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-Creatorâ"Who must be Orderly; i.e. Perfect. An orderlyâ""not capricious," as Einstein put itâ"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 subjectsâ"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 â"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 isnât 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
Being logically consistent (orderly), our (to say perfectly-orderly would be a tautology) orderly universe must mirror its Prime Cause / Singularity-Creatorâ
First Of all, I apologize for copying and pasting an already copied and pasted article.
A singularity is not, in the science world, a "creator" such as an entity. Hypothetically, in short, it is a point in the universe of infinite volume and density which infinitely distorts time and space. It is considered to be the point of origin for the big bang. However, singularities are considered to exist in the middle of black holes also ... if this is true, the analogy of a singularity being "God" would be wrong. Unless you consider there to be millions of "Gods".
Quote: âAlso, if we're assuming a creator as a law of physics, the law of causality would apply to the creator too. Of course, the law could be changed to accommodate the creator, but for us to do that and have causality maintain law status there would need to be irrefutable proof that a creator exists in the first place - leading to a circular argument. ALSO, it's quite possible the law of causality was formed after the Universe started.â
My reply: We are not assuming causality as a law of Physics. Causality is a law of Physics. Causality is confirmed by many scientific observations, in the same way as the relative theory is confirmed by many observations. Some months ago I wrote to an Oxford physicist and he confirmed that there is none known scientific phenomena that contradicts causality (read the quote here: http://bloganders.blogspot.com/2009/09/refuting-counter-arguments-to-existence.html).
Causality 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 that many persons are stating to be true is: âThe laws of causality are not applicable before one plank-second after Big Bang.â (or the quote of âthisisnotannaltâ: âit's quite possible the law of causality was formed after the Universe started.â) Since this unknown state is a clear departure from the known state and contradicts science; the person who says there is a scientific phenomena that contradicts causality has to prove his/her point (i.e. he/she has the burden of proof), not merely assume it.
To say that the Creator must have a cause 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: âThere exists a non-dimensional Creator external to timespace, Who is the Prime Cause to the timespace.â 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 which indicates that there exists a cause to the Prime Cause and neither is it possible to derive that conclusion using deduction.
There is no intelligent engagement with anders on this topic, he just copies and pastes a wall of text from his blog. And, as Strop already pointed out, there is a simple logical fallacy of equivocation taking place here, which just makes this entire project fall apart. If anders had read that reply, he would stop posting. I think this is just becoming an ad for some kid's blog. So I'm locking this before more misinformation gets spread.
