A Philosophical Argument for a Creator?

In tens of thousands of years from now man will have so much intelligence and knowledge from which to draw.

 

One philosophical question i would ask is this – will he be able to create a rational self sustaining universe with life ?

Consider that he will have at his disposal : his intelligence; already existing material and laws; a working model to copy from; and the results of a gigantic amount of trial and error runs ?

If we answer no to this question then it is difficult to support our reality happening out of nothing by chance, the first time around.

If we answer yes, man with his scientific knowledge will be able to do that (and that is what i would argue for) then by rationality, we have to be open to the very real possibility that it has already been intelligently created for us.

The idea of a Creator is then easily shown to follow rational thinking. It is not a proof, but it clearly is based on sound rational thinking and experience. It is a rational idea exactly because we think we will be able to do the same ourselves one day. Does the atheist argument for a start to our universe without a Creator have as much rationality as that?  It is quite clear that it doesn’t.

On the one hand we can rationally see and plan and expect that man will create such an environment, on the other hand the philosophical idea of a universe starting without a creator is simply a hypothetical thought exercise not based on any rationality or experience whatsoever.

If we accept that our intelligence will produce a life sustaining environment then the idea that our environment may already have been created in such a way is based on rational logic. It is important to note that the opposite atheistic idea cannot at present, and perhaps never will be based on such a rational basis.

I would argue that there are clues in investigating our physical laws that suggest our reality is secondary. The secondary nature of matter is evident in the fact that matter pops in and out of existence as a normal part of nature. Quantum physics demonstrates matter also follows a probability reality rather than a definite positional reality when ‘unobserved’. Matter seems to ‘act differently’ on observation and this scientific finding cannot be accounted for by ‘mechanical disturbance’. Finally  all matter seems to be connected (by something) in a non material way, and this way is not bound by  ’cause and effect’ (relative to us) but gives the appearance, for some reason, to do so.

The scientific arguments i would use are :
1) the Observer Effect – especially with experiments such as the famous Delayed Choice Double Slit Experiment;
2) the Uncertaincy Principle especially in relation to the Observer Effect which suggests that the act of observation is fundamental to the laws of physics of how matter would act and lastly
3) Bells Theorem of Inequality which strongly feeds off the other two to suggest that reality is non local, although it appears to be local at our macro human experience.

I think that critically the observer effect is key. There is no reason in a ‘natural’ universe why matter should change “its behaviour” because of how much a scientist knows about its position.

It is very remniscent of computer programming in these ‘real life’ simulation games.

For example, suppose you are in one of these ‘virtual reality’ games and standing by the seaside. You might be watching the waves come in and some paper blow along the sand and a log drift with the tide.

If you moved your mouse and turned around, the created simulation might display a mountain with branches blowing in the wind, a waterfall and water cascading down as a river etc etc. In this virtual world, what happens to the ocean behind you when you are no longer facing it? What happens to the paper on the sand ? What happens to the log in the ocean ?

It is still ‘real’ in the sense that the programming allows for a mathematical probability (law) of what is likely to happen but it remains a probability until you (the user) turn back around and ‘force’ it to be ‘real’ again.

In computer programming, for efficiency sake, there are two laws, one for an observer and one law when ‘material’ is unobserved.

The programming (law of nature) is based around what is observed and what is not observed. That is exactly how we see our laws of nature in our reality.

Please watch :

Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser Experiment Explained.

Quantum Physics Debunks Materialism

Is the Moon there when Nobody looks?

I am not saying something silly like we are in a computer simulation, but I am saying that if you hold to the thinking that the world is ‘created’ then what we would expect (with our limited knowledge) is actually what we see in our laws of nature which we call science.

Now our computer programming is only about 40 years old. Where will it be in 4 million years time ?

If as many atheists claim, life is simply a set of neural programmed connections from a processing centre (the brain) in an environment (the universe) with access to a memory system (our memories) then man in 4 million years should easily be able to re-create life in a simulated world. But then you also have to be open to the possibility that it has already been created. That is a rational deduction. Not a proof but a rational deduction. Where is the rational deduction for the atheistic proposal? If we do not have one based on such rationality, then which view is the more rational?

In associated links i have highlighted the Christian nature of science. This knowledge shows that in the western world original science had the idea of a material world bound by laws, but also something intelligent behind those laws. This was always the Christian position and still is today.

Once we accept philosophically and scientifically the likelihood of an intelligent Creator then we look to see if this intelligence, which upholds our continual existence, has a message for us. From the acceptance of Christianity we then proceed to understand this ‘intelligence’ as a loving, forgiving God who calls us to be what is truly important – not only intelligent like Him but also loving like him. From this there are a whole lot of questions about why this and why that and how can God do this etc etc but these are theological questions that Christians (and Jews etc) have tried to answer for thousands of years.

But if we reject the philosophy of the early scientists, and accept the 19th century atheist philosophy, then we don’t progress off the first rung of the ladder.

So this page tries to make the philosophical argument that the idea of a Creator for our universe is much more rational than the atheist philosophy and that the result of modern quantum science suggests our reality is created and therefore modern science suggests a Creator.

For this second argument i would concentrate on the quantum scientific finding of the Observer Effect and how that scientifically does effect the behaviour of matter.

I would argue something like this :

If matter is dependable on the laws of physics                                          and if
matter is directly related to conscious observation                                    then
consciousness and the laws of physics are inextricably linked                 and if
the laws of physics have been with us from the start                                then
consciousness too, or the realisation of consciousness has also always been with us.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: