Content-Type: text/html Proof of the Possibility of a Creator (God); AKA Atheism Cannot Prove a Creator is Impossible
Sway the World
Browse by Thinker /Login /Mine /Monte Carlo Simulation /Update Settings /Register /Suggestions /Top

Proof of the Possibility of a Creator (God); AKA Atheism Cannot Prove a Creator is Impossible

Updated: 2012-07-11 23:39:09
2300 Views

 

Official Proof

1. We look at the evidence around us.
2. We see there are systems with designers. Solitaire and chess are examples.
3. This presents the possibility that there is a designer of other systems.
4. Our "chaotic" environment/universe has order, in one form or another, and therefore, since #2 and #3 are truthful statements, there is a possibility that the universe has a designer.


Below are various points discussed throughout the creation of this proof.

 

Notes for arguments against Atheism:

 

Point 1:

 

Yes, my logic says there are proven designers of "some" systems, and there are no systems without designers - that we can prove. What I am saying is this, all we can do is look at the universe and seek evidence.

So far, there are more examples of proven systems *with* designers, and there are *zero* examples of proven systems without designers.

What can we prove based on that? Nothing more than what I have stated.

However, I rest easy in knowing that all proven examples seem to support the idea that systems have designers. Do we know that for certain? Of course not.

 

Point 2 (from some person named Charles):

 

Question: Who created the creator? OR Your arguments about poker and chess are bogus because the “creator” created the designers.

 

Answer (from Charles):

Even if he were to make such a stupid argument the answer to it is obvious. The guy who invented the screw did not, by virtue of having done so, invent the automobile no matter how many screws are used in it's design. By the same token if it were true that there is a creator who designed humans he did not, by virtue of doing so, invent the free market economy.

 

 

Point 3:

 

I am not stating a logical proof for a creator. This is where you are astray. Therefore, you cannot use my "non-proof" to "prove" a creator doesn't exist. You prove nothing.

What I am stating is this:

There are 2 arguments.

1. Atheism
2. Deism (belief in some form of God)


Our universe is bound by some form of order. One of these forms of order (rules) is the Law of Gravity discovered by Isaac Newton in the 1600s. We have used this law to discover planets in our solar system.

Pretend, for the sake of argument, I have a special scale. This scale weighs arguments in *favor* (key word) of an idea, but only if those arguments are *solid proof*.

We have an Atheism side to the scale (#1) and a Deism side to the scale (#2).

For Atheism: No one here has provided proof of a system without a designer. For Deism: I have provided 2 systems that DO have designers: poker and chess
So far, Deism has stronger evidence in its favor. Atheism appears weak and unfounded.

 

Point 4 (chaos and order):

J.G. Kyker:
You see the strength in my argument. I can pick out rules/laws all day, and eventually we will get to one that has not been refuted by any scientific studies (yet).

 

A T Henderson:

That is precisely the weakness in your argument. Your argument is based upon the assumption that scientific "laws" are accurate, when in fact they are not. A law in science is always an approximation, and it is presumed that there will be situations in which it does not apply.

For example, the Thermodynamic laws to which you referred at one time included separate laws of conservation for both energy and matter. After Einstein demonstrated that they were both, in fact, the same thing, the latter law was dropped in favour of a revised law of conservation of energy. However, that law itself only applies in closed systems, of which there are no known examples in the Universe (and whether the Universe itself is a closed system remains unknown).

The Universe is wildly unpredictable, and despite our best efforts it refuses to conform to the rules and laws which we attempt to apply to it. That is it's sole point of consistency. What kind of maniac would design that?


Answer:
Wonderful points. Now that you mention it, I believe others have tried to put forth what you have so eloquently just stated.

First, let me say this. Change does not mean something doesn't exist. As you state, we have refined our rules and laws that pertain to the universe. Over time, we have discovered there is order in the universe to some degree. For instance, large bodies attract each other. This causes the planets to revolve around the sun: order. There is order. That is my point. No one can determine the origin of that order.

Second, regarding your statement, "What kind of maniac would design that?"

Consider that if someone did design it, that entity (whatever it is) is very difficult to understand with typical, worldly knowledge. We don't understand enough. Just because there is death and destruction in the world does not mean that in some form outside this time domain it is not worthwhile.

Consider the Matrix scenario (from the movie). It appears painful to leave the Matrix for the first time, but it is a good thing to leave the Matrix. The real existence is beyond, in that case, and the pain is worth it.

 

Point 5:

 

J.G. Kyker:
Over time, we have discovered there is order in the universe to some degree. For instance, large bodies attract each other. This causes the planets to revolve around the sun: order. There is order. That is my point. No one can determine the origin of that order.

 

A T Henderson:

But we can. Order is inherent in chaos. In any chaotic system, order will inevitably emerge, simply because that is the nature of chaos. It requires no intervention, no planning, it simply happens because that is what it does.

You are correct that we cannot really ever expect to explain that phenomenon, because we can never hope to truly understand chaos: it is perhaps further beyond the scope of the human mind than the already counter-intuitive realm of QM. That, however, is no reason to posit an entity responsible for and in control of it. Such an entity is quite unnecessary.


Answer:
Just because the entity may be unnecessary, doesn't mean they don't exist.

This still doesn't prove anything.

However, regarding your position that order is inherent in chaos, this proves my point nicely. All I need is order and the argument holds.

 

Point 6:

 

First, you would have to admit there is a creator to continue with this argument. Are you admitting this?

Second, we would have to establish whether or not the creator is bound by the rules of our system (read that universe). No one can prove this, and it is a waste of time.

Therefore, your question leads us nowhere. Nothing is proven.

 

Answer: All I have to admit is that a creator is possible. You cannot prove a creator is impossible.

 

Point 7:

 

And I can put forth proof there is a possibility. I cannot prove there is a God. You misunderstand the two.

There are two arguments here that you are confusing.

1. The possibility of a God.
2. The proof of God.

I put forth a proof earlier for #1. You, on the other hand, have put forth nothing as such for Atheism.

To reiterate my proof of the possibility:

1. We look at the evidence around us.
2. We see there are systems with designers. Solitaire and chess are examples.
3. This presents the possibility that there is a designer of other systems.
4. Our "chaotic" environment/universe has order, in one form or another, and therefore, since #2 and #3 are truthful statements, there is a possibility that the universe has a designer.

There is no proof, but there is possibility.

 

Point 8 (there are no rules):

 

However, what makes up a free market economy? Is there a rule or some form of order that it follows?

The statement, "There are no rules," resolves this difficulty.

There are no rules is a rule. Therefore, it disproves itself. You cannot have a scenario without some form of rules. This is the same thing as saying, "There is no truth." That statement is true. Therefore, it is fallacious.

There are rules even in a free market economy.

 

Point 9 (final, must be a human designer):

This is an excellent point.

That is, unless you want to argue Jesus is the creator.

This does work, still, from a Christian perspective due to Jesus. Which I find fascinating... however, you have to follow the proceeding logical proof:
a. We look at the evidence around us.
b. We see there are systems with designers. Solitaire, chess, and HTML scripting are examples.
c. This presents the possibility that there is a designer of other systems.
d. Our "chaotic" environment/universe has order, in one form or another, and therefore, since #2 and #3 are truthful statements, there is a possibility that the universe has a designer.

I can assume that there is a God, but I cannot prove it logically. Further, I can assume that my proof works for human designers. Since I believe in Christianity, my God took on human form and applies to the rule.

Some people favor the assumption "there is no God."

Since the people that fit in the latter category want solid evidence, and I cannot prove there is a God, the discussion can end. However, those same people should realize they accept the assumption "there is no God" without solid evidence too. So, I hope you see that.

Also, one last statement I would like to make about chaotic systems. The outcome of a chaotic system is highly dependent on its initial conditions. Since those initial conditions cannot be proven to be put in place by a designer or without a designer, it takes us to a dead-end. Nothing is proven.

Alright, that's all. Enjoy life.

Have fun! :)





Previous Comments Showing Thought(s) 1 - 2 of 2Next Comments
An Atheist Can Only Hope They are Right created by Anonymous Shadow on 2012-09-15 14:52:23

"With millions of people presently bearing witness to experiences that they have had with God, atheists and agnostics must deny all of their experiences. In the face of those witnesses, atheists and agnostics must maintain that every one of those millions of people are delusional or liars. Atheists must believe this even though they cannot prove that all of those people are delusional or liars. Since they cannot prove it, they are taking a blind leap to believe it. Indeed, the atheists are the ones putting blind faith in something for which they have no proof." From Christianity Unshackled by Harold Eberle

Deism Makes Life Exciting created by Anonymous Shadow on 2013-05-19 17:46:27

You ever been bored? This is because your focus is enjoying the pleasures of this world. Watching the latest and greatest movie or riding the fastest roller coaster can be fun and exciting, but eventually it gets old. We then hunger for something new. Boredom sets in.

Interacting with God brings excitement to life. Circumstances in life matter less as we interact more with the Creator.


Add a Thought
Make this Anonymous
Title it: Make this a Blog
[Show] [Hide] [Bold] [Get contents] [Get selected HTML] [Get selected text] [Get selected element] [Insert HTML] [Replace selection]