Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

A Proof That God Exists


  • Please log in to reply
364 replies to this topic

#196    Godsnmbr1

Godsnmbr1

    The Bee's Knees

  • Member
  • 2,317 posts
  • Joined:11 Jul 2008
  • Gender:Male

  • There's someone in my head
    but it's not me

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:36 AM

View PostEinsteinium, on 08 April 2013 - 10:27 PM, said:

A fine-tuned universe is not evidence for God, it is only evidence for a fine-tuned universe. Given the fact that you or I would not exist if not for the fine-tuning it makes perfect sense why we observe it to be fine-tuned. I do not understand why this is evidence for a creator God. A watch is evidence for the watchmaker because we know for a fact that nature does not assemble watches together. We do not know for a fact that physics does not naturally assemble into a fine-tuned universe so the fact that we live in one is not evidence for God, it is simply evidence for the fact that we still have a lot to learn about the universe.


I think part of the problem is that you're giving too much importance to our 'universe'.  Try thinking of it as just an amazingly beautiful toy.  When you bring out the anthropic principle, you're just choosing to believe in a 1 in infinity chance instead of admitting the much more likely possibility of design.  Why do you let pride make your decision?  What is about being a part of something made with a purpose that disturbs you so much?

Remember, we are all just acting out a grand old game here, where we agree to forget who we really are, that in the remembering, that we may find each other again, and know that we are One. That All of Life, is One.

#197    The Id3al Experience

The Id3al Experience

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 832 posts
  • Joined:20 Sep 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Zealand

  • "Live with cause and leave results to the great law of the universe, passing each day in peaceful contemplation"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 01:13 AM

I personally beleive in a multiverse theory, which then takes the 'fine-tuned' universe arguement out of the question.

It then becomes probibility.

Like the good old saying: Put a group of monkeys and a type writer into a room, Give them an infinite amount of time and they will produce shakespear.

Same with universes, given an infinite amount of time, Matter will configure into the correct conditions for a universe as we know it.

This is my own opinion of course.

Posted Image

#198    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,808 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:12 PM

View PostThe Id3al Experience, on 10 April 2013 - 01:13 AM, said:

I personally beleive in a multiverse theory, which then takes the 'fine-tuned' universe arguement out of the question.

It then becomes probibility.

Like the good old saying: Put a group of monkeys and a type writer into a room, Give them an infinite amount of time and they will produce shakespear.

Same with universes, given an infinite amount of time, Matter will configure into the correct conditions for a universe as we know it.

This is my own opinion of course.

And the probability of either happening by natural means (coincidence) is more improbable than the appearance of a flying pink spaghetti monster in your living room from spontaneous creation.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#199    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,405 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:41 PM

The application of Occam's Razor is a rule of thumb, not a rule of logic, and is best used to decide which theory to test first.  It can also be damn hard to apply to real cases, since "simplicity" is oft in the eye of the beholder.  To me an infinite set of "universes" is simpler than an infinite mind and has the benefit that they can have a beginning in time (don't have to have "always" existed) while the infinite mind has to have been doing something all through that infinite time.

However, I do think the situation as we have it is excellent evidence of design.  The idea of the universe throwing out cosmos after cosmos, each a dud, an unbelievably huge number of times before one comes along that is just right does stretch Occam quite a bit.  I think it better to think there is something narrowing the parameters -- some natural, or even intelligent thing making models, but something.  Of course this has nothing to do with God, an invention that predates these understadings about how the world is and so doesn't fit no matter how much you trim Him.


#200    Liquid Gardens

Liquid Gardens

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,703 posts
  • Joined:23 Jun 2012
  • Gender:Male

  • "Or is it just remains of vibrations from echoes long ago"

Posted 10 April 2013 - 02:48 PM

Jor-el,

Thanks for your earlier response.  In regard to one of your points, I thought we had resolved the issue of the 'net energy in the universe is zero' issue but if there are questions I have not responded to just let me know; most of the questions I had were cleared up once we clarified that we both agree this universe has energy, lots of it.  I have a few other disagreements with your post (definition of God of the gaps, the implication that I think science is the answer to everything, etc), but I don't think they're worth continuing.

I think the more interesting questions, since we don't seem to have any source for anyone actually calculating the probabilities of fine tuned constants from any actual data, concerns the 'therefore, God' argument.  You said to eight:

Quote

Yes it is not "proof", ultimately none of us have that one way or another, but there are indicators, indicators that when compared to the alternative become a whole lot more realistic than that alternative.

On what basis are we determining 'more realistic'?  If I entertain for a moment that pi must be the value it is, then the chance of it having that value is 100%, and yes, it makes me wonder then why anyone thinks the values these other fine-tuned constants have in this universe is unlikely.  Regardless, let's say that our universe's values are unlikely in some way, why does that at all make a god the 'more realistic' alternative?  One question, in my mind, that I don't think you have adequately addressed is why this is a 'someone' instead of a 'something'.  But I think the real difference in our argument may come down to that you may believe there is other evidence outside of fine-tuning that leads one to believe that a god exists and that makes him then a 'more realistic' explanation for fine-tuning than something like a multiverse or some other non-sentient natural force or law; I don't though.  I may be reading you wrong, but your argument against the multiverse seems to be that there is no direct evidence for it, which to me is exactly the same deficiency in the God answer (ignoring Occam/parsimony).  So why then is God a more realistic answer?  What is the probability of God existing?  It seems to me like you are comparing the small probability of the constants being what they are to a null/unknown probability of God existing, which means we don't know which is more 'realistic' and likely.  Piggy-backing on something you said to eight:

Quote

If even scientists admit that it looks like designer did it, why do so many people reject the possibility, after all there is no real alternative at this time.

If I understand you correctly, 'the designer' is not a 'real alternative' either, there's nothing that the multiverse theory suffers from that the designer hypothesis does not.  I don't reject the possibility, I just don't see why this argument is supposedly supporting one unevidenced possibility over another.

Quote

What you seem to not be seeing is that you are exactly limited to those two choices, and that in either one of them, you are forced to accept a belief. Either the multiverse (conjectural and non-testable) or God (conjectural and non-testable). So yes, the choice is yours in what to believe.

This is the false dichotomy I was referring to, I have a very obvious third option:  we don't have enough information on how universes are created, how constants are determined, what the probability is of them having certain values, how interrelated they are, etc, thus 'we don't know' is definitely an option.  Especially given this subject matter (universe creation) which is at the bleeding edge of our scientific understanding.

"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into"
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - C. Hitchens
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" - Richard Feynman

#201    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,405 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

The three forces are gravity, which compared to the others is unbelievably (hundreds of orders of magnitute) weaker but extends forever and has only attraction; then then there is electro-weak, which is much stronger and also extends forever but is balanced between attraction and repulsion, and then there is the strong force, as much stronger as gravity is weaker, but has atomic-nucleus sized range.

It looks jury-rigged in the extreme, but it makes us possible, and tweaking any of it by less than a percent makes us impossible (not evolved, but things like planets and stars and molecules and neutrons and so on no longer are possible).

This is just the beginning; Hoyle famously pointed out little resonances that were they slightly different would produce a universe without heavy metals (actually absent anything heavier than carbon), and that the chances against these resonances were astounding.

To me it builds a case that we are not real but in a construct, a model, a super computer somewhere.  Or it builds a case that there is a natural selection of universes to make those the produce life over those that don't.  The standard "Gaia" hypothesis has to be mentioned as another possibility, but a distasteful one.


#202    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:33 PM

View PostGodsnmbr1, on 10 April 2013 - 12:36 AM, said:

I think part of the problem is that you're giving too much importance to our 'universe'.  Try thinking of it as just an amazingly beautiful toy.  When you bring out the anthropic principle, you're just choosing to believe in a 1 in infinity chance instead of admitting the much more likely possibility of design.  Why do you let pride make your decision?  What is about being a part of something made with a purpose that disturbs you so much?

It does not disturb me at all! I have pondered it often. Pride is not influencing my decision, nor is any sort of anti religious dogma. I simply do not see why a designed universe is any more likely than a chance universe. That is all. Simple as that. The more I research it, the more I look into it, the more I understand that a creator or designer is simply not necessary. It FEELS good to me, to think of the universe as having a design and hence a defined purpose, but feeling does not equate to evidence. I am simply one who is not afraid to say, "I don't know" one who is not afraid to stare into the black abyss of nothingness, of the possibility of no God, and see that nothingness is just as beautiful and mysterious as God would be.

Our universe is. A is A. That is a universally recognized truth. We cannot compare our universe to anything else, because it is all we know for a fact to exist. Are you suggesting that this universe which contains everything we have ever known to exist is just a mere toy? God's plaything?

Edited by Einsteinium, 10 April 2013 - 03:39 PM.


#203    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,405 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I find it fascinating that a theist resorts to accusing a non-believer of "pride" to explain the non-believers failure to be persuaded.  That is a little better than others who have accused non-believers of refusing to believe because they want to feel free to do evil things, but not all that much better.


#204    conspiracy buff

conspiracy buff

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 158 posts
  • Joined:05 Apr 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:44 PM

When you look at the world and indeed the universe, you have to wonder how it came into being.  Like I've stated in other threads, I do not believe in coincidence at all.  The world was created and therefore there has to be a creator.  It's that simple for me.  It is a matter of faith and either you have it or you don't.

There is a grain of truth in every conspiracy known to man, you just have to be intelligent enough to find it.

#205    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,405 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM

Coincidence has nothing to do with it; it's called natural processes.  I find the claim of faith nothing more than a rather weak excuse for believing what you find pleasant rather than having the intellectual integrity to accept the world as it really is.


#206    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM

View PostJor-el, on 09 April 2013 - 08:45 PM, said:

What does a fine tuned universe mean?

How many physical constants in the universe are fine tuned?

What is the probability that all these physical constants happened to all converge at just the exact time for the universe we now live in to exist?

If even scientists admit that it looks like designer did it, why do so many people reject the possibility, after all there is no real alternative at this time.


A 'fine tuned' universe simply means that all the physical constants line up to create the conditions for a universe in which life can exist. You do not understand me. I do not REJECT the POSSIBILITY of a designer. I am simply stating that a designer is not necessary. And there are many real alternatives that are no less valid than God. Like the multiverse theory for one. No less evidence for it, requires belief- see same evidence as there is for a creator God. Ever since mankind learned how to think we have been trying to figure out what made us, what made our world. To ancient man fire, volcanoes, lightening were created by God as they did not understand it. Now we know that volcanoes and lightening exist because of the physics of the world. Just because we do not understand something does not mean that God created it and in fact that attitude implies that we should just accept that we do not understand and move on. I think that we need to keep prodding, keep looking, keep questioning.


#207    Einsteinium

Einsteinium

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,218 posts
  • Joined:09 Nov 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wisconsin USA

  • "Work out your own salvation. Do not depend on others."
    -Buddha

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:00 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 10 April 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

When you look at the world and indeed the universe, you have to wonder how it came into being.  Like I've stated in other threads, I do not believe in coincidence at all.  The world was created and therefore there has to be a creator.  It's that simple for me.  It is a matter of faith and either you have it or you don't.

That is your opinion. Just because you have faith in something or believe in something does not make it objectively true. The cult members in the Heavens Gate cult believed that an alien mother ship that was following some comet would take their souls away to heaven so they killed themselves. Just because they had faith in it, does that then make it true? I don't think so.


#208    Quaentum

Quaentum

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,632 posts
  • Joined:03 Aug 2012
  • Gender:Not Selected

  • The number of fringe believers is inversely proportional to what is left to discover in our world.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:49 PM

View Postconspiracy buff, on 10 April 2013 - 03:44 PM, said:

When you look at the world and indeed the universe, you have to wonder how it came into being.  Like I've stated in other threads, I do not believe in coincidence at all.  The world was created and therefore there has to be a creator.  It's that simple for me.  It is a matter of faith and either you have it or you don't.

Perhaps you can explain to me how one can look at a platypus and say that a creator did it.

AA LOGIC
They didn't use thousands of workers - oops forgot about the work camps
There's no evidence for ramps - You found one?...Bummer
Well we know they didn't use ancient tools to cut and shape the stones - Chisel marks?  Craps
I still say aliens built them!

#209    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,808 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 06:45 PM

View PostLiquid Gardens, on 10 April 2013 - 02:48 PM, said:

Jor-el,

Thanks for your earlier response.  In regard to one of your points, I thought we had resolved the issue of the 'net energy in the universe is zero' issue but if there are questions I have not responded to just let me know; most of the questions I had were cleared up once we clarified that we both agree this universe has energy, lots of it.  I have a few other disagreements with your post (definition of God of the gaps, the implication that I think science is the answer to everything, etc), but I don't think they're worth continuing.

Hi LG,

We had not resolved it since you never actually answered the question i posed in my response to you, you sidestepped it, but that doesn't resolve the issue. I wanted a categorical yes or no answer from you in regards to the question I asked, not a run around (no intention of insult, just my understanding of our debate). The question was specific, and I will repeat it again... Do you deny that the total ammount of energy in the universe adds up to zero?

That is irresespective of whether we have enrgy now or not, we are not destroying energy, we are converting into another form of energy, therefore the idea that just because we have energy now and use it doesn't alter the equation one bit. But I am actually tired of trying to communicate this bit of science to you, maybe you'll listen to somebody else on this. See the video...





Quote

I think the more interesting questions, since we don't seem to have any source for anyone actually calculating the probabilities of fine tuned constants from any actual data, concerns the 'therefore, God' argument.  You said to eight:


Yes it is not "proof", ultimately none of us have that one way or another, but there are indicators, indicators that when compared to the alternative become a whole lot more realistic than that alternative.

On what basis are we determining 'more realistic'?  If I entertain for a moment that pi must be the value it is, then the chance of it having that value is 100%, and yes, it makes me wonder then why anyone thinks the values these other fine-tuned constants have in this universe is unlikely.  Regardless, let's say that our universe's values are unlikely in some way, why does that at all make a god the 'more realistic' alternative?

My sources are on record, it is the very Astro Phycisists, Cosmologists and other scientists who I am quoting, or was that not apparent? Every single piece of data I have shared is taken from their quotes on the matter. None of them deny the fine tuning, they try to explain it in their theories, the essence of their theory of a multiverse is essentially an explanation for the fine tuning they have themselves identified. They have been the ones providing the probabilites... Why do you think I've been adding videos lately, it is so that you can actually hear them stating those probabilities for yourselves. All the scientists on those videos are not believers, they are atheists, self confessed atheists, yet none of them deny either the fine tuning or the probabilities they themselves calculated.

As for the matter of Pi, have you never wondered what kind of universe would exist if all the laws of physics were actually different? Pi works in our universe only because space is flat, if space were curved, the value would be different. But again don't take my word for it.

http://www.jb.man.ac...smo/metric.html


Quote

One question, in my mind, that I don't think you have adequately addressed is why this is a 'someone' instead of a 'something'.
Three premises are in order...
  • Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  • The universe had a beginning
  • Therefore the universe had a cause.
This could mean anything by itself, it just means that the universe had a cause. So we ask another question: What is the nature of this cause?

If all things material came into existence after the big bang and nothing existed befoer the big bang (as demonstrated in the video I provided for you earlier above) what was that 1st cause?

Think about it, what could explain that 1st cause? What do we know about this 1st cause in light of the evidence we do have?

The 1st cause must be immaterial (it is not comprised of anything material which did not yet exist) and it must be beyond space and time (neither of which existed as well).

There are only 2 things that can possibly fit into this category...
1. Abstract objects
2. an unbodied mind

That means intelligence existed before matter, mind existed before matter, mind existed before the universe.

That is why it is a someone and not a something.

Quote

But I think the real difference in our argument may come down to that you may believe there is other evidence outside of fine-tuning that leads one to believe that a god exists and that makes him then a 'more realistic' explanation for fine-tuning than something like a multiverse or some other non-sentient natural force or law; I don't though.

Yes I do, I have already mentioned this in this very thread a number of times although not necessarily to you.
There are 3 things...
  • Fine tuning
  • The Golden ratio
  • The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

Quote

I may be reading you wrong, but your argument against the multiverse seems to be that there is no direct evidence for it, which to me is exactly the same deficiency in the God answer (ignoring Occam/parsimony).

I said exactly the same earlier to you and that is why I said that it was a matter of what you prefer to believe, since neither are testable. Am I wrong?
It is a matter of where you are willing to place your belief, (your faith if you will) in either of these the chances are even, 50/50

Unless someone can prove one over the other, both hold equal wheight and have equal claim to Occams razor, as I explained to EightBits.

Quote

So why then is God a more realistic answer?  What is the probability of God existing?  It seems to me like you are comparing the small probability of the constants being what they are to a null/unknown probability of God existing, which means we don't know which is more 'realistic' and likely.  Piggy-backing on something you said to eight:

If even scientists admit that it looks like designer did it, why do so many people reject the possibility, after all there is no real alternative at this time.

No I actually said that to Einsteinium, not Eightbits.

Now in regards to your question, the answer is 67% and even I found that surprising...

http://www.guardian....ereducation.uk1

It is truly amazing what one finds on the internat nowadays... :tu:

Quote

If I understand you correctly, 'the designer' is not a 'real alternative' either, there's nothing that the multiverse theory suffers from that the designer hypothesis does not.  I don't reject the possibility, I just don't see why this argument is supposedly supporting one unevidenced possibility over another.

That is why I laid out my reasoning above on why I think it is a someone rather than a something as well as the evidence of the 3 things that allow me to consider a creator/designer rather than an accident.
  • Fine tuning
  • The Golden ratio
  • The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

Quote

This is the false dichotomy I was referring to, I have a very obvious third option:  we don't have enough information on how universes are created, how constants are determined, what the probability is of them having certain values, how interrelated they are, etc, thus 'we don't know' is definitely an option.  Especially given this subject matter (universe creation) which is at the bleeding edge of our scientific understanding.

You can say that, it is what some scientists say as well, who also reject the same dichotomy presented by the information they have. However I have not found one iota of discussion regarding the possibility that the constants are interrelated in any way... if you find anything regarding that issue, please I would like to know as well.

Edited by Jor-el, 10 April 2013 - 06:46 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis


#210    Jor-el

Jor-el

    Knight of the Most High God

  • Member
  • 7,808 posts
  • Joined:12 Oct 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portugal

  • We are the sum of all that is, and has been. We will be the sum of our choices.

Posted 10 April 2013 - 07:10 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 10 April 2013 - 03:56 PM, said:

Coincidence has nothing to do with it; it's called natural processes.  I find the claim of faith nothing more than a rather weak excuse for believing what you find pleasant rather than having the intellectual integrity to accept the world as it really is.

This statement cannot be classified in any light but self denial..... if you want to argue about natural processes then at least make a case for it.

I will ask again... What are the probabilities that "natural processes" created the universe?

Where did these natural processes come from?

The universe was created from literally nothing!

Can you concieve the implications of that statement?

Edited by Jor-el, 10 April 2013 - 07:11 PM.

Posted Image


"Man is not the centre. God does not exist for the sake of man. Man does not exist for his own sake."

-C. S. Lewis





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users