A Proof That God Exists

[Frank Merton]

In order for things to be 'coincidences', we have to have some information about what the other options are, and I'm not sure which of the 'fine-tuned' constants could have other values and how we know. I haven't had much luck finding answers to my questions, and that may be just because of limitations in my scientific understanding and expertise. To me, there seems to be a big fat assumption in the fine-tuning argument: the fine-tuned constants can have other values and the value that they currently have is improbable in some way. I don't know what the basis for that assumption is. Are there areas in our universe where these constants have different values, do we know if any of them are variable at all?

These things have all been done with of course varying results. Here again I'm getting beyond where I can go off the top of my head and I'm way too busy to do the research, but I have seen demonstrations that as a one-off random event the chances against our universe having about a dozen values the permit our existence carries an exponent well over 100. Even if some of these are not random, others could be added to the list: alternatively, taking them off the list and one still has overwhelmingly negative odds. I am pretty sure Paul Dirak pointed all this out in the 1930s and it has been around ever since.

The conclusion that this implies God is wrong. All it implies is either vast numbers of similar "universes" or some sort of design of the one we are in (a cosmos natural selection is popular where cosmoses with these properties tend to repeat themselves -- such as one where new cosmoses originate in black holes, so there is selection in favor of black-hole producing cosmoses (which, it turns out, also produces livable cosmoses.))

For that matter, as I said in an earlier post, producing these things could be someone's hobby. It is also the sort of thing we would see if we were a simulation.

Edited April 4, 2013 by Frank Merton

[Rlyeh]

If God can't make a square circle then he isn't "God," but only some god.

Can your "God" flip a coin and have it land on both heads and tails?

I don't think you understand what mutually exclusive means.

[eight bits]

LG

The only thing I might disagree with in your post is concerning how God cannot change pi, that does not seem logical to me even though I can't comprehend such a thing. It seems to presuppose that there is some greater reality with laws and rules that God dwells in, and that he is somehow constrained by, when I don't know how he can be. If we say that if God is to create a circle the ratio of the of the circumference to the diameter must be pi, where did that 'rule' come from if not God? If it just 'is', then that 'is-ness' had to come from somewhere (under a framework where God actually exists and is the ultimate creator of course).

We have a current thread on the SR&B board about the perennial "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?"

The answer is secular, not theological. The performance specification refers to its own departure from the specification. It cannot be fulfilled logically, therefore it cannot be fulfilled by God.

Frank proposes the simpler (because the contradiction is more surface) making of a square circle. There is no such thing, because there can be no such thing. The points in a square must cover a range of distances from the square's center between 1/2 and 1/2 of the square root of two of the length of any of its sides. In a circle centered on the same point and lying in the same plane, all the points must be one chosen distance away.

None of this is news to theologians (although why the rock thing doesn't work has only been understood thoroughly since the 1930's, but it was never thought to be kosher, so to speak). The restriction is not upon God, but upon what the word omnipotence means. Like any other word, however it is defined must be free of contradcition. To say that God can do anything carries an unspoken contradiction, unless by one device or another anything is understood to mean compliance with any specification which refers to a logically possible (describable without contradiction) state of affairs.

The divinely immovable rock, the square circle, the special-pi circle (which is really just a variation of the square circle), are all definitely out. My personal favorite is "God cannot get lost" (which of course he can't).

This does not rule out lesser performances, like God revealing a key, perhaps a triple {n, m, D} where the m consecutive bits of the binary expansion of pi beginning at bit n recites some intelligible message when read according to decoding algorithm D.

As Carl Sagan pointed out at the end of Contact, the possibility of such messages is endless. However, God's majesty in my scenario would not be because he chose the bits of pi, but rather because he chose D and could locate n, which we might find daunting, especially if our performance were judged by the "simplicity" of D and the profundity of the resulting cleartext.

Edited April 4, 2013 by eight bits

[Frank Merton]

All this sort of thing does is show that "God" is a logical impossiblity. So? If He is God, why can't He be a logical impossibility?

[Frank Merton]

I'm sorry but the word "omnipotence" must mean what it means or God is not "God" but only some powerful being.

[Einsteinium]

There is a reason why it is called "a belief in God" and there is a reason why such a belief requires '"faith". It is specifically because there is no proof of God, if there was then it would not be called belief but fact, it would not require faith but logic. There is no way to disprove God just as there is no way to prove God's existence. If the universe is cyclical- going bang then bust over and over, then therefore there would be an infinite variety of universes that exist throughout eternity. This one has the perfect conditions that it has because it could be no other way. You or I could not exist to observe it and wonder why it is the way it is if it was not the way that it is. Furthermore if the multiverse theory is true, then the same logic follows. The conditions would have to be perfect for us to exist in this universe otherwise we would not exist to make that observation. The existence of the universe itself does not require God.

The existence of God is your opinion only. You cannot prove it, you cannot make me believe it, I cannot disprove it to you. So you go on believing what you believe, and I will go on believing what I believe. Neither is better than the other, and what really matters is what you or I do to help make this world a better place with less suffering.

[+Liquid Gardens]

eight,

One difference I'd see at least between the rock example and the pi example is that the rock example is pitting God's omnipotence against his own omnipotence; the pi example seems to pit his omniscience against some external 'rule', of which there are none. You say it can't be fulfilled 'logically', therefore it cannot be fulfilled by God, but where then does 'logic' originate if god didn't define it? I agree that statements like 'God can do anything' and 'anything is possible' carry with it internal contradictions. God cannot create universes where geometry operates differently? Isn't that somewhat of a bold assumption to be making since it's based solely on the way it is in this universe and/or we can't imagine anything different?

I have heard of this restriction on God, that he must obey the law of non-contradiction, but I don't know how we can infer such a thing based only on how things operate in our reality. Can God both exists and not exist in the same place simultaneously? I don't know, what do 'place' and 'simultaneously' mean since God is usually defined as outside of time and is immaterial? I'm just hesitant to assert what God cannot do based on our inferior understanding; it seems to be a categorical error to say because of the way our universe/reality works, that any rule we've derived from it must then apply to all possible realities, since again we're working from a sample size of 1.

Frank,

I have seen demonstrations that as a one-off random event the chances against our universe having about a dozen values the permit our existence carries an exponent well over 100. Even if some of these are not random, others could be added to the list: alternatively, taking them off the list and one still has overwhelmingly negative odds. I am pretty sure Paul Dirak pointed all this out in the 1930s and it has been around ever since.

Thanks for the reference, I'll look into and see if I can comprehend what Dirak was saying when I have time. Again, I obviously have a big question mark concerning how these 'chances' were calculated and what it is based on if it's something other than guesswork.

[eight bits]

LG

One difference I'd see at least between the rock example and the pi example is that the rock example is pitting God's omnipotence against his own omnipotence; the pi example seems to pit his omniscience against some external 'rule', of which there are none.

Well, that's a nice way to describe the "rock" problem. The pi example, however, says only that once we have said what a circle is, then the value of the ratio of its circumference to its diameter cannot be anything other than what it always is, pi.

God didn't make circles, and with respect to Riyeh, neither did people, although of course people have found it useful to think about them. But pi is eternal and impersonal. Nothing about it depends on time or space, or on anybody being around to appreciate what its value is. I am not sure I would call its constancy a "rule," since that word suggests something imposed or enforced, and maybe hints that the "rule" can be "broken." But pi having the value it does is simply part of another way to define "circle." The two definitions would be equivalent in every respect.

where then does 'logic' originate if god didn't define it?

Necessity is an inherent property of some syntaxes for using symbols. It didn't originate, since it has no beginning, end or location. What we usually call a "logic" is one of our codifications of necessary relationships. How we codify "logics" has changed from time to time. Aristotle would be amazed, but he'd catch on to the modren ones after a few hours' briefing.

God cannot create universes where geometry operates differently?

Whether a given geometry describes a universe is a different matter from what relationships hold among terms in the geometry. Euclidean geometry isn't a very good description of some parts of even this Universe, since space can be "distorted" in various ways. But even in a universe where nothing is even remotely like a circle, the ratio of the circumference to the diameter of a circle is pi... nobody would care, but not caring doesn't change what's true.

Can God both exists and not exist in the same place simultaneously?

That would depend on what "exists" means for a supernatural being. You and I are "situated," so for any given place and time, we exist there-and-then or else we do not. That's not "logic," that's using logic to model a physical situation. God may not be able to violate logic, but he can (I would think) violate a model of physical reality that accurately describes natural things and only natural things. Pi, however, isn't about physical things that resemble circles, it's about circles. God's stuck along with everybody else.

it seems to be a categorical error to say because of the way our universe/reality works, that any rule we've derived from it must then apply to all possible realities, since again we're working from a sample size of 1.

True enough about the sample size, but I didn't infer pi from any feature of this Universe. Real round things may have set my mind to contemplating abstract perfect round things, but that has nothing to do with the actual and necessary properties of the perfect round things, which are what they are whether or not anybody had ever thought about them.

Frank

I'm sorry but the word "omnipotence" must mean what it means or God is not "God" but only some powerful being.

People decide what sort of being they call "God." If you personally want to hold out for a God that any "Can God ___?" question must be answered affirmatively, then that is your prerogative.

At least you don't have to worry about whether that God exists. Such a God doesn't exist, because that specification contradicts itself. Whether such a God also exists, despite not existing, I couldn't say; I can only say that he doesn't, but both can be "proven" to be true from the specification. That's one of the properties of contradiction, and so contradictory specifications are useless.

However, that has nothing to do with the various beings whom billions of people call "God" or some equaivalent term in whatever language they use for discussing their beings. Many settle for a definition of omnipotence along the lines of "God can do whatever can be coherently said to have been done by God." Unsurprisingly, most people find that to be enough, since it's sufficient for God to create a Universe, cure Uncle Henry's cancer, and locate the pin Grandma lost.

[Rlyeh]

All this sort of thing does is show that "God" is a logical impossiblity. So? If He is God, why can't He be a logical impossibility?

Because if the logically impossible is possible then it wouldn't be impossible.

A square circle is impossible, the geometric requirements of a square is incompatible with a circle.

Edited April 5, 2013 by Rlyeh

[Ben Masada]

I now call Stalemate. We cannot go futher into this without Me calling BULL.

I believe in a God of the evolved universe. That makes logical sence. I guess we must first Define what a God is.. If its all powerfull, its a illogical conclusion, and cannot accept that. .

You said yourself, Something cannot create itself, So let me ask the grand old question? How did God come to be?

Have you ever heard about the Primal Cause of the classic Philosophers? That's another way to refer to God. The One Who caused all or moved the first piece of the domino so to speak but was not created Himself. If He was created we must get going back in the cycle in search of the Primal Cause. Now in answer to your

"grand old question" God diid not come to be. He Is. When Moses in a vision asked for a name to give those who would ask what God had sent him the answer was: "I AM." Therefore, I AM could not come to be as this implies being caused or created.

Ben

[Ben Masada]

I like the watchmaker argument, I literally found a watch in the surf one day. Now had I been unfamiliar with the concept of mechanical devices (say I was from a very primitive society) I might pick this device up and examine it. With its seemingly magical sweeping second hand, polished metal casing and glass front it would perhaps be more amazing than anything in my experience. But it is unlikely that I would think that this watch came into being all by itself. A watch implies a watchmaker. The universe is complex beyond our understanding, though we are making good progress. The atom was once thought to be the smallest component of matter, now we are faced with an ever widening number of sub-atomic particles. We cannot adequately explain for certain how DNA, one of the most complex molecules in existence could supposedly have come from non-living things to suddenly become the driving self-replicating programming behind the cell. The so-called simple cells were once thought to be mere little blobs of jelly when seen under early microscopes are fantastically complex, take away one organelle and the cell cannot operate.

My point is that if a relatively simple watch suggests a watchmaker, how much more does a hugely complex and intricate universe suggest an infinite being?

¹ Or as King David said in Psalm 19

The heavens declare the glory of God;

the skies proclaim the work of his hands.

² Day after day they pour forth speech;

night after night they reveal knowledge.

³ They have no speech, they use no words;

no sound is heard from them.

⁴ Yet their voice goes out into all the earth,

their words to the ends of the world.

That's beautiful Sundue! Myself I couldn't put it better. Interesting and enlightening post.

[Ben Masada]

All this sort of argument is based on the idea that everything has to have a prior cause. Why? There is no logical reason this has to be so and in fact Hume rather clearly showed that it is very much a trick of our minds.

http://m.sparknotes..../section4.rhtml

[/quote]

Well Frank, based on the logic that nothing can have caused itself into something, everything has somehow to have been caused except the Primal Cause.

[Ben Masada]

Nonsense. That is one of the standard "proofs" that William Craig Lane routinely cites. Nice to learn he got it from Maimonides; however that does not make it convincing.

Fact is we can neither prove nor disprove the existance of good. But since it is the theists who make the claim, the burden of proof is on their side.

Well, where is the beef? I mean what is the option to contradic the one that does not convince? Let us not call it proof here but evidence. If nothing can cause something into existence isn't it an evidence for the existence of the Primal Mover?

Ben

[Ben Masada]

The extreme unlikelihood of the laws of physics being such that we could exist, in even the grossest form, is something I have worried about. I don't think God is the answer, but it may be that design is.

(I don't want to go into detail, but there are constants that if they were different by only a small percent would make the existence of chemicals and stars and even space impossible, so the argument that we evolved to fit doesn't succeed).

A variety of universe-selection models have been proposed, and of course the fact that we are here demonstrates that our universe by chance happened to have the needed properties (the odds against are really immense -- exponents exceeding 100 if not 1000).

I tend to take it we are the product of definite design, maybe by some super-being teenagers building model universes in their garage, but more likely on purpose. That beings go about causing universes that can contain life quite on purpose, even though they can never know the details of what they create.

Of course it could also be taken as evidence that we are an artificial construct, a model.

Oh! I got it. The problem is with the word God. If we replace it with...let's say, "Design" it will be okay? So Design has caused the universe into existence.

Ben

[Jor-el]

Ah, so you are telepathic now, you know what I would 'prefer' (while you of course are entirely unbiased and are merely going where the evidence takes you, no preconceptions at all...). And no that does not logically follow: if some scientists just believe currently that God is the explanation for how the universe began/how something came from 'nothing', it doesn't mean they are biased are skewed, I don't know where you're getting that from. It just means they currently don't have enough data or information to conclude that, which is accurate, and many religious scientists do admit as much.

No, not telepathic, just insisting on the preservation of the word I used, which was not "believe" but "admitted". The reason for the word choice is obvious, I am not quoting believers at all, I'm not quoting scientists who are also believers, I'm quoting scientists who do not believe in the existence of God, but admit that design is inherent in the structure of the inception of the universe. Whether their opinion is one that "aliens" did it or something else, they admit that that is exactly what the data is telling them.

Let us look at it from another angle, if admitted atheists who are also aware of the data, sarcastically state that although the data may lead some to accept the existence of a God, they on the other hand have a perfectly logical explanation for the same data... the multiverse. So the ultimate question is limited to two possibilities, either God did it, or we are part of a much larger universe that allows the data they have to be consistent. At no point do they say the data is inconsistent with the existence of a designer.

You're definitely not going to burst my bubble just with assertions, like 'NOT SOMETHING', with no other explanation as to why it has to be 'somebody', nor your false dichotomies. Here's what I asked you several days ago:

And yet you miss the central and simple point, they are not assertions, the data demonstrates that. You can only argue one of two points here, either the multiverse, or purposeful design (which by inference means God or super aliens take your pick), which is exactly the way scientists are looking at this picture, they all limit it to this, neither you or I can change that, that is exactly what they are saying, because that is exactly what the data is telling them.

As I said before, you responded to this essentially with a sermon about the choice is mine whether I believe. Now maybe you thought I was mocking you, fair enough, but I'm not, I'm entirely serious. What information do we have about how universes are created? What do we know specifically about 'nothing'? I was under the impression that very question was currently the subject of rather lively debate. Or do you just think these questions are entirely irrelevant, and no expertise or knowledge is needed concerning this before assenting to the statement, and I'll admit this may not be a totally accurate paraphrase of your position, 'since the current thinking is that the universe may have come from 'nothing', the best answer is that God created the universe'. Let me just assert as a contrast for comparison, 'the best answer is that the universe was caused by a Universal Non-sentient Creation Force'. In response, you should say, 'LG, there's no good evidence that any UNCF exists', and I can equally say, 'Jor-El, there's no good evidence that any god exists either'.

No I did not give you a sermon, if I had, you would KNOW it. 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 isn't a sermon, it is stating things as they are, do you deny that, like you seem to deny that the total ammount of energy in the universe adds up to zero?

The only testable information about how a universe is created stems from the observational evidence of our own universe and as such cannot really be used to test hypotheitcal conjectures such as a multiverse. There is absolutely no evidence except supposition that gives wheight to this idea (and an excuse to not face the fine tuning anthropic principle argument as convincing evidence of a designer).

In response to your question (which I take the time to actually answer, even if not to your satisfaction) no I do not hold my position merely because the universe may have come from 'nothing', thus best answer is that God created the universe'.

I hold my position because fine tuning exists and is a proven fact, because we have no evidence of a hypothetical multiverse at all, becuase the entire structure of the universe from the smallest to the largest structures in the universe, have been found to be related to one another with the Golden ratio, even in absurd places like a magnet.

http://www.nature.co...ll/464362a.html

It is present at the quantum level of the universe...

http://www.scienceda...00107143909.htm

It is present in our very DNA, it is present in all of nature, it is present in the rotation and existence of Galaxies, and yet, it is relegated to "coincidence".

http://www.fabulousf...&id=4&Itemid=12

And most interesting of all is that our very lives are ruled by it, from mathematics to architecture, to music to our concept of beauty. So just how many "coincidences" does it take?

And the third and final reason why I choose design over coincidence, is exactly that reason, For all of this to exist by chance, by coincidence is so absurd as to make the calculation of probability impossible. The reason presented that because we are here and that all these things exist, thus these improbabilies must actually have happened is beyond belief and highly irrational from the stance of any neutral observer, it is ignoring just how beyond incredible these probabilies are, mathematically speaking. You have a better chance for that famous pink unicorn of materializing out of thin air because the probablities for its existence demand it.

Maybe I am, but I'll never know unless you actually provide an argument. Yes, I'm quite familiar with God of the gaps: there is a gap in our understanding of nature, therefore the cause is God or the supernatural. Like, 'we don't know how the universe can come from 'nothing', therefore the best answer is that God caused it'. I wouldn't use it so liberally if you'd either alter your argument (or clarify if I've misread you) or provide an argument explaining why it's not fallacious.

It is used in two sets of circumstances...

The term "God of the Gaps" is used to describe a specific creationist argument concerning Genesis 1, where there are silences or "gaps" in the strucure of the text, such as between verse 1 and verse 2. Where the 1st verse describes the creation of the universe and associated, galaxies and solar systems and verse 2 onwards describes, not the creation of the earth but a reconstruction of a destroyed earth.

It is also used to describe an undetermined period between each of Earths creation days, where each day describes a specific evolutionary advance. Hence, the "God of the Gaps".

Is there anything further you feel I should clarify?

Who said that only science provides knowledge, yes that's a bit presumptious, but Hawking didn't say that. I certainly think that the methods of science, rationality, empiricism, skepticism are the best ways at determining the truth. And maybe you bring up a more interesting topic there, concerning 'we see how necessary the need for dialogue between theology and science is'. I guess I don't see what you're talking about there, why is it necessary? Again, there are plenty of religious scientists who are not being prevented from doing research or developing theories using any methodology they'd like. It is simply not the case that 'based on what we know about the creation of the universe, the best answer is that God caused it, but there are too many non-religious scientists who are biased and just can't bring themselves to 'admit' it despite the compelling evidence'. And many religious scientists do literally admit that is not the case.

Yes he did actually say that, I quoted it word for word, but don't take my word for it, read it here....

http://www.telegraph...hy-is-dead.html

Science is not the answer for everything LG, it can't answer alot of questions because it is not essentially equiped to answer them, science can only deal with the verifiable fact, and not everything real is verifiable. Only pure materialists will accept that science is the be all and end all of the universe and that everything else is delusion, rubbish and superstition.

Ha, I'm quite chill, thanks for your concern. What exactly do I need to chill out, daring to disagree with you?

Truthfully?

I was addressing Rlyeh when I created this post, I thought it was his, only later did I notice it was yours, too late to change the content I might add.

And the probability was?

Simply put?

I would use the infinite monkey theorem, which scientists humourously refer to instead of saying that it is impossible...

The infinite monkey theorem states that a monkey hitting keys at random on a typewriter keyboard for an infinite amount of time will almost surely type a given text, such as the complete works of William Shakespeare.

http://en.wikipedia...._monkey_theorem

What is the probability that the rate of the universe's expansion could actually have been smaller? How do we know?

Mathematical models exist where this data is tested (FLRW metric) and the results give very different universes when these constants are purposefully altered.

A wiki article says the following...

One possible explanation for the small but non-zero value was noted by Steven Weinberg in 1987 following the anthropic principle. Weinberg explains that if the vacuum energy took different values in different domains of the universe, then observers would necessarily measure values similar to that which is observed: the formation of life-supporting structures would be suppressed in domains where the vacuum energy is much larger. Specifically, if the vacuum energy is negative and its absolute value is substantially larger than it appears to be in the observed universe (say, a factor of 10 larger), holding all other variables (e.g. matter density) constant, that would mean that the universe is closed; furthermore, its lifetime would be shorter than the age of our universe, possibly too short for the intelligent life to form. On the other hand, a universe with a large positive cosmological constant would expand too fast, preventing galaxy formation. According to Weinberg, domains where the vacuum energy are compatible with life would be comparatively rare. Using this argument, Weinberg predicted that the cosmological constant would have a value of less than a hundred times the currently accepted value. In 1992 Weinberg refined this prediction of the cosmological constant to 5 to 10 times the matter density.

This argument depends on a lack of a variation of the distribution (spatial or otherwise) in the vacuum energy density, as would be expected if dark energy were the cosmological constant. There is no evidence that the vacuum energy does vary, but it may be the case if, for example, the vacuum energy is (even in part) the potential of a scalar field such as the residual inflaton (also see quintessence). Another theoretical approach that deals with the issue is that of multiverse theories, which predict a large number of "parallel" universes with different laws of physics and/or values of fundamental constants.

Again, the anthropic principle states that we can only live in one of the universes that is compatible with some form of intelligent life. Critics claim that these theories, when used as an explanation for fine-tuning, commit the inverse gambler's fallacy.

In 1995 Weinberg's argument was refined by Alexander Vilenkin to predict a value for the cosmological constant that was only ten times the matter density, i.e. about three times the current value since determined.

Cyclic model

More recent work has suggested the problem may be indirect evidence of a cyclic universe possibly as allowed by string theory. With every cycle of the universe (Big Bang then eventually a Big Crunch) taking about a trillion (10¹²) years, "the amount of matter and radiation in the universe is reset, but the cosmological constant is not. Instead, the cosmological constant gradually diminishes over many cycles to the small value observed today." Critics respond that, as the authors acknowledge in their paper, the model “entails ... the same degree of tuning required in any cosmological model”.

See: http://en.wikipedia....ropic_principle

How does Davies know how other universes with other values will behave? I agree, if things were different, things would be different. Davies knows enough about 'life' to say whether it is possible in other universes? Don't confuse 'life in this universe' with 'life', our knowledge of what life is and the conditions under which it is possible given certain values of universal constants is based on a sample size of 1. And we don't even know how life in this universe arose. You do realize that 'science' is not determined by a few scientists theorizing, it relies on consensus and rightly so.

Mathematical models are used and based on the constants in our universe, these are altered in the model and thus we get approximations of what the universe would look like according to the new constants being applied. Some models implode catastrophically, unable to create viable stable universes, others become stable but totally different, such as there being no suns or galaxies, or certain elements will never exist like carbon which is formed within stars, if the stars themselves were different in nature, like gravity and size, many elements would never exist.

What is the probability that the strength of gravity or the weak force can vary at all? Has someone come up with a probability distribution, based on what exactly? How do you know that any of these values are independent from each other, that is highly dubious. Why aren't the questions I'm asking relevant? They seem like pretty basic questions that need answers in order to start calculating probablities. I'm not pointing that just at you, yes I'm aware of the fine-tuning argument as best as I can understand it and there are many religious scientists who do make 'an argument' that it points to God and I'd be interested in any answer, even if it's that these questions don't require answers because we know 'x'.

The questions you are asking are relevant and they are being discussed, but intrinsically, no one doubts that these constants can vary given different starting conditions in different universes, that is why they are stating that such a thing as a multiverse exists.

You see they can't have it both ways, if they say these constants are related as some scientists postulate and thus no actual tweaking is allowed then there can really be only one universe, and no such thing as a multiverse can exist with variable fine tuned constants, of which we are merely one of an infinite number. Either that or every single other universe is an exact double of our own since nothing outside of these parameters could allow for one.

Your avoidance of my questions indicates that you do not have an answer for them or don't find them relevant, you could clarify. I question how much you've researched given that you seem to ignore that there is considerable criticism and debate concerning the 'fine-tuning, therefore God' argument, one would never know it from your 'barrage' of 'forceful' language.

Excuse me, can you point out which questions I have avoided? I have gone out of my way to answer your questions, I'm still in fact waiting for a reply on questions I have asked you, like that Zero energy discussion we had a few posts back.

If you actually have questions that I have not yet answered I will proceed to do so at the next opportunity, just write them out.

It's unnecessary but thank you anyway, I did see it the previous time you posted it. Again, what is the probability of any of these constants being a different value? Are we analyzing what the probability is of rolling two dice and getting an 8, or the probability of getting a 20? How do we know?

The probability is very high of these constants having a different value according to the multiverse theory, actually the theory directly depends on them being different. That's the whole point of the theory, that they can be different and thus allow the probability that these constants arose naturally and by chance to be significantly higher than it is. We call it artificially inflating your probability.

As you can see the arguments become mutually exclusive an either or scenario. Neither side accepts that these constants actually depend on one another and could only come up the way it has because of this mutual dependence, that is not even considered except by one or two individuals within the scientifc community.

I watched the first minute and then clicked it off when they listed pi as fine-tuned number; yes, if pi was at all different we wouldn't have circles, or something. *eyeroll* Would you like me to link the 50 minute video from Victor Stenger arguing why the fine-tuning argument is absurd? And then you post a refutation of the refutation, ad infinitum? I'm not big on argument via youtube myself, but again thanks for taking the time to provide it.

So you drop the rest of what was said because you can't figure out why Pi was included in the list of fine tuned constants?

The answer to your question is straight forward and is in the video, it is not there because it is a fine tuned constant but because it cannot be anything else but that number that allows it to be Pi. It is a number that cannot be played with just as the other numbers cannot be changed without radically changing the very nature of the universe we live in.... see if you had watched just a few more seconds of the video you would have understood the the reason for that value being there.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Jor-el

[Ben Masada]

was god born before the universe or after. bit like the chicken and egg.

God was not born.

[Ben Masada]

In a way the responses to the orginal post amuse me...as every person who posts a response tries to reason something that they can't comprehend..or comprehend something that is not reasonable to them. I doubt you will ever find, ever, on this forum anything but opinions..and the expression of self. So the greater question..is who created 'self'? Did you? Do you have complete control over your own existance..and if so, you can also know the day of your death, and all that happens in between? What is the purpose of your life? ...there will always be more questions than answers..and answers are, for the most part, dictated by a belief or an education...an idea that one subscribes to as being the 'only' Truth..also becomes a 'belief'..and, consequently, an opinion. Or an 'expressed' opinion. Religion is based on FAITH..Science is based on FACT. These opposing views will always create arguments..between believers of Faith..and believers of Science. The belief in Science..and that what it tells us..that it's words are without fault, proven and stable, the defining of an event. But is Science really that? How many times in the past, or present for that matter, has Science had to change it's postion based on it's (or a persons view of something..that is preached as the ONLY truth)..current knowledge? How many times in history?

To say that Science is absolute..is to relegate yourself to a life that is defined by the understandings of the 'interpretations' of life, or it's creation, bases wholly on the understanding of Man. ...of course..if you look around you..I'm sure you will see just how MANKIND has treated one another..and has 'Understood' science and then spend billions of dollars devising ways to deystroy..'mankind'...bit hypocrytical don't you think? Or maybe that's just my opinion.

Good post but I just would like to say that Science is not based on facts but on theories and theories are not facts. BTW, theories are more akin to faith than facts.

First was the theory that the universe was eternal and for that matter, God could not exist. In 1922 that theory died and was born the one that the universe did have a beginning with the BB. . And with this theory came in the logic that nothing could not cause something into existence. God was back in the agenda. It could exist after all as the Primal Cause.

Ben

[Jor-el]

Are you daft? The Big bang doesn't address other universes, so tell me this theory that forbids the existence of other universes.

Well I could, but I think you should seriously read some books, even those by Stephen Hawking will do you good. Then you wouldn't go around calling other people ignorant and daft.

Face it, you haven't posted a scientific paper and I don't see it changing. You're blowing hot air.

Face it you don't know what a scientifc paper is...

[Ben Masada]

There is a reason why it is called "a belief in God" and there is a reason why such a belief requires '"faith". It is specifically because there is no proof of God, if there was then it would not be called belief but fact, it would not require faith but logic. There is no way to disprove God just as there is no way to prove God's existence. If the universe is cyclical- going bang then bust over and over, then therefore there would be an infinite variety of universes that exist throughout eternity. This one has the perfect conditions that it has because it could be no other way. You or I could not exist to observe it and wonder why it is the way it is if it was not the way that it is. Furthermore if the multiverse theory is true, then the same logic follows. The conditions would have to be perfect for us to exist in this universe otherwise we would not exist to make that observation. The existence of the universe itself does not require God.

The existence of God is your opinion only. You cannot prove it, you cannot make me believe it, I cannot disprove it to you. So you go on believing what you believe, and I will go on believing what I believe. Neither is better than the other, and what really matters is what you or I do to help make this world a better place with less suffering.

And the rest is commentary. In fact, to make of this world a better place for all to live with less suffering is the Jewish goal on earth.

[Jor-el]

The list of "coincidences" that make our existence possible is well taken. I've seen calculations that make the perfection of our universe for our existence unbelievably unlikely if taken as a chance event.

A similar argument was once made about the earth and the conditions seemingly designed for us to be able to live here. You don't hear that argment much any more because we now know the universe is teeming with planets and many of them are indeed earth-like.

The same approach can be taken to the conditions of the universe at large. If nature is constantly throwing off cosmoses (it is better here to change the vocabulary and keep "universe" as meaning "all there is" and adopt "cosmos" for the particular "universe" we observe), each cosmos with different, somewhat randomly set physical characteristics, then here and there, no matter how unlikely, one will happen that can sustain us.

Another possibility is that the characteristics of the cosmos are not really as random as we tend to assume, but are fixed by only a few random variables, the others being determined therefrom by connections we don't yet understand. That sort of thing would greatly improve the odds from what seems so wildly unlikely to merely a few coin tosses.

The third possibility is some sort of actual design -- by superbeings in another cosmos who delierately set in motion cosmoses that will sustain life. I dare say we would do as much, and the technology to set off a "big bang" may not be all that outrageous -- just a certain tweaking of noral random quantum fluctuations (of course the new big bang would be in a new set of dimensions, so it would not harm those doing it).

Finally, it may be said that the tremendous odds against our existence are evidence that we live in a simulation.

That last comment makes me think that that is what you actually believe to be the case. The question would then be, who is the simulator?

[Jor-el]

I'd just like to emphasize a point in Liquid Gardens' presentation, before it gets lost in the shuffle.

What pi's fine-tunedness illustrates is that some fine-tunedness is necessary, and not in the least "probabilistic." Pi cannot be any other value than what it is, exactly what it is, not even "a little bit" different from what it is exactly.

"Having circles" is not an optional feature of universes. Maybe in some universes, there would be nobody around to think about circles, or maybe there are thinkers, but circles don't interest them enough to think about them. No matter, pi is woven into the fabric of existence whether it is recognized or not, and whether circles are realized or not.

Einstein, who was a deist, believed in what appeared to him to be a mind or spirit distinct from the material universe itself. He recognized the issue of not knowing how much and what kinds of orderliness are necessary, to be a difficulty for his deist beliefs.

Thank you 8B, that is exactly what the video I posted stated as well. There are some constants that cannot be fooled with, Pi is one example. Fine tuning pretty much states the same, that any change to these constants would alter the fundamental nature of the universe, if it could even exist at all in those circumstances,

[Rlyeh]

Well I could, but I think you should seriously read some books, even those by Stephen Hawking will do you good. Then you wouldn't go around calling other people ignorant and daft.

Face it you don't know what a scientifc paper is...

Who are you fooling? When asked to provide a scientific paper, all you've accomplished is running around in circles while pretending you've done it already. None of your articles come from peer review journals, none of them show God's existence.

Jor-el is going to do the exact same thing when asked for a theory that forbids other universes.

I'm done with your asinine rambling.

[Jor-el]

Who are you fooling? When asked to provide a scientific paper, all you've accomplished is running around in circles while pretending you've done it already. None of your articles come from peer review journals, none of them show God's existence.

Jor-el is going to do the exact same thing when asked for a theory that forbids other universes.

Your error is assuming that a scientifc paper can only be something that is part of a peer review journal, this demonstrates that you don't even bother to read my posts, just skim through them to pick what you want to disagree with.

I'm done with your asinine rambling.

That is a choice that assists you. Good luck with that.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Jor-el

[Frank Merton]

Oh! I got it. The problem is with the word God. If we replace it with...let's say, "Design" it will be okay? So Design has caused the universe into existence.

Ben

No you haven't got it at all. Think about it a little without your dogma.

[Frank Merton]

That last comment makes me think that that is what you actually believe to be the case. The question would then be, who is the simulator?

No I don't know enough to say I "believe" anything, except that the God hypothesis is pretty much out. The simulation could be by ourselves, providing ourseleves education or entertainment. More likely, all existence is definable as simulation -- as manipulation of information, in which case we are not far from being able to produce our own universes to our own design.