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

[Anders Branderud]

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). (Source: www.netzarim.co.il)

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

[DavidOdden]

Let me suggest that you start by doing some study of the history of philosophy and science, so that you will understand why it is not the case that science first held that the universe "always was" (which is, indeed, the correct conclusion) and then changed its mind. The key to improving your grasp of historical fact is to remember that the writings of Aristotle (who understood the meaninglessness of the idea of "creating the Universe") were almost entirely unavailable to Western Civilization until the Middle Ages. When the Christian church ruled philosophy, any philosophy which taught the eternality of the Universe would be prohibited heresy.

The very idea of "creating the Universe" is a logical contradiction. The fact that some scientists speak sloppily of "creating the Universe" does not mean that they in fact believe in a contradiction. In fact they are talking about creating this aspect of the universe, changing one part into another part.

[brian0918]

It wasn't until 1998 that astronomers discovered that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.

Your unexplained reference to this fact, which is entirely unnecessary to your argument, shows your lack of understanding of what it means for something - anything - to occur at an *accelerating* rate. Any other explosion in space will expand at a decelerating rate, as the force of gravity of all the individual bits pulls them in the opposite direction of the explosion, back towards the point of the explosion.

No explosion results in objects flying away from eachother at an accelerating rate. It would be like throwing a ball up in the air, and having it soar off into space, increasing in speed every second.

For the objects in the universe to be apparently expanding away from eachother at an accelerating rate implies that there is some force being applied to them, even today, to increase their velocity away from eachother faster than the gravitational attraction between them can slow them down.

And hence, you contradict your entire argument with this bit:

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.

This implies that as we go back further in time, as things are closer and closer together, they are flying away from eachother at a *slower* and *slower* speed, not faster and faster as would be the case in a normal explosion in space. Thus, it is entirely possible that at some finite time in the past - a time more recent than your alleged "timespace=0" event - everything was hanging out really close together, with the gravitational force exactly canceled by this other force.

So, there you have it. I've used your own evidence to dismantle your argument.

Of course, Dave Odden already dismantled your argument by identifying your confusion over what constitutes "the universe".

Edited September 5, 2009 by brian0918

[rl096]

Anders,

I would like to address your "solution" as opposed to your question.

How the universe was "created" is beyond my understanding and somewhat unimportant (to me).

What is important, is how it was *not* "created" or "started".

You said.....

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

My response to this is, "Then what/who created the 'Prime Cause'?" And we delve into infinite regression.

Some would say, (perhaps you), that "The Prime Cause has always existed, and needs to explanation."

I say, "That's the way I view the Universe."

In other words, why is it that the orgin of the Universe requires explanation, but the origin of "God" or the "Prime Cause" doesn't?

Whatever you say about "God", I can say about the "Universe". It is a much larger leap to believe that "God" has "just always existed" than to believe that the Universe has always existed. Why add and extra element into the equation? Isn't "nature" enough of a incredible, mysterious experience? Why must we humans add an extra entity? Why not add two? Maybe "my" God created your God! Etc.

Nature is enough, leave it alone.

[Zip]

perfectly-orderly universe

You mean the one with black holes swallowing stars, Killer meteors and comets travelling erratic paths, Galaxies colliding

Orderly? The universe is an orgy of destructive natural forces, but it all works within known and knowable laws. There is no invisible hand placing the earth in the sweet spot of life around a sun suitable for that purpose.

On the other hand can you tell me what a disorderly universe would look like? Would plants refuse to take nourishment from the soil, would deer search out wolves so that they could be eaten? Would the wolves decide to eat dirt instead? Would planets decide to ignore the laws of physics and never form, or force themselves to crash into the sun?

[jmr]

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.

[...]

i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.

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

If you don't exist in a time and at a place then you don't exist.

You can't say that nothing can magically appear then right after invent some ghost that magically appeared somehow (without existing because it's outside of an existance that doesn't exist yet(even though there's no time)) as proof that it exists...