|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 4:00:06 AM
|
|
|
Anders_Branderud
Posts: 1
Joined: 9/26/2009
Status: offline
|
According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on www.pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.
It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
The fundamental laws of physics then require a cause of the universe ex nihilo (since timespace has a beginning); i.e., a Prime Cause Singularity that is non-dimensional and independent of timespace.
To conclude the above paragraphs:
Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause.
Assume: There is no Prime Cause (Creator / Singularity).
Ergo: There is no universe.
Fact: There is a universe.
Therefore: the statement that was assumed is proven to be a false statement by reduction ad absurdum (proof by disproof).
(Since "There is no Creator" is proven false, the opposite is true: There is a Creator.)
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 Tor•âh′ , see below) without any means of rapproachment until millennia after the first couple in recorded history as well as millennia after Abraham, Moses and the prophets. Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The only enduring document of this kind is the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged). (Source and further reading of how to relate to the Creator:www.netzarim.co.il)
The fact that the Creator is perfect implies that He isn’t self-contradictory. Therefore any religion, and all religions contradicts each other (otherwise they would be identical), that contradicts Torah is the antithesis to the Creator.
(The most common counter arguments are answered at http://bloganders.blogspot.com/search/label/counter%20arguments)
Anders Branderud
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 6:36:26 AM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
The kalaam cosmological argument has been around for some, and was I understand first mooted by Islamic scholars in the middle ages.
I am not sure that I follow the rest of your logic. Where exactly do you place "the beginning of recorded history?". Also, I thought that judaism considered the Torah as "instruction' for the people of the judaic faith only, not for all mankind. You seem to be saying that the Creator gave mankind this "life instruction manual" because the Creator is "being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind." Why then, is it only available to part of humankind? It doesn't seem just and orderly that, say, the aborigines in Australia don't have these "instructions". How then are those without the Torah to be judged by it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 2:03:16 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
Welcome to the Forums, A_B! What exactly would you like to discuss about the Cosmological Argument or what I prefer to call it - the Argument from Universal Causality?
quote:
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. How has the order of the Universe been affected by the Fall and Curse?
quote:
Therefore, the Creator's "Life's Instruction Manual" has been available to man at least since the beginning of recorded history. The consensus among Bible scholars is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch around 1450 BC. Are you referring to the source documents and/or oral traditions that he used under divine inspiration?
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 3:59:33 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Anders_Branderud
According to science our universe has a beginning (search at “age of the universe” on www.pnas.org) and time is purely physical. Therefore there can be no such thing as time external to the physical universe. Timespace has a beginning.
It is a fundamental law of physics (causality) that every physical occurrence in the universe has a cause.
Here is my problem with this line of reasoning. There is a universe, and inside it there are the properties that you mention, time and space and all the associated paraphernalia.
You are extending the properties within the universe to the universe itself. Causality applies within the universe, which has space-time, but you're trying to apply it to the universe.
Here is the contradiction:
You note that "there can be such thing as time external to the physical universe".
Why or how would causality exist outside the physical universe then? Why posit that something need to have "caused" the physical universe in your model if causality necessarily only exists within the universe?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 4:02:47 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
Shorter version:
"Fact: No thing nor event in the known universe or laws of physics lacks a cause."
Why assume that this property of the universe extends to the context in which the universe exists, whatever that may be?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 7:43:53 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
Causality applies within the universe, which has space-time, but you're trying to apply it to the universe.
Why should causality not apply to the Universe? Either the universe has a cause, or it does not. If not, then it happened out of nothing. Not even a "virtual vacuum". Absolute nothingness. And, for absolutely no reason at all. Seems to me a bit of a long bow to draw, to me. And, if the universe appeared out of nothing, why do things not randomly happen within the universe without cause? And why, if something was going to happen out of nothing, the universe of all things, something that has the appearance of design? May as well expect a Ferrari to appear out of nothing, in fact, that seems more likely, being something far, far less complex.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 7:59:51 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
the Tor•âh′ —which, interestingly, translates to "Instruction" (not "law" as popularly alleged)
I have difficulties with this, because neither of these two words are in Hebrew or Aramaic, or any ancient language. Our ideas of what word mean come to us by translations. And then, the language to which it is translated, may change in meaning over time, which is a common difficulty that we have with the King James bible, for example. However, if the Creator gives an "instruction", in what sense is it not "law"?. By drawing this distinction, do you mean to say it is a "suggestion"? How is it that the "instructions" of Kings and Presidents and Judges become "law", while those of the Creator, remain "instructions"? Is it simply that you wish to avoid the seemingly negative connotation that comes with the word "law"? Because, if the source of the "instructions" comes with sufficient authority, then those words really become analogous.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 8:13:59 PM
|
|
|
navyblueret
Posts: 1970
Joined: 11/29/2008
From: S/W Nebraska
Status: offline
|
If you are speaking to: There is no space large enough to contain the universal limitlessness, and yet capable of being so diminutive that there nothing smaller theorem, it cannot be comprehended by any finite mind, you are probably right, but I cannot fathom the depth, nor the height, nor the intelligence needed to create that complexity. I retire to the sideline, as I have been through this argument before, and got lost in the maze of 'what-If.'
In Messiah. Arley Oh, and a hearty Welcome to the Forum from this immortal, residing still in mortality.
In Messiah, His Blessing, and Perfection. Arley
PS: If: In my perfect imperfection, I am made perfect, in Messiah, Jesus our Messiah, I agree most heartily.
< Message edited by navyblueret -- 9/26/2009 8:20:31 PM >
_____________________________
In the name of 'THE' Mashiach, Man the wall, set the watch, sound the Shofar. Our redemption draws nigh.
Messiah, my Captain, and Helmsman.
(Joh 14:6 KJV) ... I am the way, the truth, and the life: ...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/26/2009 8:24:34 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tony.nz
quote:
Causality applies within the universe, which has space-time, but you're trying to apply it to the universe.
Why should causality not apply to the Universe? Either the universe has a cause, or it does not. If not, then it happened out of nothing.
Because, as the OP noted, time is a part of the universe itself. The universe doesn't exist within time, time is a component of the universe.
Causality talks about the relationship between a first event and a second event, one being the cause and one being the effect. If there's no time, then "first" and "second" seem to lose their meaning (like the concept "up" when floating in the vacuum of space) and likewise, "cause" and "effect" seem to become... if not nonexistent than something very unfamiliar indeed.
Your second and third sentences also apply of-the-universe logic to the context of the universe itself. I don't think we are equipped to understand whether cause and effect even apply to the proposition.
< Message edited by huangshan -- 9/26/2009 8:31:49 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/27/2009 6:55:44 AM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
I fear that we are heading away from the point of the opening post.
Nevertheless. Although time found it's beginning at the first event, and the universe does not exist within time, it does seem intuitively obvious that there is some other identity or state ("beyond", -for the sake of my inability to find another word-, the space time continuum), within which it finds it's context. To suppose otherwise would reduce the fact of the universe's existence to an absurdity. It would also seem obvious that, since the Universe had a beginning, in some way or manner, it proceeded or was brought forth from that other identity or state.
You say that causality talks about a relationship between a first and second event. In the context of the universe which we find ourselves in, the first and second event are defined or ordered by time. However, there is no reason to suppose that the first and second event might not be otherwise defined or ordered in the absence of time. This would not necessarily cause it to lose it's meaning, it simply means that it's meaning becomes difficult if not impossible for us to identify, because we exist in a time based environment. Meaning is not however dependent on our comprehension.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/27/2009 7:38:23 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
I fear that we are heading away from the point of the opening post. What is the point of the OP? Everything we know to be an event always has a cause sufficient to produce that thing. The universe is an event which contains incomprehensible energy in incomprehensible space through incomprehensible time. Thus, only an Omnipotent, Infinite, and Eternal Cause is sufficient to produce the universe. No question in my mind Who the Creator is!!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/27/2009 2:43:55 PM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: tony.nz
I fear that we are heading away from the point of the opening post.
I think the OPs argument is faulty and I'm arguing as such.
quote:
Nevertheless. Although time found it's beginning at the first event, and the universe does not exist within time, it does seem intuitively obvious that there is some other identity or state ("beyond", -for the sake of my inability to find another word-, the space time continuum), within which it finds it's context. To suppose otherwise would reduce the fact of the universe's existence to an absurdity.
It's only absurd given our ignorance, I think, much like anything else in the realm of the very large and very small and very old. I'm not advocating that this "absurdity" necessarily is the correct answer, but it seems silly to apply our four dimensional perceptions to something that may have many more dimensions.
I dispute the OP's premises and I think that, while the argument may very well be true, it's not airtight and it's definitely not proof.
Here's an allegory that may make my position more clear:
...
Actually, I just wrote it. It may not be clear given the subject matter, but hopefully it's interesting:
There is a computer, and it runs a program that creates an artificial reality. To make the reality easy for us to understand, let's just say it's an ultra-real version of Grand Theft Auto 4, with truly intelligent beings that are capable of contemplating their own existence.
This is a reality that is contained on a computer. Any observations made by that reality's denizens are necessarily confined by that program. There is no way for those denizens to contemplate the reality of their existence. They will never see the computer's processor, they will never manipulate that processor, they will never know the weight, height, length, depth of that processor. They will never know how old it is, and they will never even know of its very existence. That computer is the context of their existence, and because of their relationship to it, they are unable to ever interact with it.
Now, imagine that instead of Grand Theft Auto 4, imagine that instead it is one of those old 2-D games like Mario Brothers. Keep the intelligence, but alter the number of dimensions. Now there's another level of abstraction for the denizens to muddle through. How could a being of a 2-D world (plus time) contemplate existing on a computer in a 3-D world (plus time)?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/27/2009 3:14:47 PM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
My understanding of the opening post is that the main point was that the Torah was in some way meant to be the first and final "instruction manual". The cosmological argument was simply a prequel, and must be accepted in one form or another by all non-atheists in any case.
I think your allegory is interesting and has some relevance, however I would point out that if "that reality's denizens" postulated that there was no reality outside of their context, and that the first event was the point at which the computer was first switched on, then they would be wrong, and quite absurd in that conclusion. The computer maker could also programme in some knowledge of outside reality.
< Message edited by tony.nz -- 9/27/2009 3:35:54 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/28/2009 1:19:10 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
I should say first, I think I'm straying off topic here, and I don't want to give the impression that I'm just distracting from the subject. I have genuine issues with the assumptions made and I'm just arguing against them.
I say this because I realize what I'm writing is very weird and may be difficult to relate to.
quote:
ORIGINAL: tony.nz
My understanding of the opening post is that the main point was that the Torah was in some way meant to be the first and final "instruction manual". The cosmological argument was simply a prequel, and must be accepted in one form or another by all non-atheists in any case.
I'm an agnostic theist. My position is that God likely exists in some form, but given our limitations and situation it's impossible to make any kind of informed postulations. Everything is just stabbing into the dark.
quote:
I think your allegory is interesting and has some relevance, however I would point out that if "that reality's denizens" postulated that there was no reality outside of their context, and that the first event was the point at which the computer was first switched on, then they would be wrong, and quite absurd in that conclusion. The computer maker could also programme in some knowledge of outside reality.
I think it would be a mistake for them to assume that the context, the "outside reality" can be understood on their reality's terms. If you want to get weird, we could suggest that, given that the reality exists only in the myriad of circuits and synapses and whatever else the computer is composed of, the reality doesn't actually "exist" at all (as it were), much like a thought or a dream.
We could also postulate that the program runs backwards, and the conclusion of the reality's history is actually programmed first, and the program actually creates the premises from the conclusion. The past in that reality is an illusion and the "beginning" is actually at the conclusion of that reality.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 9/28/2009 4:56:20 AM
|
|
|
tony.nz
Posts: 148
Joined: 7/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
I'm an agnostic theist. My position is that God likely exists in some form, but given our limitations and situation it's impossible to make any kind of informed postulations. Everything is just stabbing into the dark.
I respect that, but I am mindful that the discussion has gone in a direction that the OP did not expect. In regard to the opening part of his argument, I am with him. We are disagreeing on the possibility of it being otherwise. I see that possibility as so insignificant as to be to all intents and purposes zero, you see it somewhat higher. However, out of respect to the OP, I would like to welcome him back into the discussion in regard to the second part of his argument, which is the role of the Torah.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 10/24/2009 6:49:55 AM
|
|
|
andersbra
Posts: 1
Joined: 10/3/2009
Status: offline
|
Hello to you all! Thanks for your replies!
Drmark wrote:
” Welcome to the Forums, A_B! What exactly would you like to discuss about the Cosmological Argument or what I prefer to call it - the Argument from Universal Causality? ”
Thanks for your welcome! I just wanted to present a formal logical proof so that non-theists get logical arguments of the existence of a Creator.
“How has the order of the Universe been affected by the Fall and Curse? “
The matter/energy of the universe – with no observed exceptions – always follows the orderly laws of nature. Notions of a “Fall and Curse” are not doctrines that one logically can deduce from Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible.
“The consensus among Bible scholars is that Moses wrote the Pentateuch around 1450 BC. Are you referring to the source documents and/or oral traditions that he used under divine inspiration? ”
The oldest account in Torah is about 6000 years old. First it was passed orally and later it was written down. Read more here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/could-bereshit-genesis-1168-be-history.html
Tony.nz wrote:
” The kalaam cosmological argument has been around for some, and was I understand first mooted by Islamic scholars in the middle ages.
I am not sure that I follow the rest of your logic. Where exactly do you place "the beginning of recorded history?". Also, I thought that judaism considered the Torah as "instruction' for the people of the judaic faith only, not for all mankind. You seem to be saying that the Creator gave mankind this "life instruction manual" because the Creator is "being Just and Orderly, necessarily placed an explanation, a "Life's Instruction Manual," within the reach of His subjects—humankind." Why then, is it only available to part of humankind? It doesn't seem just and orderly that, say, the aborigines in Australia don't have these "instructions". How then are those without the Torah to be judged by it?”
My reply:
Logic dictates that the Instructions in Torah are for all of humankind (the proof I already have presented). The Creator is perfect.
“Torâh explains why the Creator created you and the purpose of your life: relating to the Singularity-Creator and how to commune with Him. Because of the principle of le-havdil bein Qodësh le-khol (wa-Yiqrâ 10.10), necessitated by the mutual exclusivity of His Perfection and our imperfection, His Seiphër Torâh provides the Guidelines (mitzwot, mishpâtim and khuqim) to relate properly to His creation and His other creatures, including the rest of humankind. Living (not believing or intellectually recognizing) according to His Seiphër Torâh is what enables His gracious provision of kipur to blot-out imperfections, thereby permitting us to commune with Him and, eventually, with the rest of His Seiphër Torâh community in hâ-olâm ha-bâ”
[For the words you don’t understand please see the website www.netzarim.co.il ; Glossaries in the main page]
Quote from “Atonement in the Biblical Covenant” by Paqid Yirmeyahu
You wrote: “the aborigines in Australia don't have these "instructions".
Since you agree with me that the Bible (when I write the Bible I always refer to the Jewish Bible) contains the instructions of the Creator I will use it in my argumentation. As is recorded in the Bible the Israelites were the only people originating from Noakh, whom chose to apply the Instructions of the Creator (when one is reading Bereshit (“Gensis”) one notes that the Hebrews/Israelites had instructions they adhered to, and this developed more and more to finally become Torah). The people in Kanaan for example had rejected the Instructions of the Creator and started to serve other “elohim” (gods – (not corresponding to real beings)) than the Creator of the universe. The Israeliets was the only people that chose to make a Covenant, which by definition always has obligations, with the Creator.
The Bible (for example in Yeshayhu (“Isiah”) chapter 2 and 49 – in Hebrew) has implications that the Jews should be a light to the nations by learning others the ways of Torah: http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1002.htm
Every individual from the aborigines in Australia can access Torah through the internet. Every aborigine in Australia can deduce (explanation: an argument or reasoning process in which the conclusion follows from the premises with logical necessity) that the Creator must have revealed His instructions for humankind and then start the search to find these instructions.
That Torah is for all people is consistent with what Tan’’kh (the Jewish Bible) teaches will happen to “goyim” (the definition in the Bible of persons not included (by their free will to reject the Instructions of the Creator) in the Covenant with the Creator.). Search for the word “goyim” (גוים ) in a concordance.
You wrote about Torah and the translation “Instruction”: “I have difficulties with this, because neither of these two words are in Hebrew or Aramaic, or any ancient language. Our ideas of what word mean come to us by translations. And then, the language to which it is translated, may change in meaning over time, which is a common difficulty that we have with the King James bible, for example. However, if the Creator gives an "instruction", in what sense is it not "law"?. By drawing this distinction, do you mean to say it is a "suggestion"? How is it that the "instructions" of Kings and Presidents and Judges become "law", while those of the Creator, remain "instructions"? Is it simply that you wish to avoid the seemingly negative connotation that comes with the word "law"? Because, if the source of the "instructions" comes with sufficient authority, then those words really become analogous.”
My reply: To translate a word is not any guess work. It is a science called etymology. Please also read the glossary entry “Torah” in the Netzarim-website referred to above.
The reason to use the word “instruction” is because that is the correct translation. According to the logic I have presented (the reasoning in the above paragraph containing the sentence “Singularity-Creator and how to commune with Him”) it is very important that we keep the Instructions in Torah. This is also the viewpoint of the Bible. In Yirmeyahu 31:32f (in Hebrew as always) it says that the new Covenant will be signified by Torah-keeping from the heart.
http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1131.htm
Drmark wrote:
What is the point of the OP? Everything we know to be an event always has a cause sufficient to produce that thing. The universe is an event which contains incomprehensible energy in incomprehensible space through incomprehensible time. Thus, only an Omnipotent, Infinite, and Eternal Cause is sufficient to produce the universe. No question in my mind Who the Creator is!!
My reply: I agree with you on the existence of a Creator. My post also has logical implications of how he wants humankind to live. Do you live according to those implications?
Huangshan wrote: “Here is my problem with this line of reasoning. There is a universe, and inside it there are the properties that you mention, time and space and all the associated paraphernalia.
You are extending the properties within the universe to the universe itself. Causality applies within the universe, which has space-time, but you're trying to apply it to the universe.
Here is the contradiction:
You note that "there can be such thing as time external to the physical universe".
Why or how would causality exist outside the physical universe then? Why posit that something need to have "caused" the physical universe in your model if causality necessarily only exists within the universe?”
My reply: 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 y’all: Have a nice weekend! Anders Branderud
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 10/24/2009 9:53:45 PM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
My reply: I agree with you on the existence of a Creator. My post also has logical implications of how he wants humankind to live. Do you live according to those implications? Okay, A_B, I gather you have changed your name. Thank you for your evangelistic efforts here. If you wish to review some of my 4000+ posts, I'm sure you will see that I value living for my Creator above everything!
quote:
The matter/energy of the universe – with no observed exceptions – always follows the orderly laws of nature. Notions of a “Fall and Curse” are not doctrines that one logically can deduce from Tan’’kh – the Jewish Bible. I'm really not sure what you're claiming here, anbra. The Genesis account has a very clear and readable account of the Fall and Curse. In fact, the Hebrew word arar, translated "cursed", is specifically used by God in His response to Adam. There have been numerous examples of matter/energy not "always following the orderly laws of nature". Jesus appearing suddenly in closed rooms is one obvious event.
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 10/25/2009 10:31:01 AM
|
|
|
huangshan
Posts: 2309
Joined: 8/6/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: andersbra
Huangshan wrote: “Here is my problem with this line of reasoning. There is a universe, and inside it there are the properties that you mention, time and space and all the associated paraphernalia.
You are extending the properties within the universe to the universe itself. Causality applies within the universe, which has space-time, but you're trying to apply it to the universe.
Here is the contradiction:
You note that "there can be such thing as time external to the physical universe".
Why or how would causality exist outside the physical universe then? Why posit that something need to have "caused" the physical universe in your model if causality necessarily only exists within the universe?”
My reply: 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.
My reply: Causality, again, applies within the universe. I don't think we have secular information to accurately speculate on the nature of the context of the universe using concepts derived from teh physics of teh universe. "Beginning" is of a similar conceit. The characters of a book believe their past is the book's past. The book may have been printed or written in reverse order though. The status of its creation is not something its contents can accurately comprehend.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 11/3/2009 10:21:45 AM
|
|
|
KaptZ
Posts: 155
Joined: 10/28/2009
From: The swamps of Jersey
Status: offline
|
Why are we constantly seeking 'proof' of God's existence? Would we be better off if we KNEW one way or the other? Let's leave a little mystery to life.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 11/3/2009 11:19:28 AM
|
|
|
Gloryandgrace
Posts: 839
Joined: 1/15/2006
Status: offline
|
God lives outside of the created universe, yet lives with in it in terms of indwelling his people and manifesting his presence. God is omnipresent.
God is wholly other, which means He is not subject to any philosophical rationale that attempts to force him into our outside of anything. What we do know about God he has revealed to us.
The proof of God lives within all of us, its called the 'witness of creation'. Denial of God within the heart is what drives men to bring arguments that amount to pointless typing lessons.
quote:
There is a computer, and it runs a program that creates an artificial reality. To make the reality easy for us to understand, let's just say it's an ultra-real version of Grand Theft Auto 4, with truly intelligent beings that are capable of contemplating their own existence.
This is a reality that is contained on a computer. Any observations made by that reality's denizens are necessarily confined by that program. There is no way for those denizens to contemplate the reality of their existence. They will never see the computer's processor, they will never manipulate that processor, they will never know the weight, height, length, depth of that processor. They will never know how old it is, and they will never even know of its very existence. That computer is the context of their existence, and because of their relationship to it, they are unable to ever interact with it
Huangshan: The above quote is you outside of Jesus Christ. You are blind to the God who created the universe and you cannot comprehend what God's plans and purposes are. It is God himself who opens the minds and hearts of the Christian to know and understand the God who created all things, to them He has revealed his Son and given them eternal life. Your presuppositions are your own blindness to the truth of God and to what God has done in the world. You will never know God because youve accepted some form of philosophical argument that favors your intellect. God reveals himself by the Spirit of God through the word of God.
What you need is to know the gospel. What you are and who God is, then what God has done through His Son to save sinful blinded men.
John
_____________________________
Isa 42:6 I the LORD have called thee in righteousness, and will hold thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for a covenant of the people, for a light of the Gentiles.....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 11/4/2009 5:05:48 AM
|
|
|
marshalbrown
Posts: 2
Joined: 3/26/2007
Status: offline
|
ahhhhhhhhh so much information and a lot I need to learn. As the subject being proof for an Intelligent Creator I have been having a hard time lately. It seems as though I'm growing distant, (or maybe I was distant all along). I don't know, but I know I'm struggling with the fact that God exist now. There is so much to learn out there. Whether physics, logic, philosophy, reasoning, theology... e.t.c. I feel as though I'm drifting from what I used to believe. I've been reading some Christopher Hitchens "God is not Great" and I see some good arguments and some not so good... and have been reading some Timothy Keller "reason for God"... I'm so confused and its sooo hard. All I can say is... I have to have faith, but it seems I have to jump in all the way into such uncertainty. Can someone help me or lead me into the right direction.. maybe some good books? I don't know.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Proof for an Intelligent Creator and His purpose - 11/4/2009 8:40:03 AM
|
|
|
drmark
Posts: 4622
Joined: 7/10/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Can someone help me or lead me into the right direction.. maybe some good books? I don't know. Two really good books I recommend are Psalms and Romans. With the right attitude, they can remove all traces of your confusion! 1 Cor 14:33 - "For God is not the author of confusion but of peace"
Welcome to the Forums, mb!
_____________________________
Jeremiah 31:31-34. The time is NOW, fellow saints!
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
