imply intelligent design, so I'll just point out that given enough monkeys and enough computers, some quite marvellous documents would arise. They've clearly moved on from using typewriters, which is promising.

The development of DNA occurred 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 orderly set of thoughts in a sentient being – the Prime Cause; i.e. the Prime Cause is orderly.

Only if you think physics has only one chance to work, one combination that it could try. It requires the assumption that our universe is all there is, which is like someone who has been locked in a cellar all their life thinking their house is the only one in the world. It's an understandable conclusion if your house is all you have ever seen. But it is pure assumption, particularly bearing in mind that your house is all you could see, regardless of what else there is, since you're locked inside it. We are a feature, a subset, of our universe, we are locked inside in a much more fundamental way, and thus much more inclined to make such assumptions.

a. Orderliness in creating a creature implies an orderly purpose.

b. The conspicuous Intelligence of the Creator implies the orderly purpose be non-trivial.

c. A non-trivial, orderly purpose for creating a sentient and intelligent created-being with free will implies a non-trivial, free-will decision.

d. An intelligent and orderly purpose involving a non-trivial, free-will decision implies a means for the sentient and intelligent created-being to make an informed decision.

e. An informed decision implies access to an orderly formula that enables the sentient and intelligent created-being to discern the non-trivial purpose in order to make an intelligent and informed decision. (Ideally, the decision should be orderly but, alas, few humans seem to concern themselves beyond their hedonistic materialism.)

a. Already covered that

b. As Romulus pointed out, not so. If there was a creator, who's to say it's not just doodling?

c. You're stacking up the assumptions a bit high there (also note the assumption of free will)

d. Why? The intelligent and orderly purpose (of course we have no idea what that might actually be) could be better served by keeping our decisions uninformed. It's just another assumption.

e. Yet another assumption! There's lots of ways to be informed other than having a "formula" given to you, like experience and deduction for instance. Even if the universe was created for a purpose that required us to be informed, wouldn't it make a lot more sense for us to be well-informed by nature, to have required knowledge written into our DNA, rather than requiring an external "formula"? Sticking a book into the mix after a few billion years is a bit of a kludge, don't you think?

The line of reasoning for justice is utter simplicity: just implies orderly (consistency in fairness, etc.) while injustice implies inconsistency, divergence from orderliness—disorderliness—relative to fairness, equality, etc.

You lost me a bit there... why do we need a "line of reasoning for justice"? Oh well, since it's here, if justice and orderliness are equivalent that would make our "perfectly orderly" universe "perfectly just" as well. But on a human scale, it's clearly neither. We're all subject to the same laws of physics, so there's justice and order there, but that's about as far as the perfection goes. Justice amounts to fairness or equality. Since we are all born unequal, in terms of personal attributes and circumstance, justice on a human level can only be an ill-defined ideal, and not a feature of the universe.

The inability of a person to grasp the reasoning above implies lack of intelligence.

How charming. What does the inability of a person to spot the obvious flaws in that reasoning imply?

Why Torah?

Answer: The reasoning I presented implied this: "Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. "

The reasoning you presented might have implied that there would be an "orderly formula" available (were it not for the fact that every single stage of that reasoning was based on unfounded assumption), but that still doesn't tell us why the formula has to be the Torah! Your assertion that it has been there since the beginning of recorded history appears to be based on the fact that it contains a creation myth, thus claiming to document the dawn of humankind. It's highly doubtful that it would really be one of the oldest documents in the world. Texts from Ancient Egypt and Sumer are thought to be much older. Judaism, while being one of the older monotheistic religions, has no realistic claim to having the original religious mythology (or the original creation myth). To put it another way, the Torah is just another holy book.

[Guest]

even assuming God created the universe, even a child could ask, what created God?

personally, I tend to view God as the universe itself.

but the universe could not exist as it is right now without me, so when I worship God, it is a reciprocal feeling.

[Guest]

On the face of it, that sounds like Spinoza's God, which is more or less interchangable with "nature" or "the universe". Physicists like Einstein and Hawking have also used the word "God" in similar context, though I don't think it's a very helpful use of language. Most people take "God" as being something supernatural with human qualities, and nature shows no signs of being that. Do you think of nature as having such qualities (for example: intention, awareness, mood, or a particular interest in human affairs)?

[Guest]

One theory that I've always had... sorry, one thought experiment that I've always had is this:

This current universe started with a big bang and expanded therefrom, but in the future maybe it will begin contracting, and it will condense into singularity once more, and then another big bang will ensue - as it already has, in the past, before our big bang, ad infinitum. I think it's easier to believe in a reality that has always been around rather than a reality that had a start and no end (or even a reality with a start and an end).

EDIT:

Deism has always seemed to me to be a synonym for atheism, only by people too scared to admit that they don't believe in God (say, for fear of persecution). What's the difference between a watch maker who makes a watch and leaves it alone for eternity and a watch that spontaneously constructed itself?

EDIT2:

I remember as a kid asking one of my friends who believed in God "Who created God?" He responded "God's father." I asked who created him, and he responded with "His father," and we repeated a few times before going on to another topic

Edited December 18, 2009 by DarthNoob

[Guest]

This current universe started with a big bang and expanded therefrom, but in the future maybe it will begin contracting, and it will condense into singularity once more, and then another big bang will ensue - as it already has, in the past, before our big bang, ad infinitum. I think it's easier to believe in a reality that has always been around rather than a reality that had a start and no end (or even a reality with a start and an end).

Why?

Bear in mind that a "start" or "end" needn't necessarily be an irregular exception to the structure of space-time. Imagine someone living in a two-dimensional universe which intersected our solar system. We wouldn't see them because light would pass straight through their 2D plane but they would see us in cross-section. Maybe Earth might pass through their plane in a South to North direction, so the first thing they would see is the North Pole popping into existence as a point which expands explosively outward in an ever increasing circle, reaching maximum size as they approach the equator, then shrinking at increasing pace before zapping into nothingness at the South pole. Of course we know that the North Pole is just another point on the Earth's surface, not structurally different or discontinuous from any other, but from their point of view, the North Pole would be like the Big Bang, a bizarre point from which Earth has popped out of nowhere. It's just a difference in perspective.

Edit:

Just realised what a sad scenario that is. Imagine if there was just enough time for 2D creatures to develop on the circumference of Earth's cross-section, evolving into sapient stickmen just before the cross-section reached the south pole, whereupon Earth-section pops out of existence leaving them stranded in space. I've drawn a picture to help you appreciate the enormity of this tragedy.

[Guest]

Why?

Bear in mind that a "start" or "end" needn't necessarily be an irregular exception to the structure of space-time. Imagine someone living in a two-dimensional universe which intersected our solar system. We wouldn't see them because light would pass straight through their 2D plane but they would see us in cross-section. Maybe Earth might pass through their plane in a South to North direction, so the first thing they would see is the North Pole popping into existence as a point which expands explosively outward in an ever increasing circle, reaching maximum size as they approach the equator, then shrinking at increasing pace before zapping into nothingness at the South pole. Of course we know that the North Pole is just another point on the Earth's surface, not structurally different or discontinuous from any other, but from their point of view, the North Pole would be like the Big Bang, a bizarre point from which Earth has popped out of nowhere. It's just a difference in perspective.

Edit:

Just realised what a sad scenario that is. Imagine if there was just enough time for 2D creatures to develop on the circumference of Earth's cross-section, evolving into sapient stickmen just before the cross-section reached the south pole, whereupon Earth-section pops out of existence leaving them stranded in space. I've drawn a picture to help you appreciate the enormity of this tragedy.

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say, but if I do, then I think that means you don't understand what I was getting at (my money's on me for being the one that is not understanding, lol).

@Edit

LoL... niiiice

I just think it's easier to imagine a reality in which every dimensions stretches on ad infinitum, including time. Btw, when they say the universe is expanding, I've always taken that to mean that matter in the universe is getting spread out (so like, the farthest stars we could see are getting farther), but there's still an endless nothing outside of that...

Wow. I just realized: that would imply that time is bordered by endless nothing too.

I think I just pwn'd my own thought experiment... but it's still one I'm interested in.

[Guest]

I'm not sure if I understand what you're trying to say, but if I do, then I think that means you don't understand what I was getting at (my money's on me for being the one that is not understanding, lol).

@Edit

LoL... niiiice

I just think it's easier to imagine a reality in which every dimensions stretches on ad infinitum, including time. Btw, when they say the universe is expanding, I've always taken that to mean that matter in the universe is getting spread out (so like, the farthest stars we could see are getting farther), but there's still an endless nothing outside of that...

Wow. I just realized: that would imply that time is bordered by endless nothing too.

I think I just pwn'd my own thought experiment... but it's still one I'm interested in.

There is of course the argument between scientists regarding whether time is the fourth dimension or something else entirely. As for the Universe, my astronomy professor explained the expanding Universe in the manner of a balloon blowing up. The volume of the Universe is growing with the expansion and the distances are getting farther apart, but not because the Universe is expanding into a vast nothingness. They're getting farther apart because the fabric of the Universe is expanding. How's that for mind blowing?

(As an aside, the class got a good jump when he forgot to turn off the air pump that was blowing up the balloon--I hope our Universe is a little more robust than that... )