A Solution to the Birth of the Universe

Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
A Solution to the Birth of the Universe

I have a simple question for anyone who wishes to answer: does anyone think it is plausible that a Darwinian (as an analogy) process is responsible for the cosmos?  If so, what is the best evidence that can be demonstrated for this hypothesis?  I can think of a few, beginning with virtual particles within the quantum vacuum, but does anyone have any suggestions how a God could scientifically be ruled out of the formation of our universe that might be their own theory?


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:I have a simple

Matt wrote:

I have a simple question for anyone who wishes to answer: does anyone think it is plausible that a Darwinian (as an analogy) process is responsible for the cosmos?  If so, what is the best evidence that can be demonstrated for this hypothesis?  I can think of a few, beginning with virtual particles within the quantum vacuum, but does anyone have any suggestions how a God could scientifically be ruled out of the formation of our universe that might be their own theory?

Well, that's not a simple question, but it is also an unclear question. 

The only Darwinian process that I think of in this context is best fitted.  A God is an unclear and ambiguous concept, science is fundamentally an explanation of natural processes.  In order for a god to be ruled out, you must first define said god.  If you clearly define the properties us such a being than you can being to scientifically investigate said god.  

If you mean theoretically, consider Occam's razor, all things being equal, moving forward the hypothesis with least amount of assumptions has a better chance of being correct.  Proposing God did it, with all the assumptions God implies rules God out as being a pragmatically viable solution. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Let me try to ask the

Let me try to ask the question in a more complex way:

Firstly, let us define God as a prime motivator who is intelligent, and who designed the entire universe we inhabit (and all other possible ones).  This God will be the Judeo-Christian God.  This God not only fine-tuned the universe, but willed it into existence.  On that point I should have given a definition.

Second, with this type of God in mind to compare to natural processes, how could a theory equivelent to Darwinism in cosmic formation (or cosmology) determine the Judeo-Christian God was not the prime motivator for existence?

I made a mistake is stating this as a simple question.  Its rather simple to me because I have pondered it and arrived at my own conclusion.  But I am curious as to someone else's.

Oh, btw.  Occam's razor is a good response, but it may not be an entirely valid one.   There isn't really a neat answer.


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:Let me try to ask

Matt wrote:

Let me try to ask the question in a more complex way:

Firstly, let us define God as a prime motivator who is intelligent, and who designed the entire universe we inhabit (and all other possible ones).  This God will be the Judeo-Christian God.  This God not only fine-tuned the universe, but willed it into existence.  On that point I should have given a definition.

Second, with this type of God in mind to compare to natural processes, how could a theory equivelent to Darwinism in cosmic formation (or cosmology) determine the Judeo-Christian God was not the prime motivator for existence?

I made a mistake is stating this as a simple question.  Its rather simple to me because I have pondered it and arrived at my own conclusion.  But I am curious as to someone else's.

Oh, btw.  Occam's razor is a good response, but it may not be an entirely valid one.   There isn't really a neat answer.

Since you've defined your god into existence (and it contradicts the Judeo-Christian God he can be worked in a way to answer your question any way you desire it.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Well, don't get me wrong I

Well, don't get me wrong I am not trying to argue in favor of a theistic view.

 

I'll provide my answer in a while.  The argument is against design by any intelligent designer, be they the Christian God or Allah.  But it pertains only to this universe specifically, or others that may have been created in tangent to ours.


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:Let me try to ask

Matt wrote:

Let me try to ask the question in a more complex way:

Firstly, let us define God as a prime motivator who is intelligent, and who designed the entire universe we inhabit (and all other possible ones).  This God will be the Judeo-Christian God.  This God not only fine-tuned the universe, but willed it into existence.  On that point I should have given a definition.

Second, with this type of God in mind to compare to natural processes, how could a theory equivelent to Darwinism in cosmic formation (or cosmology) determine the Judeo-Christian God was not the prime motivator for existence?

I made a mistake is stating this as a simple question.  Its rather simple to me because I have pondered it and arrived at my own conclusion.  But I am curious as to someone else's.

Oh, btw.  Occam's razor is a good response, but it may not be an entirely valid one.   There isn't really a neat answer.

I think I know what you're asking.

First off, at the moment, (based on my level of understanding) there are a few particles that physicists aren't sure of that would help complete different models. Not just the Higgs.

But, be that as it may, even with what is currently known, it's not difficult at all to see how the particles arrange in complex formations due to sub atomic complexities coupled with atomic level interactions, coupled with universal level interactions.

There's things going on over here, over there, then those two get combined, then that conglomeration is introduced to another conglomeration, and there are subsets that are affected by the larger superset systems, that cause cascade effects, blah blah blah

.....

I started writing more, then I scrapped it, because there are just too many sub systems and supersystems going on that affect on the process at many different levels, and with different force. There are different 'taps' on the schematic, with feedback loops and regeneration loops and oscillators and modulation, phase reversals, phase rotation, intermodulation distortions...

In my mind I'm seeing a lot of schematic circuit diagram type maps to try and condense it.

I can't put it in a nutshell.

Maybe BobSpence1 can...lol

 

Now, as far as how they came up with the stupid theory for god, that one is easy. All you need to do is model the math, geometry and scientific knowledge at the time, with the understanding of the philosophic methodology at the time, and you see just how dimwitted these 'thinkers' were.

They simply invented an antithesis to 'nature', and ran with that. Purely circular and ad hoc reasoning. They started looking at the natural world, and when they felt they hit a contradiction (the infinite regress dilemma) they simply agreed that the answer must be found 'over there', IOW the 'not natural' realm.

Tada!

Invent a world where the answers of origins must be!

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you!  That is a great

Thank you!  That is a great response!  I will throw in my two cents when I make sure what I'm writing isn't total crap.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
You lost me as soon as you

You lost me as soon as you brought god into it. And I do not mean I was confused. I mean, bullshit, is what I am calling the op.

Instead of thinking of "all this" being the result of a cognitive "who" you might want to think of it as a climate full of processes, a "what". Much like the climate of the atmosphere can lead to processes that lead to a hurricane. None of the hurricane is produced by an ocean god. So why would the universe need a cognition as a cause?

Whatever we don't know about origins do not need to be conflated to a magic non material thinking entity, by any label. Whatever came before the big bang would be just as much an object as a quark or raindrop or rock. It would simply be a thing.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:Let me try to ask

Matt wrote:

Let me try to ask the question in a more complex way:

Firstly, let us define God as a prime motivator who is intelligent, and who designed the entire universe we inhabit (and all other possible ones).  This God will be the Judeo-Christian God.  This God not only fine-tuned the universe, but willed it into existence.  On that point I should have given a definition.

Second, with this type of God in mind to compare to natural processes, how could a theory equivelent to Darwinism in cosmic formation (or cosmology) determine the Judeo-Christian God was not the prime motivator for existence?

I made a mistake is stating this as a simple question.  Its rather simple to me because I have pondered it and arrived at my own conclusion.  But I am curious as to someone else's.

Oh, btw.  Occam's razor is a good response, but it may not be an entirely valid one.   There isn't really a neat answer.

Edit: took out a whole paragraph of nitpicking.  Smiling  Bottom line is that classic Darwinism (or neo Darwinism) and modern cosmology models are incommensurable.

Occam's razor is a tool to economize energy when arriving at a conclusion.  It doesn't get much neater then that. Smiling

 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:Matt wrote:Let

Ktulu wrote:

Matt wrote:

Let me try to ask the question in a more complex way:

Firstly, let us define God as a prime motivator who is intelligent, and who designed the entire universe we inhabit (and all other possible ones).  This God will be the Judeo-Christian God.  This God not only fine-tuned the universe, but willed it into existence.  On that point I should have given a definition.

Second, with this type of God in mind to compare to natural processes, how could a theory equivelent to Darwinism in cosmic formation (or cosmology) determine the Judeo-Christian God was not the prime motivator for existence?

I made a mistake is stating this as a simple question.  Its rather simple to me because I have pondered it and arrived at my own conclusion.  But I am curious as to someone else's.

Oh, btw.  Occam's razor is a good response, but it may not be an entirely valid one.   There isn't really a neat answer.

Edit: took out a whole paragraph of nitpicking.  Smiling  Bottom line is that classic Darwinism (or neo Darwinism) and modern cosmology models are incommensurable.

Occam's razor is a tool to economize energy when arriving at a conclusion.  It doesn't get much neater then that. Smiling

 

In laymen's terms "If it sound's too good to be true, it probably is".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
I appreciate all

I appreciate all responses.  I think the question is not well understood however.  I am using Darwinism as an analogy.  True, neo-Dawinism and cosmology are incommesurable.  And I believe Occam's razor plays a role in an answer.  However, the question asks for cosmology, is there a theory or set of theories that explain how the appearance of fine tuning and complexity arrived by completely natural means without the possibility of an intelligent designer?  Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) was a profound discovery in the field of biology.  It explained how evolution was responsible for enviornmental adaptation and incredible complexity, originally (and once nearly universally) thought to be the work of an intelligent designer.  The analogy, although perhaps difficult to grasp at first, becomes easier to understand when you look at it from that standpoint.

And, no, Occam's razor is not neccessarily a viable solution on its own.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Matt wrote:I appreciate all

Matt wrote:

I appreciate all responses.  I think the question is not well understood however.  I am using Darwinism as an analogy.  True, neo-Dawinism and cosmology are incommesurable.  And I believe Occam's razor plays a role in an answer.  However, the question asks for cosmology, is there a theory or set of theories that explain how the appearance of fine tuning and complexity arrived by completely natural means without the possibility of an intelligent designer?  Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) was a profound discovery in the field of biology.  It explained how evolution was responsible for enviornmental adaptation and incredible complexity, originally (and once nearly universally) thought to be the work of an intelligent designer.  The analogy, although perhaps difficult to grasp at first, becomes easier to understand when you look at it from that standpoint.

And, no, Occam's razor is not neccessarily a viable solution on its own.

Atoms and quarks make up the mass in the universe. They also make up the atoms in DNA. But the origins of the universe are a different process than biological evolution. Trying to treat them as the same is absurd.

This would be like trying to treat a unicycle the same as a Lamborghini the same because wheels(atoms) are involved in both.

A human brain is part of the body. So is the skin. But a brain cannot function as skin because it is not skin. But both are made up of atoms.

The "what came before the big bang, before the singularity" is unknown. But simply because atoms make up the sun and atoms make up human brains does not mean that what came before requires a human like cognition. The universe is not structured like a human brain so thus cannot function like one. So what came before would be just as much a thing( a process).

Even with evolution is not a WHO or the cause of a who. It is a process. It is merely the result of atoms reacting to other atoms, just like the earth falls around the sun. There is no thought required for those things to happen.

WHAT you miss is that structure of something matters. How something is set up tells us about it's functions. Since the entire universe has no cerebellum, it cannot function like a human brain.

There is not only no reason to assume a cognition to all this, it is scientifically absurd knowing that thoughts require a material process, AND  a specific structure to occur.

However, science IS freaky in knowing that the atoms in me right now, were at one point in such a infinitely small space, with those of Ann Cunthead. That is freaky enough without postulating fictional super heros or suggesting cognition.

We are star dust, but that doesn't mean we are the the whims of something else. To suggest any generic or specific magical cosmic entity, cheapens the reality science allows us to measure. It reduces our finite existence to comic book status.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5810
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
A form of 'natural

A form of 'natural selection' has been proposed as a mechanism of cosmic evolution, 

wiki wrote:

originally proposed by eminent theoretical physicist and quantum gravity scholar Lee Smolin in 1992.

-http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes)

Stupid site software is confused by the bracketed terms at the end. For the moment, just copy the whole line, without the hyphen at the start, and paste it into your browser.

 

Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality

"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris

The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me

From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology


Matt
Posts: 22
Joined: 2011-10-28
User is offlineOffline
Thank you Bob Spence.  I

Thank you Bob Spence.  I hope the others read this article.  It is truly fascinating.  Especially Brian37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10550
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
There isn't sufficient

There isn't sufficient information. The best you can do is run probabilities. If you do, you find the probabilities are in our favour. But that alone isn't evidence.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence wrote:A form of

BobSpence wrote:

A form of 'natural selection' has been proposed as a mechanism of cosmic evolution, 

wiki wrote:

originally proposed by eminent theoretical physicist and quantum gravity scholar Lee Smolin in 1992.

-http://evodevouniverse.com/wiki/index.php/Cosmological_natural_selection_(fecund_universes)

Stupid site software is confused by the bracketed terms at the end. For the moment, just copy the whole line, without the hyphen at the start, and paste it into your browser.

 

Cute article,  I have read of the individual ideas even the colliding branes theory, but I find the whole "organic" analogy a little forced to say the least.  It has a certain artistic beauty to it, and makes for pretty good science fiction, but in the set of "out there" theoretical physics ideas, this one doesn't have a lot of scientific support behind it.  

I do like it thought, interesting read.

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Not even sure where to start

Not even sure where to start with this one.  It's the usual Christianity-centric set of arguments and counter-arguments, liberally spiced with assumptions and assertion based on same.

The notion that G-d somehow exists within, and subject to the laws of, the Universe is not supported within any mainstream Christian theology.  G-d created the Universe, which is to say that before there was a Universe for G-d to exist within, there was G-d.  G-d was, G-d is, G-d will be.  QED, G-d isn't "inside" the Universe, and G-d's pre-existence doesn't lend much support for G-d being subject to any of the laws of the Universe, on account of G-d seems to have pre-existed those as well.

The notion that (l'havdil) G-d "thinks" or has something like a "brain" isn't supported by earlier texts, or Islamic texts, but this concept that G-d is somehow like a person, and somehow exists =within= the created universe persists.  Blame the Romans.  They were big on killing Jews because we're not big on worshiping dictators ...

The best argument =for= some manner of Intelligent Design is the fact that it is the =laws= of Nature which make "nature" possible in the first place.  That is, an electron is an electron, and for all reasonable values of "behave", all electrons "behave" the same.  Repeat that statement for all of the fundamental particles, forces, etc.  The Design isn't random or subject to whim.

If you want to know the Design, learn the science.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Not

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Not even sure where to start with this one.  It's the usual Christianity-centric set of arguments and counter-arguments, liberally spiced with assumptions and assertion based on same.

The notion that G-d somehow exists within, and subject to the laws of, the Universe is not supported within any mainstream Christian theology.  G-d created the Universe, which is to say that before there was a Universe for G-d to exist within, there was G-d.  G-d was, G-d is, G-d will be.  QED, G-d isn't "inside" the Universe, and G-d's pre-existence doesn't lend much support for G-d being subject to any of the laws of the Universe, on account of G-d seems to have pre-existed those as well.

The notion that (l'havdil) G-d "thinks" or has something like a "brain" isn't supported by earlier texts, or Islamic texts, but this concept that G-d is somehow like a person, and somehow exists =within= the created universe persists.  Blame the Romans.  They were big on killing Jews because we're not big on worshiping dictators ...

The best argument =for= some manner of Intelligent Design is the fact that it is the =laws= of Nature which make "nature" possible in the first place.  That is, an electron is an electron, and for all reasonable values of "behave", all electrons "behave" the same.  Repeat that statement for all of the fundamental particles, forces, etc.  The Design isn't random or subject to whim.

If you want to know the Design, learn the science.

You either completely missed the point of this thread, or you posted this in the wrong thread.  Also, to say that god is outside the universe is the equivalent of saying that god is in fhsrrrnqk.  Unless you can define, or have a concept of what you mean by outside the universe your words are no better than a three month old baby's.  You're just making noises (or the typed equivalent).

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Furry, I promise your cat

Furry, I promise your cat teets wont fall off if you type God out as a word. It is merely a taboo you bought into.

No differnet than Muslims only wipe with their left hand. There turbans wont fall off it they wipe with their right hand.

If we can figure out what "G-d" means, it seems silly to leave out the o.

"I- w- c-n f-g-re o-t wh-t "God" m-ans, -t s--ms s-lly t- -eave ou- th- o.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Furry, I

Brian37 wrote:

Furry, I promise your cat teets wont fall off if you type God out as a word. It is merely a taboo you bought into.

No differnet than Muslims only wipe with their left hand. There turbans wont fall off it they wipe with their right hand.

If we can figure out what "G-d" means, it seems silly to leave out the o.

"I- w- c-n f-g-re o-t wh-t "God" m-ans, -t s--ms s-lly t- -eave ou- th- o.

Do you call your parents by their first names?

And it isn't like God's name is "God", but the idea is more or less the same.  That and it seems to offend you somehow.

You stick to calling Mom and Dad, "Mom" and "Dad", and I'll stick to calling HaKadosh Baruch Hu, G-d.  Deal?

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13547
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Brian37

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Furry, I promise your cat teets wont fall off if you type God out as a word. It is merely a taboo you bought into.

No differnet than Muslims only wipe with their left hand. There turbans wont fall off it they wipe with their right hand.

If we can figure out what "G-d" means, it seems silly to leave out the o.

"I- w- c-n f-g-re o-t wh-t "God" m-ans, -t s--ms s-lly t- -eave ou- th- o.

Do you call your parents by their first names?

And it isn't like God's name is "God", but the idea is more or less the same.  That and it seems to offend you somehow.

You stick to calling Mom and Dad, "Mom" and "Dad", and I'll stick to calling HaKadosh Baruch Hu, G-d.  Deal?

The difference is tha my mom is real, your god is not. And it would not be against any law if my mom prefured to be called by her first name. No book tells me that.

It is just a tradition and a superstition for you. I am adressing a real person with a real prefference. Just like if I have a friend who doesn't smoke, I don't smoke in their house. One is practical and real dealing with real humans, the other is mere superstition based on popular myth.

But even in the case of real parents, even a parent doesn't deserve a title or respect. If they beat the shit out of the kid and abuse them, they haven't earned anything but scorn.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37