Refuting the Teleological Argument - The Universe Is Simple

Zymotic
Superfan
Zymotic's picture
Posts: 171
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Refuting the Teleological Argument - The Universe Is Simple

I've been reading about the teleological argument recently and I've watched several people attempt to refute it. While the argument sucks and just about any argument used against it is fine, there is something I had never heard said, or at least worded in this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOo1LLB_-s

 

I apologize for video quality. I thought I could get away with a smaller file size than I actually could.

My Brand New Blog - Jesu Ad Nauseum.
God of the Gaps: As knowledge approaches infinity, God approaches zero. It's introductory calculus.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I don't use the TA, but I

I don't use the TA, but I would like to point out that multi-verse theory proposes that universes can form in a lot of different ways.

Or even in Quantum Fluctuations, the simplest form is the most probable, not the only one.

 

 

 


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Well, perhaps I will

Well, perhaps I will get around to filing a video response later. However, your argument fails to impress me.

 

We think that there ought to be a reasonably simple thing at the bottom of physics and one day we hope to find it. Yet we are not there yet. The best that we have is actually a hairy mess.

 

On the large scale, we have relativity. It makes perfect sense and has been confirmed by countless experiments. We have “got the gold” there.

 

On the smallest scale, we have quantum physics. It forces us to abandon sense and replace it with probability. The math works well. If you do the math correctly, you will get the correct answers every single time but the correct answers simply do not make sense. We have “got the gold” there.

 

Now try to apply the gold from one world to that of the other. Here is the first mess.

 

There is no theory of quantum gravity. Except for the fact that there are many theories of quantum gravity and all of them are full of shit. Except for string theory and there are five of those. And they are all full of shit. Except for M theory which shows that all string theories are exactly the same.

 

We are not sure just what M theory requires but it may be that there are many universes, each with different “laws of physics”. This multi verse is different from the multi verse of quantum physics which is really a specific interpretation of quantum physics.

 

So what does all of this tell us? Is the universe simple? I would prefer it to be so but my preference does not dictate how the universe must be.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually, after reading

Actually, after reading AiG's post, I don't think I'm right in saying the simpelist form is the most probable, as I think I can come up with counter examples.

 

 

 


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
I think if we could get to

I think if we could get to the root of all things we would see an orderly system operating in a predictable manner. That is to say if we could observe the universe as it truly exist at the smallest scale possible, we would see the interactions and how the profoundly simple processes stack upon each other to make increasingly more complicated processes.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


MikeJones (not verified)
Posts: 4294964979
Joined: 1969-12-31
User is offlineOffline
spike.barnett wrote:I think

spike.barnett wrote:

I think if we could get to the root of all things we would see an orderly system operating in a predictable manner. That is to say if we could observe the universe as it truly exist at the smallest scale possible, we would see the interactions and how the profoundly simple processes stack upon each other to make increasingly more complicated processes.

 

We cannot observe the universe on the smallest scales because of the uncertainty principle. At the sub planck length the uncertainty principle dictates that spacetime is roiling with all sorts of twists. Spacial dimensions and time lose meaning. You can't even say for certain what is left - right, up - down, forward - backward, or before - after. Relativity fails at the Planck length.

 

String Theory seeks to smooth out that uncertainty by positing that 1 dimensional strings are the fundamental and smallest scale objects in the universe. They are themselves at the planck length, and even if we could hypothetically use a string beam for lack of a better term to try and probe sub planck length scales we would be unable to.

 

BTW, no argument thus presented by anyone about physics can conclusively disprove a creator (which does not necessarily mean a deity in the philosophical sense. See Tipler's Omega Point theory). The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation. The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger. No theories of multiverse, chaos, or cosmic accident get around this. Tipler's Omega Point would be able to simulate any universe, or even multiverse imaginable or describable. It can do this an infinite amount of times, and infinite amount of ways for an effective (from the view point of those in the simulation) infinite amount of time.


spike.barnett
Superfan
spike.barnett's picture
Posts: 1018
Joined: 2008-10-24
User is offlineOffline
MikeJones wrote:We cannot

MikeJones wrote:
We cannot observe the universe on the smallest scales because of the uncertainty principle. At the sub planck length the uncertainty principle dictates that spacetime is roiling with all sorts of twists. Spacial dimensions and time lose meaning. You can't even say for certain what is left - right, up - down, forward - backward, or before - after. Relativity fails at the Planck length.

 

String Theory seeks to smooth out that uncertainty by positing that 1 dimensional strings are the fundamental and smallest scale objects in the universe. They are themselves at the planck length, and even if we could hypothetically use a string beam for lack of a better term to try and probe sub planck length scales we would be unable to.

 

BTW, no argument thus presented by anyone about physics can conclusively disprove a creator (which does not necessarily mean a deity in the philosophical sense. See Tipler's Omega Point theory). The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation. The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger. No theories of multiverse, chaos, or cosmic accident get around this. Tipler's Omega Point would be able to simulate any universe, or even multiverse imaginable or describable. It can do this an infinite amount of times, and infinite amount of ways for an effective (from the view point of those in the simulation) infinite amount of time.

The proposed observation is nothing more than a thought experiment, I know it's not possible. The uncertainty principle (as far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) doesn't really say much about actuality, only observable reality. I think the cat in the box is either alive or dead and our observation of it is irrelevant. In the same way, lack of knowledge does not change position or momentum. It is what it is, regardless of how much information we have. To suggest that reality does not exist in a definite state prior to observation seems greatly narcissistic to me. We can only observe the universe through interactions and are in this way limited, but I fail to see how this limits the interactions themselves. Quantum interactions may still be determined by laws of reality simply unknown to us.

After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.

The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote: We cannot observe the

Quote:

We cannot observe the universe on the smallest scales because of the uncertainty principle.

This doesn't actually mean anything-and is an incorrect statement of the uncertainty principle.

 What the Heisenberg principle actually entails is fundamental limits on measurement accuracy in quantum mechanics. It arises because of quantization. The limits are innate properties of the system and not the result of the ability of the experimenter. It is impossible to measure conjugate variables with accuracy. If one conjugate variable is accurately measured, the other cannot be. In quantum mechanics, this is a consequence of the fact that the most unobtrusive measuring devices we could employ will inevitably disrupt the experiment. To record the position of an electron, we need to send a photon at it. The photon, however, will cause the electron to move. In macrosopic physical measurements the use of photons striking our eyes to measure something like the speed of a care is completely irrelevant. In quantum mechanics however the effect is significant because of the quantization of photons and electrons. As a consequence, position and velocity are conjugate quantities. By using a photon to accurately measure one, we have made it impossible to accurately measure the other.

 

Quote:

At the sub planck length

Que? There's no such thing.

Quote:

the uncertainty principle dictates that spacetime is roiling with all sorts of twists

Quantum foam is not a consequence of the uncertainty principle.

Quote:

You can't even say for certain what is left - right, up - down, forward - backward,

This is also not a consequence of quantum foam. In fact, it is simply a fundamental property of reference frames in general, namely, that there is no such thing as absolute space and time, and therefore that the concept of direction is only meaningful when assigned to a particular reference frame.

Quote:

Relativity fails at the Planck length.

Correct, but this is again, not a consequence of uncertainty.

Quote:

Tipler's Omega Point

Tipler's Omega point theory is impossible because it depends on a value for omega greater than 1 for the critical density of the universe, which has been experimentally falsified. The universe is accelerating in expansion. There is insufficient mass in the universe for contraction.

 

 

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 I do so tire of people who

 I do so tire of people who think they will impress scientists with big words.

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


KSMB
Scientist
KSMB's picture
Posts: 702
Joined: 2006-08-03
User is offlineOffline
MikeJones wrote:The fact

MikeJones wrote:
The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation. The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger.

Don't you just love this one? The universe [insert random fact], therefore my magical whim is correct. Why do they keep repeating this crap over and over, as if non sequiturs were somehow valid?


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
MikeJones wrote:BTW, no

MikeJones wrote:
BTW, no argument thus presented by anyone about physics can conclusively disprove a creator (which does not necessarily mean a deity in the philosophical sense. See Tipler's Omega Point theory).

Huh? "There is a creator" is a little weak as a hypothesis, wouldn't you say? So how would someone "conclusively disprove" that? You're talking crazy talk.

MikeJones wrote:
The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation.

Just like orange juice is a strong argument for Mighty Citrus Gods. I see your point.

MikeJones wrote:
The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger. No theories of multiverse, chaos, or cosmic accident get around this.

That's because they don't try to get around it! Why would they? That's not the point of them!

MikeJones wrote:
Tipler's Omega Point would be able to simulate any universe, or even multiverse imaginable or describable. It can do this an infinite amount of times, and infinite amount of ways for an effective (from the view point of those in the simulation) infinite amount of time.

Sigh. What deludedgod said.

Why is physics so scary that nobody wants to open a book with physics in it, and yet so appealing that everyone wants to talk about it? Is this like the mystery of why women date jerks?

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15771
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I don't

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

I don't use the TA, but I would like to point out that multi-verse theory proposes that universes can form in a lot of different ways.

Or even in Quantum Fluctuations, the simplest form is the most probable, not the only one.

 

 

 

Occham's Razor and law of probibility take care of the delema of "the unknown" efficiantly.

You talk about "fluctuations" as if they constitute magic. Do not fall into that trap.

It is most certian that scientific method has not answered everything. BUT, I warn against speculation of the unknown based upon the absurd challenges of the "Dumb and Dumber" crowd who would seek to fill in the gaps that science admits to with absurdity.

I am placing my bets on whatever came before what we cant currently scientifically through method, observe, as being as natural as what we know now, but simply not understood by our observations.

My point is that when scientific method cant fill in the gap, the wishfull theist, and even the si-fi fan fills in the gap with claims of Transporters and Harry Potter.

The safest bet is that magic doesn't exist, and we merely currently do not have full understanding of what we observe.

Are there things we dont know as a species? NO SHIT, call that one into CNN.

BUT, I default to whatever came before what we don't know right now, as  being mind blowing, but merely currently not observed, in meaning that whatever came before the big bang is as natural and unconscious as pollen fertilizing a pistle.

Lets not play into the hands of wishful thinkers that because we don't have all the answers that somehow quantum mechanics leads to virgin births.

 

"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


deludedgod
Rational VIP!ScientistDeluded God
deludedgod's picture
Posts: 3221
Joined: 2007-01-28
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Why is physics so

Quote:

Why is physics so scary that nobody wants to open a book with physics in it, and yet so appealing that everyone wants to talk about it?

Because the latter is easy. Just memorize a few terms (whose meaning, as we have seen above, you yourself don't even have to know!) and provided your interlocutor is of sufficient ignorance (which obviously didn't work in this case) whatever argument you wish to make is set.

"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.

-Me

Books about atheism


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
MikeJones wrote:BTW, no

MikeJones wrote:

BTW, no argument thus presented by anyone about physics can conclusively disprove a creator (which does not necessarily mean a deity in the philosophical sense. See Tipler's Omega Point theory). The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation. The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger. No theories of multiverse, chaos, or cosmic accident get around this. Tipler's Omega Point would be able to simulate any universe, or even multiverse imaginable or describable. It can do this an infinite amount of times, and infinite amount of ways for an effective (from the view point of those in the simulation) infinite amount of time.

If you mean by 'Creator' nothing more than 'something which initiated the emergence of our Universe, then there is little problem, but the statement is little more than a tautology.

Such an 'initiator' logically and scientifically need be no more than a Planck scale quantum fluctuation.

Once you start assigning attributes to this initiator, you are into pure speculation.

If you go as far as to propose an entity with something analogous to sentience and conscious purpose, then it ceases to be an 'explanation' at all, rather you are positing something which introduces far greater mysteries requiring explanation, and you are into an impossible infinite expanding regress of 'explanations'. Any idea proposed as an ultimate explanation of reality has to be something minimal and quintessentially simple, so avoiding the infinite regress problem - any apparent structure and complexity has to be able to arise from simpler substrates, and this is pretty much what we see. Thus the backward regress of 'cause' is diminishing, ie convergent, to the scale of the infinitesimal, rather than the infinite.

From simplicity at the lowest level, which leads to simple and consistent 'laws', analogous to the way a two-dimensional array of identical circles pack into a regular hexagonal pattern, which could not happen if they were random sizes. As we 'zoom out' and observe ever greater aggregations of simple interacting particles, the possible structures and patterns multiply far greater than 'exponentially'.

So order and apparent structure arise naturally from simplicity, whereas the hallmark of a conscious mind is unpredictablity, where things do not behave according to simple laws. The unpredictability of a consciousness is fundamentally different to the pure randomness we see in the timing of events at the quantum level, unless you want to equate conscious choice to the equivalent of flipping a coin.

So the mix of perceived structure and chaos we observe in the universe is more like what we would expect from the working out of physical 'laws' arising from ultimate regularity at the basic level, combined with the pure randomness at the heart of quantum uncertainty.

'Operating according to certain laws' is an argument against a conscious creator - such regularity of behaviour is the sign of predictable, simple, mechanistic behaviour, not that generated by a vast 'mind'.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
I case you missed it - 'God'

I case you missed it - 'God' is logically excluded as a explanation for existence. If existence is to mean anything, 'God ' is part of it, not outside it.

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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
I more think that the fact

I more think that the fact the universe is self-sufficent is what I would expect if there were a God since any inconsitancy leave the universe literally incomplete and incoherent.

 

People design things that are self efficent, and don't require their constant intervention all the time.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
It would require some entity

It would require some entity with arbitrary powers to generate a Universe that could not come about by purely 'natural' processes - no simple bunch of particles could get into some impossible, inconsistent arrangement without 'outside' help.

Don't see what 'self-sufficient' means in this context.

 

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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Don't see

BobSpence1 wrote:

Don't see what 'self-sufficient' means in this context.

 

 

I mean everything will have a natural explanation, and God doesn't have to give it a tune up.

 

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:People

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

People design things that are self efficent, and don't require their constant intervention all the time.

Actually, the opposite is normally true: human machines typically do require regular external attention to keep them maintained and working smoothly, whereas living creatures and star systems and other such things do not. The nature of the Universe is evidence for absence of anything analogous to human design being involved in its origin and continued functioning...

 

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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:Actually,

BobSpence1 wrote:

Actually, the opposite is normally true: human machines typically do require regular external attention to keep them maintained and working smoothly,

 

 

I mean an electrical engineer doesn't have to come and constantly maintain my laptop.

 

Sure the laptop and everything else humans created will degrade and come to an end, but then again so will the universe.

 

 

Quote:

whereas living creatures and star systems and other such things do not. 

 

 

 The human body does require maintance, but for the most part, it's self-suifficent it produces it heals itself, it makes more cells to replace old ones etc....

Maybe the human body is a better analogy than a computer.

 

 

 

 

Perhaps it wasn't a perfect analogy, but the point is that I can't imagine God leaving out anything that would require maintance, so I would expect the universe to be complete with natural explanations.

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:I mean an electrical

 

Quote:
I mean an electrical engineer doesn't have to come and constantly maintain my laptop.

Can you think of any machine made by man that would survive a power outage for more than a fraction of a fraction of an eyeblink in cosmic time?  Can you think of any machine made by man that would run on its own for a hundred thousand years without intervention?  A hundred thousand years, as you know, is nothing at all.

You seem to have a perspective problem here.

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:I

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
I more think that the fact the universe is self-sufficent is what I would expect if there were a God since any inconsitancy leave the universe literally incomplete and incoherent.

 

Well, that would pretty much hold that the universe was made right from the very beginning. Then there would be no further need to for to intervene. In fact, any further intervention by god would speak to some inherent imperfection in god's creation as any further interaction would change what was going on.

 

Cpt_pineapple wrote:
Perhaps it wasn't a perfect analogy, but the point is that I can't imagine God leaving out anything that would require maintance, so I would expect the universe to be complete with natural explanations.

 

Again, if the universe is “complete” (and I am not sure what that even means), then the only room left for the existence of god is that of the first cause. Now the problem as I see it is that god as first cause doesn't really tell us anything.

 

Sure, one could speculate on the moment of the big bang and ask the question “what went bang?”. However, that is a different question from “why did it go bang?” which is answered by god as first cause. In any case, I fail to see how we can get to a reasonable answer on that matter. One could suppose that the invisible hand of god was the first cause but one could just as easily say that god sneezed and the whole universe is more or less a huge accident that god had no real control over.

 

Then too, that bring us back to the infinite regress. Just where does god live and how did that come about?

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Can you

Hambydammit wrote:

Can you think of any machine made by man that would survive a power outage for more than a fraction of a fraction of an eyeblink in cosmic time?  Can you think of any machine made by man that would run on its own for a hundred thousand years without intervention?  A hundred thousand years, as you know, is nothing at all.

You seem to have a perspective problem here.

 

 

No, but you'd have to compare the size of a human machine to the size of the universe, so the lifespan of machine is much much much shorter than the life span of the universe and the universe is much much bigger.

 

The universe will suffer the same fate as any other machine, [eventually degrade] but it'll take longer since the universe is much bigger.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

Again, if the universe is “complete” (and I am not sure what that even means), then the only room left for the existence of god is that of the first cause. Now the problem as I see it is that god as first cause doesn't really tell us anything.

 

I mean complete as in self-efficent.

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

 

One could suppose that the invisible hand of god was the first cause but one could just as easily say that god sneezed and the whole universe is more or less a huge accident that god had no real control over.

 

In the words of Einstien: "I wonder if God had a choice in creating the universe"

 

 

Answers in Gene Simmons wrote:

Just where does god live and how did that come about?


 

I don't know.

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:No, but you'd have

 

Quote:
No, but you'd have to compare the size of a human machine to the size of the universe, so the lifespan of machine is much much much shorter than the life span of the universe and the universe is much much bigger.

 

The universe will suffer the same fate as any other machine, [eventually degrade] but it'll take longer since the universe is much bigger.

I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding that a machine is an open system (energy input from the outside) and the universe is a closed system (all energy contained within).  Yeah, I know, you can put gas in a car, and once the gas is in there, it's part of the machine, but that's a matter of space.  The external energy source for a combustion engine is the gas in the gas tank, regardless of the fact that it's an internal tank.  See?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:I'm not

Hambydammit wrote:

I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding that a machine is an open system (energy input from the outside) and the universe is a closed system (all energy contained within).  Yeah, I know, you can put gas in a car, and once the gas is in there, it's part of the machine, but that's a matter of space.  The external energy source for a combustion engine is the gas in the gas tank, regardless of the fact that it's an internal tank.  See?

 

 

This goes along with what I'm saying, the universe is a closed system, it doesn't require eternal energy input, which is what I meant when I said it was self-sufficent. 

 

The Earth is also an open system, all living things are open systems, and it's preciesly because they're open systems they work so well, so now we have a bunch of open systems withing a closed system.

 

The gas is an external source, but it's still from the universe, it's just from an open sub-system of the universe.

 

So we have a bunch of open sub-systems in a closed system, so the open sub-systems take care of other sub-systems.

 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 You've lost me.  So...

 You've lost me.  So... closed systems that contain open systems... um... 

Hmm.  Seriously.  I'm lost.  What's your point?

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: You've

Hambydammit wrote:

 You've lost me.  So... closed systems that contain open systems... um... 

Hmm.  Seriously.  I'm lost.  What's your point?

 

 

My point is that it shows what I'm saying, that all the energy required to "run" the universe is contained within the universe and hence doesn't require God to roll up his sleeves and play mechanic.

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Quote:My point is that it

 

Quote:
My point is that it shows what I'm saying, that all the energy required to "run" the universe is contained within the universe and hence doesn't require God to roll up his sleeves and play mechanic.

Ok... so... hmm... where's the disagreement?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote:Ok...

Hambydammit wrote:

Ok... so... hmm... where's the disagreement?

 

 

Here:

 

Hambydammit wrote:

 

I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding that a machine is an open system (energy input from the outside) and the universe is a closed system (all energy contained within).  Yeah, I know, you can put gas in a car, and once the gas is in there, it's part of the machine, but that's a matter of space.  The external energy source for a combustion engine is the gas in the gas tank, regardless of the fact that it's an internal tank.  See?

 

You were trying to point out a flaw in my analogy, you're saying that human designed machines require external energy, but the universe does not, ergo defeating my comparision with the universe and my laptop.

 

But I was pointing out that the external energy for my laptop comes from another source from within the universe. So one open sub-system provides for another open sub-system, which happens in the universe. The Sun provides for our Earth, plants provide for other living things etc...


 

 

 

 

 


Hambydammit
High Level DonorModeratorRRS Core Member
Hambydammit's picture
Posts: 8657
Joined: 2006-10-22
User is offlineOffline
 Right... I get all of

 Right... I get all of that... open subsystems interact within a closed system...

What follows from this?  Or, does anything follow from it?

 

 

Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin

http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Hambydammit wrote: Right...

Hambydammit wrote:

 Right... I get all of that... open subsystems interact within a closed system...

What follows from this?  Or, does anything follow from it?

 

 

 

That the universe is self-sufficent, ergo we should expect natural explanations for everything, since God didn't leave anything incomplete which was my point.

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Cpt_pineapple

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Hambydammit wrote:

 Right... I get all of that... open subsystems interact within a closed system...

What follows from this?  Or, does anything follow from it?

That the universe is self-sufficent, ergo we should expect natural explanations for everything, since God didn't leave anything incomplete which was my point.

IOW, since we have natural explanations for everything, no need to propose the existence of a God, there is nothing left to explain. If you introduce God you now do have something to explain.

So God has set up the Universe to look just like it naturally emerged and developed?? Why do you assume a 'God' again??

So 'God' doesn't explain anything, rather 'God' is something requiring explanation.... Everything is much easier to explain if we drop the God idea altogether.

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


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Regarding the OP, while the

Regarding the OP, while the ultimate particles and the 'laws' governing their interactions are quite likely to be simple, the Universe made up of vast numbers of such particles is definitely NOT simple.

It is a simple fact that simple elements following simple rules can readily give rise to arbitrarily complex interacting aggregate structures. I say 'can' rather than 'will', because not all rule-sets are necessarily productive, but we know there are such productive sets, and they can be very simple.

See Conway's Game of Life.

Complexity arises from simplicity, especially if perturbed by random influences, which 'encourage' the exploration of space of possibilities. Like evolution by natural selection.

True creativity, new information, is generated by randomness, otherwise you are constrained by what logically follows from the previous states. Think of 'brainstorming'.

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


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5492
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
BobSpence1 wrote:IOW, since

BobSpence1 wrote:

IOW, since we have natural explanations for everything, no need to propose the existence of a God, there is nothing left to explain.

 

So in other words, I should drop something because it turns out like I expected if I'm right?

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

If you introduce God you now do have something to explain.

 

Doesn't every idea require something to explain?

 

 

BobSpence1 wrote:

Why do you assume a 'God' again??

 

Because of the complexity and harmony of nature.

 

 

 

 


BobSpence
High Level DonorRational VIP!ScientistWebsite Admin
BobSpence's picture
Posts: 5939
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
So you have come up with a

So you have come up with a concept of God that is consistent with how the Universe seems to be. Ok. But you need more than that to justify introducing the idea of God into the story as a reality. There are countless things you could imagine which are consistent with the Universe as we know it.

Complexity demonstrably does arise naturally.

Natural selection and related mechanisms guarantee that 'non-harmonious' situations will not persist and reproduce, so persistent phenomenon will naturally tend to be 'harmonious'. Just like species will only survive if they are reasonably well adapted to their environment, so surprise! species tend to be harmonious with their environment! That is the central message of Darwin - no external design required!! Harmony with the environment is the natural state of affairs - it requires intervention, such as by Man disrupting the eco-system, to destroy the harmony...  This does not disprove God, it just means it is not in any way evidence for God.

There is nothing that needs something like God to 'explain', but if you introduce God you now have something that is much more difficult to 'explain', namely, where did this God come from?

Unless you assume God is neither complex or harmonious, then you have not explained where such things 'come from'. If you want to label the quantum twitch which triggered our Universe into existence as 'God', ok then.

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


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
So god must be real

So god must be real because the universe is in such a state that logically precludes god from having any need to interact with it? Well, if that makes you happy, I suppose that that is fine. However, in that case, whether you are happy or not still doesn't go anywhere. God certainly would not have anything to say about the matter.

 

In fact, if I follow your idea, to think that god has interacted with the universe post big-bang seems to suppose either an inherent imperfection, with the implication that god made an imperfect universe or that god actually has disrupted the universe despite the inherent perfection that need not be tampered with.

 

As far as the Einstein quote goes, I have seen that before and it still doesn't help. Perhaps the universe exists because god farted it into being. It is still what it is. And as much as I dislike the anthropic principal, I can continue by suggesting that god farts worse than a Siamese cat eating liver. We certainly do not know what the other fart universes are like but we do know that this one resulted in conditions that produced us in such a way that this conversation can be taking place.

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=