Origin of Universe Qs for Atheists
Offline What are your thoughts on the origins of the universe? I guess most atheists would subscribe to some sort of cyclical multiverse theory, in which case universes & galaxies are constantly being created throughout all eternity. But is this an adequate explanation? I'm aware that most atheists will reply with "I don't know," but hopefully we can extrapolate.
Can an infinite number of universes be quantified or rationalized? Why should the "default" state of the multiverse be one that creates galaxies and then life? Even if the universe existed for perpetuity, motion is not a property of matter, so what got the multiverse moving in the first place? Theists would say this thing is God. Why can't it be God, or, what do atheists offer instead of God?
- Login to post comments
please just remeber this, but please bare in mind im not saying you are wrong im just making a point
Appeal to authority, and also useless unless we hear there arguements. statement not backed up
statement not backed up, who are these people, what are there arguments? im not saying there arent, but for someone complaining about people not backing up there statments well...
Statement not backed up. you basiclly said no you are wrong and wrote what without proof, we only have your word
Wouldn't a creator also break this law as he would have to create the matter energy or whatever etc
please refer to the eailer quote i commented onand back it up before this can be taken seriously, the one about cosmologists.
considering there is no proof for the second to points why should I take it seriously, im aware they are assumtions but aslong as there are assumtions we dont really no as they are assumptions, I take the infact correct route and say i don't know and lets be honest you don't either. There simply isn't enough evidance to make a logical decision yet, that is the reason you are making these assuptions.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
If you had been paying attention to the thread you would have noticed that I linked to it in one of my posts. I'll quote it again:
I can find more links if this is not sufficient. But now that you guys are done nitpicking, I expect you to actually answer the question.
You expect me to "back up" basic biology knowledge? Fine, here you go: http://tinyurl.com/mecspo
Yes that was implied by the term "creator".
Why should I take the alternatives seriously? They have even less proof and even more assumptions.
I never said that I know, but there is enough evidence to make a logical decision, not necessarily a correct or completely informed one. I wrote down all the "evidence" for your benefit. You can't just say that it's not there.
If you're an atheist, do you admit that the "created universe" is more likely with our current knowledge than the alternatives? Why not?
If you're an agnostic, why do you care? I never claimed any of this is the 100% truth. I'm simply going by the Law of Parsimony, that "the simplest of two competing theories is to be preferred".
The whole "fine-tuning" argument was put to bed years ago. First is the weak ontological argument. Personally, I find this one particularly... well, weak. It does point out a common problem with human thinking, however, which we'll get to in a moment.
Second is the indication that the universe is not fine-tuned. There are many combinations of constants that would result in a stable, interesting universe. Just not this stable, interesting universe. The original argument was proposed long before we discovered that even stochastic systems result in predictable attributes. And honestly, until we learn more about the nature of the quantum realm, any speculation about the "fine-tuned" nature of the universe is the intellectual equivalent of streaking during half-time at the Superbowl: it'll get you some attention, but really serves no purpose, isn't rational in any way, and will probably get you in more trouble than you thought.
Basically, the argument that our universe is "fine-tuned" is about as valid as the argument that aerodynamics proves that bees can't fly.
There are other matters to be considered, as well. Lee Smolin has put forward the proposition that our universe was formed from another universe, and carries most of the same traits as the parent universe. As the parent universe would have to be (by its mere ability to spawn other universes) stable and interesting, our universe stands a high probability of being stable and interesting. Universes would evolve in a way similar to the way life evolves: by the ability to propagate. This would naturally result in a fine-tuned universe, the same way your genetics are fine-tuned to produce you.
Also, there's the concept that our universe is stable and interesting because the laws of physics are naturally interlocked in a way that makes them stable and interesting. What we see as different physical attributes are really simply aspects of the larger (or smaller, depending on your point of view), more-fundamental natural structure of the universe. Ontologically-speaking, you're assuming the universal constants that work so well together are free variables, when in fact they may very likely be interlocked attributes of a single artifact, or are interdependent in such a way that variance in one results in reciprocal variance in others.
I personally lean to the latter interpretation. Of course, that's a personal view, and in no way constitutes an assertion of reality.
The fact is, "We don't know" is an OK answer here. The strong ontological argument is merely argument from ignorance.
Now, back to the weak ontological argument.
Humans like to see purpose in things they don't understand. I can see why: if you can divine the purpose of something, you are better able to model its behavior. With that comes a danger, however. If you misunderstand the purpose of something, you may be a danger to yourself and others. Often, it's better to remain dubious about any "purpose" until you've actually determined there is a purpose.
This is the weak ontological argument. "Isn't it amazing the universe is such that I exist? Really, I exist because the universe is so amazing!" To me, this is as philosophically unsatisfying as the strong ontological argument: "Isn't it amazing that I exist? I must have a purpose. As the universe exists so that I can exist, it too must have a purpose. Since it has a purpose, there must be something behind it to provide purpose!"
To sum up: any claim that the universe is fine-tuned is stupid. We don't have a complete model of the universe as it stands, so any claim that "changing one variable would cause the whole thing to fall apart" is based on very incomplete data. (Also, others have presented huge islands of constants that are stable and interesting, so any claims of "fine-tuning" are baseless anyway.)
Deistic creation sophistry aside, the strong ontological argument simply pushes the area of mystery from the formation of the universe back to a mysteriously-fine-tuned creator. Replacing one mystery with an even bigger mystery, with no discernable reason or gain in knowledge, is about as ridiculous as you can get.
EDIT: HTML fail.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Ok I will get to your latest post but watch this first.
Created (fewest assumptions)
Accidental (the stupid "what if this is the only universe" argument)
Now who has less? yes im just making fun here
Random theory number 12
The unverse is eternal but not in a way looked at before by science or anyone else
Now who has the least? im sure you get the point.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
Current options for a BB universe are:
1. 'One-shot' indefinitely expanding Universe, which is consistent with current observations. Quantum fluctuations could serve as a source of whatever 'necessary' triggering event and its particular timing during an indefinite interval of time, if time as we experience it applied pre-BB;
2. Indefinite sequence of expanding Big Bangs - new BB's spawning out of the isolated remnants of an expanding BB due perhaps to the effects of Dark Energy, which increasingly dominate as 'regular' matter/energy density becomes very low - does not rule out a starting point;
3. Random BB's triggered by events in a 'meta-verse', such as colliding multi-dimensional' branes;
4. The original truly 'cyclic' universe idea, which was based on the assumption that the expansion we see would eventually reverse into a 'big crunch' - this is falling out of favor, since the rate of expansion appears to be accelerating;
All scenarios apart from 1 allow for the properties of each BB universe to vary in each iteration, thus reducing any assumed 'fine-tuning' problems. One major problem with the 'fine-tuning' argument is that we do not know what is the range of values each 'constant' could possibly have.
Also, most analyses have only looked at the implications of varying one 'constant' while the others have their current values. It is very difficult to lnvestigate the implications of varying more than one at a time, but the studies that have been done suggest there is a strong probability of 'islands' of potentially 'life-friendly' combinations of properties within the multi-dimensional mathematical 'space' of all possible values for the 'constants'.
'Creation' only applies as a speculation on what was the ultimate origin of the ground of existence, whether a quantum fluctuating energy field, the strings or branes, or whatever other form the fundamental layer of existence takes.
'Creation' can only make sense as an ultimate origin if it we are imagining an essentially unstructured simple 'force' or intrinsic property of 'reality', otherwise we have the old but unavoidable diverging infinite regress problem, ie what 'larger' creator created/designed the 'creator'.
Nothing can 'create itself', that is the ultimate logical non-sequitur.
Another point: deductive arguments can only show the logical/mathematical implications/consequences of a given set of assumptions - empirical observations are required to justify applying the initial assumptions to reality.
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
Aedus, those fallacies were common fallacies I've noticed in discussions like these. I wasn't saying anything about which ones you may or may not have committed.
That said, you did ask "...what got the multiverse moving in the first place?" which I pointed out as a common fallacy (Fallacy 1 in fact). You asked what atheists offer in place of gods to answer this question. My point is that most physicists offer nothing in place of gods to answer this question because they realize that the question doesn't actually make any sense once you understand special relativity.
Also, I did not name these fallacies because most are false assumptions rather than logical fallacies. The only logical fallacy is the false dichotomy, which is found in 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7.
The difference between 6 and 7 is that 6 claims that science is correct in some things but ultimately insufficient while 7 claims that science is just plain wrong. Both of these claims are typically made with little to no evidence or reasoning. Also, both make the same false dichotomy fallacy when they immediately jump to a theistic conclusion.
An "accidental" universe is actually quite likely, because it turns out that nothingness is a very unstable state. Quantum fluctuations are random spawnings of particles from nothing and they occur all the time in what would otherwise be an empty vacuum. Remember, random doesn't mean unlikely.
What you are proposing is less acceptable than the proposed natural explanations because your proposal would require the existance of an entirely different type of substance for which we have no evidence. It would require some object that is neither energy nor matter, yet somehow capable of violating many known laws of physics. Your "explanation" requires us to make assumptions beyond the natural laws we already know. Natural explanations work without extra assumptions, and are thus preferred (see Occam's Razor).
"Besides, if we define the "creator" as the instigator of the universe and the originator of biological life then it's scientifically falsifiable."
So find some independantly verifiable evidence, and keep Fallacies 6 and 7 in mind. Evidence against the current explanation is not evidence for your explanation. You need evidence to support your conclusions more than evidence to debunk science. Also, as pointed out in Fallacy 4 there may be no "creator" even by this definition. Furthermore, the term "creator" brings so much metaphysical connotation into play that unless you can demonstrate that this instigator is a purposeful agent it's more appropriate to call it a cause than a creator.
Also, as was mentioned in the second post, most atheists will simply say "I don't know but here are some possibilities." On the other hand, theists have a tendency to say "It was definitely some type of supernatural being, here's a holy text," which is jumping to a premature conclusion with no evidence.
Questions for Theists:
http://silverskeptic.blogspot.com/2011/03/consistent-standards.html
I'm a bit of a lurker. Every now and then I will come out of my cave with a flurry of activity. Then the Ph.D. program calls and I must fall back to the shadows.
fair enough I haven't been paying attention
Forgive me if i missed it but after a quick skimof the link i didn't see anything saying the numbers could even be differant.
umm you link to a google serch? if thats not intentional then i don't know but its all i get.
yes when you are trying to prove someone wrong it is nessicary, or it is just your word vs theirs
just by the by
http://ezinearticles.com/?Amino-Acids---The-Basic-Building-Blocks-of-Life&id=490972
Is it logical to believe things when all critical areas are assumptions? if so I don't want to be logical.
Making desions without evidance is not logical, when you have some evidance but not all ok fine but whenn all critical areas have none it is not logical.
just as a refresher
Created (fewest assumptions)
all areas for your theory are assumptions, all you have done is give evidence against others. Do i know if the evidence is correct....no. but the fact you havent given a shread of evidence to support it was created only evidence against it being accedental or multi verse thingiy tells me something.
This is not like its a or b. so if one is wrong the other must be right. this is a or b or c or d or e etc.
created, accidental, eternal, multiverse, the universe is somethings dream, the unverse is actually somethings body and we are the "bacteria".
now yes im just making crap up there, but untill you give evidence to your argument i see no reason to take it seriously, unless you can give proof that all the crap i can think of is false and i can think up a lot of crap.
More than a simple i don't know is being foolish atm.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I'm sorry, I just can't believe you're serious. I take it that you are, but it's so over-the-top.
I honestly thought you could look them up and make a correction to your argument. I can go back, I guess, but why don't we just handle the real serious wackiness first?
I gave you "All unlikely things are created by an intelligent creator" and you didn't even flinch! C'mon! You must have known that was a joke. It was a joke. If you missed it, the part where I made a statement that was ridiculous was a joke.
Hahahaha! You're a born comedian, you know that? Yes, logical fallacies are all some form of non sequitur. That's the definition of a formal fallacy (although I don't think all of the fallacies I cited were formal).
Like who?
But the reason why it's nonsense is so blindingly obvious: the man calculated the odds of our universe existing from a collection of numbers. It's pure mathematical humour! That we exist in a universe wherein we exist is 100% probable. The weak anthropic argument, as nigel points out in more detail, is at its weakest when it delves into probability-with-hindsight.
I'll be explicit from now on about the mistakes you're making, so that you won't feel like accusing me of calling out fallacies that don't apply. Here, you're just being sloppy: "We know the universe had a definite beginning." No, we don't. We can call the place closest to the mathematical zero point "the beginning" if we want to, but that has no philosophical implications, as it's extrapolation. Nobody is claiming knowledge where we've used induction.
Begging the question is when you use your conclusion in the argument. Here, you're assuming that matter must be created in order to argue that matter must be created. That's a formal fallacy, and I just outlined it clear as day for you.
Mathematical extrapolation -- see above.
That's common speculation. You pretend to know the specific motivation of the theorists working in cosmology.
Science is not a thing, it's a process. It's a process wherein things are not confirmed, but falsified. Science only creeps up on truth by eliminating things that can be shown to be untrue. That's how science works.
What are you talking about? How does someone become a "true atheist". That's a "no true Scotsman" fallacy, by the way, which means that you can change the definition of "true atheist" any time you like to match any definition you like.
I think we mean "bald assertion", but you have misidentified one, and created what is known as a "straw man". A straw man is a position you argue against instead of making an argument against what your opponent actually said. It's a kind of misdirection (when it's on purpose) or misinterpretation (when accidental).
You are correct in stating that we don't know that God does not exist. But what is an atheist, really? Let's go with my definition:
An atheist is someone who doesn't believe someone else when they try to convince him or her that there are gods.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
HisWillness - You'll forgive me if I ignored your "jokes" seeing as how I've got lots of responses to make & a limited amount of time, eh? But yes, you're right that that's a crappy explanation for why matter "needs" to be created. Ignoring the idea of a God/Creator, matter needs to be created in the "cyclic multiverse" category because those kinds of theories require it and matter needs to be created in the "accidental" category because the real cyclic universe theories (big crunch, etc.) are basically disproven, and the fact that inflation began and the universe's volume became greater than zero suggests that it was created or at least moved.
Also, I still don't understand why we can't refer to "the beginning" as the first time the universe expanded to the planck length? That is very much the beginning of our universe, even if there was something that caused it, right?
Definition of atheism? I go by what it says here: http://www.evilbible.com/Definition_of_Atheism_1.htm
That's invalid because it's not scientifically falsifiable - you have to break down your assertion into individual scientifically falsifiable steps like I did with the created universe. And with your example, by definition, that's impossible to do. Furthermore, I used deductive reasoning for my example.
So your answer then is "I don't know"? If so, again, why do you care? I never claimed that any options are 100% true or are backed up by complete data - I'm simply making use of Occam's Razor. Where do you think we'd be today if every time we needed to extrapolate something or use Occam's Razor we said "the data is incomplete - I don't know"?
Sounds cool I admit, but even more presumptous than the alternatives.
It would be different if we knew that there were multiple universes and ours just happened to be the "lucky" one. If we knew for a fact that there were multiple universes being constantly created and ours happened to be the "one in a bajillion" then I still would not bring this up at all no matter what the odds were. This is the only universe we have proof of. To our best knowledge, the big bang happened only once.
The only time I bring up odds is in the "accidental" category, because it is only indicative of design/intelligence if it only happens once. I left it out of the cyclic multiverse section. Even with the "islands of constants" it would still point to design if we knew that something like the big bang happened only once.
For the "created" category, I extrapolated a creator going only off of facts that we know right now - that the big bang happened only once. I'm NOT saying that that's true.
I see you're juggling a lot of information, there, but you could easily say that matter started, or that the universe began its expansion, rather than saying it was created. It would be a reasonable enough statment to say that matter "started" or "began" at a certain point. "Created" really does imply another something before it, and since we know nothing about that, there's no need to make our knoledge more complicated than it is.
The reason I'm so prickly on this point is that we know that matter started. We have a number of possible scenarios (including creation by an intelligent creature) before that, but since information about that period is completely missing, any scenario at this point is equally likely. Your false trichotomy still isn't compelling. Accident is still the opposite of intention, from what you're arguing, so your earlier contention that intentionality was irrelevant is clearly not true. The cyclic universe theories are irrelevant to the point, because we're still discussing only one "cycle" and disregarding the rest. The creator is still the only thing that doesn't need to be created, meaning the idea that the universe needs to be created is absolutely false.
You're not even making an argument. You're making a mess.
Sure, that's fine.
Why? Mine is so much simpler. That guy gets all convoluted and exited about what's going on. Mine was one sentence.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
As I said before, if you don't like my "flase trichotomy" then feel free to add/edit/remove whatever you want to that list. Don't like the word accidental? Suggest an alternative. Add/remove whatever is reasonable and if the "created" category no longer has the fewest assumptions, then so be it.
Since you think I'm making a mess, here's my argument again: based on our current knowledge (which isn't exactly tiny), the created universe makes fewer assumptions than the alternatives.
As for why there needs to be a creator, it's because: a) the created universe makes the fewest assumptions and b) if we assume that the big bang only happened once, then the high chance of the odds fitting a universe that supports life indicates design/creation.
A 'created' universe does not explain anything, just inserts an additional entity and moves the origin questions back one step.
EDIT: 'Creation' is not a simpler explanation, it is an attempt to avoid the need for an explanation.
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
Nowadays, I'm not even sure what 'believing God does or doesn't exist' means anymore. Perhaps, we should just say, if you think there's a greater than 50% chance that a specific God exists, then you're a theist with respect to that God. If not, then you're an atheist. If you're not sure, then you're not sure. Semantics is annoying.
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
Leaving aside the butchering of scientific theory there, this is a false trichotomy. There are many more options. For example, it's possible that the combined energy of the universe is 0, and that all energy literally came from nothing : Quantum physics = simpler than god. It's possible that an alien species created the universe with technology: Psuedoscience = simpler than god.
That's just two examples of many that throw your proposed likely hood into chaos, and doesn't even correct the errors you made regarding scientific knowledge. I'll let others do that because they don't have the restrictions I'm working under, and it'll take a lot of writing to do it properly.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I did. The multiple universe part wasn't really relevant to a beginning, so it can just be ignored.
You've taken "unlikely" to mean "necessitating intent". What am I supposed to do with that? It's still a non sequitur. It doesn't immediately follow that "unlikely to be" means "created intentionally by an intelligence". That doesn't follow at all.
But it's not just "created", it's "intelligently created". You're assuming intelligence, which is a very complicated assumption. By putting it across from "accident", you're also assuming intentionality.
So if you're really stuck on having a creature in there, we can have fewer assumptions with an unintelligent creator starting the universe inadvertently. But I suppose that's still a creator, it's just an accident, combining two of your categories. That has fewer assumptions in it, so I guess that one wins for now, by your logic.
You don't seem to be bothered by the problem of how the creature got there, either! As Bob said, it doesn't really answer anything, it just moves the question back a step. This creature was made of ... nothing, was it? If that's the case, the universe still "popped out of nothing". We haven't resolved the question at all. How does non-matter have intelligence? Why would we ever think it did? The questions just build and build.
You desperately need a course in logical reasoning. Nigel, Bob, and I have already corrected several of your misconceptions, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations, and frankly, I'm tired. Your argument rephrased is:
a) Intelligent creation of a universe has few assumptions behind it (demonstrated as wrong, through the exposition of all the myriad assumptions that go into a pre-matter intelligence with intentionality)
b)
i) The big bang only happened once
ii) The odds of the big bang happening and getting this universe are low
iii) Low odds means design
Therefore, design.
It's ridiculous. Okay, i) isn't ridiculous, but you can't even guess at ii), which is flawed because it is probability with hindsight, and iii) is a bald assertion based on absolutely nothing.
You have not shown anywhere that if something is unlikely, it must have been designed. That's the crux of your argument, and you have not shown that.
Just because you don't believe I have a better alternative explanation (that's an argument from silence) doesn't make your assertion true. Your faulty reasoning doesn't even make it false, it just makes it unsound.
Let's say it again: premise (iii), that low odds automatically means design is a bald assertion. I don't know where you got that, and you didn't demonstrate it, so it has no truth value. You would have to demonstrate that before it even made any sense.
You even misappropriated the odds in question! The odds weren't calculated in opposition to a creator at all! The odds were against the universe coming into being. Not "coming into being by accident" any more than they were "coming into being by a creator". Just the odds against the universe coming into being. As a statistic, it's little more than nerdy goofing around.
If you can demonstrate that all unlikely-to-exist things must have been created, then at least part of your argument can pass muster from a logical standpoint.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
"the created universe makes fewer assumptions than the alternatives."
No matter how improbable the universe is, adding a creator makes it MORE improbable, not less so. I will demonstrate. If you've graduated high school and really look at it, you'll see. Tip: The variables themselves are irrelevant, look at the math.
Probability of the universe occurring: M x E ^A.
Probability of the universe being created: G (M x E ^A).
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
ok yeah i was just making a little fun win my the random theory 12. but ask yourself this, how can we faslify an assumed creater?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I did. As I said before, the constants may seem to be "fine-tuned" by physical necessity. This is similar to the way evolution seems to be "fine-tuned" to produce humans, but really it's basically just a result of practical information theory, which is mathematical necessity. Oh, that and hindsight (weak anthropic principle). Otherwise, it'd be intelligent African snails looking back wonderingly at how evolution was "fine-tuned" to produce intelligent African snails.
This hypothesis makes only one assumption, which seems to be fewer than the "creator" proposition. Also, it's an assumption for which we've seen examples.
Again, I believe I have. Also, it's not just the number of assumptions that matters. It's also the possibility of the assumptions.
Take the face on Mars: perhaps it's merely a mesa that doesn't look like a face at all, but was really photographed at a specific time of day such that it looked vaguely like a face.
OR: martians did it.
I know which one Occam favors.
I believe one of your assumptions (a creator exists) makes an almost infinite number of other assumptions: that a realm exists which could host a creator, that the creator had a creator, and the creator of the creator was also in a realm which could host the creator of the creator, and so on. You are rolling many assumptions up into one.
Also, you have the assumption that it's unlikely a universe could support life. As has been illustrated several times, this assumption itself makes several other assumptions, both about the probability (not as bad as you claim) and the nature of physical constants in the universe (still unknown).
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Are you serious?
Acknowledged ignorance is the number one reason to care. That's what science is all about: finding out the stuff we don't know.
I'm not sure what you think science is, but it sure the fuck ain't about studying only stuff we already know.
You're making use of Occam's Razor in the same way that a modern Christian uses the Bible: abusing it to suit personal opinion.
In no rational way does Occam's Razor indicate godidit when the only answer is, "We have some options, but we really don't know yet."
Damn, Dude. Now I have to recalibrate my irony meter. That takes time, you know.
And? I've presented the idea that the physical constants create a stable, interesting universe out of mathematical necessity. Since we don't know the fundamental nature of most of these constants, this is an entirely likely scenario.
This is far more likely than a creator, by use of Occam's Razor.
How would you falsify any one of those steps? Let's take a closer look:
Of those, which step do you see as being scientifically tractable? What would constitute verifying data? What experiment might provide the observations necessary for that data?
The first assumption begs the question, and has as its verifying data "evidence for the creator." The second one is really a bunch of assumptions rolled up into one (as I pointed out above), and has as its verifying data, "evidence for the creator." The third would naturally follow if you could prove a creator, but is itself not verifying data, or even observation of that data. In fact, you'd almost have to find the creator to ask it, "Did you use intelligence to derive the constants?"
Otherwise, the constants might've come to it in a dream, or it could've created a simulation of the universe and futzed around with the constants until they were just right, or maybe we're just that simulation as it designs the real universe!
So again, how might you apply science to this proposition of the few-but-infinite assumptions?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
Let me address some common complaints:
1) Adding a creator is taking the problem back a step. So what? This isn't even relevant. It's still an explanation. Where would we be if scientists avoided making conclusions just because it would raise more questions or "take the problem back a step"? No doubt the fact that this argument is even coming up here is because most atheists hate waiting - as if we already know everything there is to know about the universe and that anything else has to be a wild assumption.
2) Probability with hindsight. True, probability cannot be used to argue backwards, but what does this have anything to do with my scenario on the last page? Nobody is using probability.
3) These "islands of constants" that would make our universe favorable to life. Can somebody link me to this study plz. I bet half the "islands" take advantage of interrelationships b/w variables. For example, as I said before:
Protons and electrons have the same exact charge of 1.6-19 coulombs despite the fact that a proton has a mass 1836 times that of an electron.
The key here is that they're exactly the same not that they could be any different. Suppose it was 1.5999-19 coulombs. How big of a difference would that make? You could keep increasing/decreasing and have the basis for an entire island right there. Does this change anything? No.
4) The idea that these constants dont point to design i.e. HisWillness's main complaint and the basis of the dozen or so fallacies that I'm apparently committing. As I've said before, we only have evidence for this one universe so saying that we "just got lucky" is simply jumping to conclusions.
We know that matter is capable of self-organization. But imagine you came across a building. Would you then say to yourself that iron ore and coal at high temperatures spontaneously formed steel particles and then those steel particles evolved into this building without the need for intelligence? Stupid argument, no? Well the universe and its constants is magnitudes more complex than a simple building, so the obvious conclusion IMO is that the universe is a product of design. Now, I can't link to other atheists and agnostics who agree with this sentiment, since that's appealing to authority so there's really no way to move forward here.
Quantum psychics would fit into the cyclic multiverse category. Pseudoscience isn't even relevant to my scenario because each assumption has to be able to be scientifically falsifiable.
Classic example of a strawman. The whole point of adding G is to eliminate M E and A as variables.
Ok, so do you know the possiblity of God existing then? And why is the idea of a Creator more presumptous than the need to create an infinite amount of universes, etc.? Is it because you consider atheism to be the default position?
If we're going by my scenario here, your recursive creation example is invalidated by my second assumption: that the creator is an uncaused cause.
Once we find actual solid evidence that there is a cyclic multiverse, the need for the universe to be "created" is gone and a creator actually does become superflous so we can eliminate it with Occam's Razor. Contrast this to now where all we really have solid evidence of is that a fireball randomly appeared in the sky and a creator/mover is necessary (irregardless of whether the "creator/mover" is a collision of branes or god or anything else).
Aren't you, when you state how wildly improbable it is that a one-off universe could support life? It seems you are the one who first brought it up.
Duh. That's what I've been saying. The constants all have interrelationships that you have studiously ignored until now. Of course they are related. And so it is entirely probable that a stable, interesting universe is inevitable based on mathematical necessity.
No god required.
So, after saying nobody was talking probability, you bring in probability again? Could you please pick an argument and stick with it? Pretty please? This constant jumping around the issues is tiresome.
Yeah, the probability of god existing is 0. Exactly 0.
Nobody talked about adding an infinite number of universes. That's you. As I (and others) have pointed out, you don't need an infinite number of universes to present a cogent explanation for the universe. Nor do you have to resort to something as highly unlikely (0) as god.
Atheism is the default position in the same way that a-being-a-brain-in-a-vat is a default position. It's the only one that makes sense.
Sure. I never presented that as the only (or even best) scenario. I just presented it as one that was more likely than a god-creator, as it had fewer (and more-likely) assumptions.
You've managed to avoid the other, more-likely scenarios, though: that a stable, interesting universe is mathematically inevitable.
Again, it is you that keeps focusing on the cyclic multiverse, or anything other than the likelihood of our single universe being likely (or inevitable). You keep making this harder than it is.
It is entirely likely that an interesting universe is inevitable. The fact that we find ourselves in an interesting universe supports this. Adding god to the equation merely adds a layer of complexity that is unnecessary and completely inexplicable. "God" is not, nor ever will be, an explanation for anything, as god itself is beyong explanation.
As for the "creator/mover" being a collision of branes: how is that a "creator," in the sense that you have consistently meant (that is, an intelligent agent responsible for the existence and order of the universe)? It seems you are attempting to subvert a possible natural explanation to salvage an otherwise-destroyed proposition of a creator.
[EDIT addenum]
And you didn't manage to answer the question: how would you falsify any of your proposed steps? Seriously, you're the one claiming it's a scientific hypothesis, subject to falsification. I asked as simple question. HOW?
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
If you agree that this merely takes the problem one step back, then you're agreeing that we need another theory of origin for God. In that case, unless you're going to go with an infinite regress, eventually, we would still need some first cause, probably some comprehensible, gradual process reminiscent of abiogenesis.
However, theists usually relieve God of this burden by claiming that he is 'eternal' or 'the alpha and the omega.' Their only justification for this seems to be that he 'transcends' the natural world and thus, can do whatever the heck he wants. I hate God of the gaps.
Really? We hate waiting?
Many people in this thread hold the position of "I don't know" the ultimate origin of the universe. You're the one arguing for a supernatural, intelligent creator because that answer doesn't satisfy you. Remember?
Edit:
Speaking of jumping to conclusions, if you rolled a million sided dice and got 576,239, should your default conclusion be that it just happened to land on that number or that the dice was rigged? Your argument contains one of the most common assumptions that I see in these types of debates, a basic assumption that has existed as long as mankind. Even if you could out-debate the posters on here with science degrees and show that the existence of this specific universe were astronomically unlikely, it wouldn't establish anything for me. Every possible combination would be equally unlikely; you're merely assuming that the characteristics of this outcome are special, then begging the question by asserting that this outcome is special. Yes, we live in a universe with gravity, with certain kinds of life, with humans.
And? So what?
Are you a Creationist too then? The 80 types of microorganisms that live in my mouth are more complex than a suburban home. Are they products of design or did they evolve?
Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare
"Quantum psychics would fit into the cyclic multiverse category. Pseudoscience isn't even relevant to my scenario because each assumption has to be able to be scientifically falsifiable."
Though your description is inaccurate, you admit that it is more likely that the universe just happened. Ironic that you don't see it.
Also, there is no justification to claim that an alien species is unfalsifiable. It very well could be, and that's the whole point. Your claims of a god are the unfalsifiable claims.
"Classic example of a strawman. The whole point of adding G is to eliminate M E and A as variables."
On the contrary. M, E, and A are variables no matter if G exists or not. The universe exists, so they exist.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
No, it's that we're ignorant of quite a number of things, so instead of making up a creator, we try to find out what actually happened. The creator part is irrelevant.
Your argument is that anything improbable is created. I'm thinking you're using probability.
Who said anything about luck? We're here, right? Can we agree on that? Is that jumping to conclusions?
How about the statement, "In certain circumstances, matter self-organizes into something we call life". No problem with that, right?
But it doesn't follow (non sequitur). "We build buildings, so something made the universe" has a big hole in it, and I'm surprised you don't find it obvious.
You still haven't really given a good reason to have this "uncaused cause". If only one thing doesn't need a cause, it's difficult to see why.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
The second law of thermodynamics is an expression of the universal principle of increasing entropy, stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium, and that the entropy change dS of a system undergoing any infinitesimal reversible process is given by δq / T, where δq is the heat supplied to the system and T is the absolute temperature of the system. In classical thermodynamics, the second law is taken to be a basic postulate, while in statistical thermodynamics, the second law is a consequence of the equal prior probability postulate.
....
stating that the entropy of an isolated system which is not in equilibrium
...
isolated system
...
Can you even prove it is not an open system? There are so many potholes in claiming the second law of thermodynamics as proof the universe had a "creation"....just no.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
Clockcat - nice copy/paste from wikipedia, but unfortunately it doesn't apply here. When you ask me if matter can be the instrument of its own creation the fact that it's a closed system is a given. By definition, if the universe is an open system then matter is not the instrument of its own creation, is it?
Now I know where this list of fallacies you got is from - you keep putting words into my mouth and claiming that I'm wrong, which unfortunately isn't a valid debate tactic. No, I never implied that "we build buildings, so something made the universe". I'm stating that your request for 100% irrefutable proof is ridiculous. You need to understand that I'm not trying to convince you that that creation points to design - you're an atheist, I get it. It's purely a matter of opinion. For example, I could claim that the idea of ET life existing is a non-sequitur or some other ridiculous scenario. Try to prove me wrong.
That's like saying that if you know the winning lottery number then it doesn't help you at all because the winning number is still a variable no matter whether or not you know it.
Nothing really. As long as we're clear that a created universe is much more likely than the alternatives then we're good. Also, I don't see why it's so hard for you guys to admit that even an eternal universe is much more likely than an accidental one?
Mayhap, though using probability to argue backwards is if I said that a class of 50 students would have the birthdays they do is (1/365)50, therefore it's highly unlikely for them to exist, yet there they are. Am I claiming that the universe is unlikely to exist because of the probability of the wide range of values of the constants that it can have? No. I'm talking about assumptions, not necessarily probability.
Furthermore, hindsight can make probability biased, but it doesn't make it wrong. What if you said that a giant clown made the Earth and someone calculated the probability of this to be very unlikely? Would you then say that "no, your math is wrong because it has hindsight bias"? There's probability with hindsight right there! But simply claiming that it's there isn't very productive.
What? The interrelationships make no difference to my argument because that's not what it's about. The point of my example was that the charge of the proton/electron was exactly the same not that it's any particular value. These "islands of constants" are useless in this debate.
So again, do you believe that a fireball just randomly appeared in the sky and here we are?
Yes, that would fall under "accidental" or whatever else you want to call that category.
No. My point is that the big bang was caused whether or not you think it is god. The fact that we are here proves this.
Again: "Once we find actual solid evidence that there is a cyclic multiverse, the need for the universe to be "created" is gone and a creator actually does become superflous so we can eliminate it with Occam's Razor."
I suspect it was a resonance within a plactark field.
Imagine the people who believe such things and who are not ashamed to ignore, totally, all the patient findings of thinking minds through all the centuries since the Bible was written. And it is these ignorant people, the most uneducated, the most unimaginative, the most unthinking among us, who would make themselves the guides and leaders of us all; who would force their feeble and childish beliefs on us; who would invade our schools and libraries and homes. I personally resent it bitterly.
Isaac Asimov
You are still misunderstanding what I'm saying.
There are actually two issues. The first is the whole "fine-tuning" argument. It originated because somebody started fiddling with universal constants, and saying if this one were slightly greater, or this other one slightly weaker, life would not exist. Everything has to be precisely as it is to come up with a stable, interesting universe.
Other folks took that argument and started modifying not just one constant at a time, but several. They discovered that there were swathes of unstable or uninteresting combinations; but conversely, there were large patches that made stable, interesting universes. This pretty much proved that our particular combination wasn't so fine-tuned after all. The cosmological argument should've rested right there.
My argument is simply this: it is entirely possible cosmological constants are all inter-related. Changing one will change another in an inverse fashion, inevitably resulting in a stable, interesting universe. I believe this is possible because we have not yet fully explored the realm of the quantum. I believe the fundamental nature of the universe (the quantum, unless there's something lower still) may produce a stable, interesting universe by mathematical necessity.
This is no different than the way subatomic particles and forces make up the 100+ kinds of atoms, and those 100+ kinds of atoms make up the different chemicals of the universe, which (coupled with other energy) make up everything we know.
The properties of every scale is emergent from the properties of the scale below. This is a mathematical necessity.
By the lice-infested testicular hair of the child of a god-raped virgin, how many times do we have to tell you, we don't fucking know?
I like how you load the question, though: "fireball," "random," and "sky." Nice touch. Nothing like question-begging when you're completely missing the point.
I have no beliefs on the topic. I have some thoughts, and those thoughts are: all our models show that time didn't exist prior to the universe, so talk of any kind of temporal action is ludicrous.
I do have a favored idea. I suppose it's possible there are exactly two universes, ours and our anti-universe. Our anti-universe has the exact opposite mass and energy as us. Eventually, our two universes will recombine, just like virtual particle pairs. That is, unless we escape as Hawking radiation.
Or there could be an infinite number of pairs of universes.
Or there could be just one universe, which repeats over and over again, so that in exactly one universal age, we'll be having this exact same discussion all over again.
Or perhaps the Buddhists are sort-of right, and instead when the universe cycles back around, our lives will have changed based on the goodness of our actions this time.
In the same way that water is "accidental" based on the properties of hydrogen and oxygen, yes. In the same way that a thrown ball will describe an approximate parabola, yes. In the same way that 2+2 accidentally equals 4, yes.
In that way, what I describe is accidental, I guess. If by "accidental," you mean, "inevitable."
Ah! Sorry. My misunderstanding. I retract my snarkiness.
Here we get into a stranger realm. If time didn't exist before the universe existed, how can it have a cause? After all, cause/effect is an artifact of time. So again, all I can say is, "I don't know." In fact, I can go one further and say, "We don't know."
It's kind of a strange position for scientists to be in, as the effectiveness of science itself is based on cause and effect, the temporal dance of atoms and elements and us. It could very well be that the universe caused itself, a blister of time in a timeless void. It could be that there is no cause. Any of that is speculation, of course, but at the moment, that's all we can do, speculate.
Our existence here proves the universe exists (outside the whole brain-in-a-jar school of philosophy). It certainly doesn't prove the universe has a cause.
Again, we have only one valid conclusion: we don't know. To hold a "belief" in the matter is to probably be wrong.
A creator is superfluous without the multiverse. We don't need evidence of a cyclic multiverse, a cyclic universe, or a dynamic duoverse for a creator to be superfluous.
Besides, all it does is push god back another layer. "But then who created the multiverse?" This still doesn't provide a falsifiable proposition.
"Yes, I seriously believe that consciousness is a product of a natural process. I find that the neuroscientists, psychologists, and philosophers who proceed from that premise are the ones who are actually making useful contributions to our understanding of the mind." - PZ Myers
"Clockcat - nice copy/paste from wikipedia, but unfortunately it doesn't apply here. When you ask me if matter can be the instrument of its own creation the fact that it's a closed system is a given. By definition, if the universe is an open system then matter is not the instrument of its own creation, is it?"
Why are you presupposing that matter is the instrument of its own creation as per our arguments? We know for a fact that energy created matter. Not matter. Even if you change your words, it still doesn't work, because noone has said energy created itself. Why does it have to? Why can't it be a symptom rather than a cause? And finally, even if it did cause itself somehow, why do you think that simple energy is less likely to pop into existence than infinity, which is logically incoherent?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
The exact equality of the magnitude of charge on the the electron and proton is precisely NOT one of the fine-tuned parameters which are the subject of some debate.
It follows from the origin of those particles, as the breakdown of other particles with zero nett charge. the nature of the breakdown means that charge is not evenly distributed between the two daughter particles. If you start with zero, which is the most natural value of all, then the two split charges must automatically end up with exactly equal and opposite charge.
There are fundamental values which have been argued about, but this particular relationship was never one of them.
It does demonstrate that someone knows nothing about the actual argument from fine-tuning.
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