Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Ben Masada

A Proof That God Exists

365 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

[media=]

[/media]

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.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

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

[media=]

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...

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe had a beginning
  3. 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.

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...

  1. Fine tuning
  2. The Golden ratio
  3. The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

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.

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:

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.

  1. Fine tuning
  2. The Golden ratio
  3. The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

When one says that "space is flat", one doesn't mean that the universe is flat like a "skin of a balloon" as you say, rather "flat spacetime" refers to what is know as Minkowski space.

In relativity, the three spacial dimensions are combined with a time-like to create the four dimensionalspacetime, which in special relativity is described by Minkowski space. However, one can only use Minkowski space to describe the universe where it is locally flat, that is where there is not significant gravitation. Where there is significant gravitation, we say that spacetime has become curved.

Spacetime is curved.

Three premises are in order...

  1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
  2. The universe had a beginning
  3. Therefore the universe had a cause.

1. True, but not true in quantum physics. Quantum physics, from which our universe would have arose, is probalistic, not deterministic. Meaning that things are governed by probabilities. The vacuum of space is frothing foam of virtual particles that randomly pop into and out of existence. Very much not having any real cause.

2. Evidence points to this, that the universe had a beginning, but this is because of our interpretations of data. It could be that our interpretations are wrong.

3. As I stated in point #1, the postulated singularity that lead to the big bang would have likely been governed by quantum physics not regular physics, meaning it would have been governed by probability. Quantum physics shows the random, causeless nature of extremely small things in our universe.

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 is nothing you have said here that could not also be explained in an equally valid way using the multiverse theory.

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.

We simply do not know what could fit into this category. It could be that our universe exists in a higher dimensional space of some kind. There could be many different types of amazing and unfathomable things that exist outside of our space time bubble. We simply do not know. Why are you religious type people so afraid to admit that we just do not know? Just because we do not know or do not understand does not mean God must be behind something.

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...

  1. Fine tuning
  2. The Golden ratio
  3. The quantification of the probabilies of the universe arising by chance with the two aspects above included.

1. Fine tuning is easily explained in a multiverse governed by probability. If there are infinite universes, then one of those universes will have the fine tuning we see, because we can only exist in a fine tuned universe, even if the odds of such a universe are 1 in a trillion, we will ALWAYS observe the universe to be fine tuned, because we could NEVER observe a universe without fine tuning. Say this universe collapses eventually, then goes bang again? Over and over creating itself then destroying itself. And each time the ‘tuning’ is different. We still will ALWAYS observe a fine tuned universe no matter what. Because we would never come into existence in any other type of universe.

2. See point 1 above.

3. You are failing to realize that because we will only ever exist in a universe that is fine tuned, for our purposes the probability of such a universe is 1 for 1, it will exist, because it does exist. Even if the probability is 1 in a trillion trillion, we will still ALWAYS observe that 1 in a trillion trillion universe. So this is just a pointless argument.

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.

Yes! I totally agree, I cannot prove that our universe arose from chance any more than anyone else can prove that it was designed. That is the core part of my argument. All I am trying to say is that it is OKAY to say that YOU DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. No amount of belief or faith will bring me to know for sure. I will likely never know. And I am okay with that. Just recognize that your belief is not evidence for anything.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Given that we have no other universe to compare to. I would say that the probability that natural processes 100% will form a universe like ours, because it has. We do not know what the universe was created from, we think it may have been created from a singularity (based on complex mathematics). But that is just theory. We simply DO NOT KNOW. You saying that the universe was created from literally nothing is a belief that you have based on science that you obviously do not understand. It is no more valid than your belief in God, or my belief in Santa Claus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

I apologize for being a pain in these backside, but do you actually understand what you are saying?

How is it possible for the constants to line up just right to permit life in this universe? Do you know how very improbable that is? If you take the time to read some of the posts before you got involved you would know that the probability is so remote that if I had to write it down the list of zeros would be so long that it would take generations to actually write them out.

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.

According to logic a designer is absolutely necessary, as I explained to Liquid Gardens in the post before yours. The universe had a cause. If nothing existed before that cause brought the universe into existence, then that cause can only be external to this universe. As I explained, the only things that could concievably exist are immaterial (not made of matter or energy) and also be beyond space and time (since neither existed as well), that leaves us with two things:

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. That is why it was not a natural process, or a random coincidence, no such things existed before time, space and matter. Or... you can apply to the existence of a multiverse as so many others do, to explain these facts away.

I am all for prodding away and questioning the reasons why and how, we can do that and we will progress in knowledge which is always a good thing, even if I know who actually did it, I still want to know the how and why! I respect science for that and am all for the unbounded knowledge that we will eventually have that will allow us to go out there and see this universe for ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I apologize for being a pain in these backside, but do you actually understand what you are saying?

How is it possible for the constants to line up just right to permit life in this universe? Do you know how very improbable that is? If you take the time to read some of the posts before you got involved you would know that the probability is so remote that if I had to write it down the list of zeros would be so long that it would take generations to actually write them out.

No pain! This is why I am a member of this site :)

You are making a flawed assumption. You assume that the constants could be different than what they are. We DO NOT KNOW if this is the case, or if some other higher natural laws are at work that we do not yet understand. A lack of understanding is not evidence for God. So calculating probabilities for numbers that we do not fully understand is garbage science. We cannot prove or disprove anything in doing so. Even if these numbers could be different in different universes. The fact that we exist does not prove anything, because we could only exist in a universe that has the constants of ours. So you see? There could be five billion trillion other universes for each one like ours, we just DON'T KNOW. We do not know if our universe is the only one, we do not have anything else to compare our universe too, so you are just speculating.

According to logic a designer is absolutely necessary, as I explained to Liquid Gardens in the post before yours. The universe had a cause. If nothing existed before that cause brought the universe into existence, then that cause can only be external to this universe. As I explained, the only things that could concievably exist are immaterial (not made of matter or energy) and also be beyond space and time (since neither existed as well), that leaves us with two things:

1. Abstract objects

2. an unbodied mind

More assumptions. You are assuming that the universe had a cause, quantum physics shows that at very small scales spacetime is probablistic, not deterministic, meaning that the postulated singularity that expanded into the universe would have been governed by probability, which means that it could, actually, have spontaneously created our universe for no reason other than simple probability. According to logic, a designer is not at all necessary.

You or I have no idea what could or could not, might or might not exist outside of the universe. You are just speculating, we simply do not know. Again you are basing you argument on speculation and assumption. A logical fallacy.

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

Again this entire argument is based on speculation, and assumptions, not on hard science.

That is why it is a someone and not a something. That is why it was not a natural process, or a random coincidence, no such things existed before time, space and matter. Or... you can apply to the existence of a multiverse as so many others do, to explain these facts away.

This is your opinion, not fact. You do not know this for a fact. You might have faith in it, you might believe in it, but that does not make this fact. The fact is, the multiverse theory is just as valid as the creator theory.

I am all for prodding away and questioning the reasons why and how, we can do that and we will progress in knowledge which is always a good thing, even if I know who actually did it, I still want to know the how and why! I respect science for that and am all for the unbounded knowledge that we will eventually have that will allow us to go out there and see this universe for ourselves.

Kudos to that! I simply admit that I do not know, what I believe in is irrelevant, because it is my belief and I cannot prove it, disprove it, or make you see it how I see it. It is irrelevant. Objective truth is what I seek, and indeed objective truth is the only that can be proven to another. I admit I do not know, I concede that there could be a God, but I also concede that there might not be a God. What is wrong with this view? Why are religious people so threatened by the unknown?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When one says that "space is flat", one doesn't mean that the universe is flat like a "skin of a balloon" as you say, rather "flat spacetime" refers to what is know as Minkowski space.

In relativity, the three spacial dimensions are combined with a time-like to create the four dimensionalspacetime, which in special relativity is described by Minkowski space. However, one can only use Minkowski space to describe the universe where it is locally flat, that is where there is not significant gravitation. Where there is significant gravitation, we say that spacetime has become curved.

Spacetime is curved.

And that is exactly what I was not saying, I was not talking of Minkowski space nor the localized curvature of space by a gravitational object like star. I'm talking about the actual shape of the universe we live in.

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were flat, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about one degree across. If the universe were open, the spots would be less than one degree across. If the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be greater than one degree across.

Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

What this means that in the hypothetical case of another universe where the shape is different, such as space with a much higher degree of curvature, instead of the 0.4 % margin of curvature in ours, and we add to that a different physical laws of physics, the very ratio of PI would be different from that of our universe. All smooth surfaces are locally very close to Euclidean (if you look with a big enough magnifying glass, any smooth surface seems flat). But as you go to a bigger and bigger area, the properties become more and more distorted if the surface has a finite Gaussian curvature: for instance, the sum of angles of a triangle is no longer 180°, and the circumference of a circle is no longer 2 pi r. The smaller the curvature, the larger the region you need to get a given amount of distortion.

A good example of this to spill some coffee on your paper and leave it out in the sun. The next day it will be all warped; you won't be able to lay it flat. Warp is a good word for this effect. You can change the shape of a warped sheet, flip it inside-out by pushing down the bumps and pushing up the troughs, roll it up; but you can't make it flat. The warp is the thing that stays the same through all this. But what actually has happened? When the coffee is absorbed in the paper and later dries out, it changes the distance between neighbouring fibres in the paper. We get a region which is too big to fit inside its surroundings, if we stuck with the geometry of Euclid. For sheets of paper embedded in our 3-D world, this can be accomodated by the region bulging out, being curved in the everyday sense. But the crucial thing for the warp is not the bulging out, but the fact that the grid of distances between neighboring fibres is no longer consistent with the rules of planar Euclidean geometry.

See: http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~jpl/cosmo/metric.html

1. True, but not true in quantum physics. Quantum physics, from which our universe would have arose, is probalistic, not deterministic. Meaning that things are governed by probabilities. The vacuum of space is frothing foam of virtual particles that randomly pop into and out of existence. Very much not having any real cause.

And where exactly would any particles have come from before there was a big bang? Everything and that means, even those particles did not exist before the big bang, there was no quantum foam. That is what the word nothing means.

2. Evidence points to this, that the universe had a beginning, but this is because of our interpretations of data. It could be that our interpretations are wrong.

No that is not the interpretation of the data, that is exactly what the latest data is telling us, the model of the universe must fit the observed data and the only model that does that, is with a universe that had a beginning. I've posted a number of papers by Alexander Vilenkin that demonstrate exactly this issue when a number of people were contesting this statement.

3. As I stated in point #1, the postulated singularity that lead to the big bang would have likely been governed by quantum physics not regular physics, meaning it would have been governed by probability. Quantum physics shows the random, causeless nature of extremely small things in our universe.

The latest data tells us that there wasn't even a singularity there. That is exactly what I mean when use the term "nothing".

See: the following video...

There is nothing you have said here that could not also be explained in an equally valid way using the multiverse theory.

Except that the multiverse theory is not even a hypothesis, it is merely an explanation that scientists use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis. Even scientists admit that. It is untestable at this time, which lays it exactly at the same level as believing God did it. Except there are more arguments for God, then a multiverse.

We simply do not know what could fit into this category. It could be that our universe exists in a higher dimensional space of some kind. There could be many different types of amazing and unfathomable things that exist outside of our space time bubble. We simply do not know. Why are you religious type people so afraid to admit that we just do not know? Just because we do not know or do not understand does not mean God must be behind something.

I have no fear of saying I don't know, but that is where the odds come up, the odds are that it was a designer, much more so than a multiverse.

Again I post a video, because it becomes easier to let someone else explain it than having to do it again for the tenth time in the same thread.

1. Fine tuning is easily explained in a multiverse governed by probability. If there are infinite universes, then one of those universes will have the fine tuning we see, because we can only exist in a fine tuned universe, even if the odds of such a universe are 1 in a trillion, we will ALWAYS observe the universe to be fine tuned, because we could NEVER observe a universe without fine tuning. Say this universe collapses eventually, then goes bang again? Over and over creating itself then destroying itself. And each time the ‘tuning’ is different. We still will ALWAYS observe a fine tuned universe no matter what. Because we would never come into existence in any other type of universe.

2. See point 1 above.

3. You are failing to realize that because we will only ever exist in a universe that is fine tuned, for our purposes the probability of such a universe is 1 for 1, it will exist, because it does exist. Even if the probability is 1 in a trillion trillion, we will still ALWAYS observe that 1 in a trillion trillion universe. So this is just a pointless argument.

By saying the above you show me that you have no conception of what 10120 actually means... it means that there would need to be more universes in this multiverse than there are atoms in our universe...by a factor of at least 40. just to raise the probability of a universe such as ours arising by chance so that highly improbable (actually impossible) becomes minimally probable. Do you realize what you are asking me to believe here?

We aren't talking of a billion to 1 chance we are talking of something that exceeds the human minds capacity to imagine.

Yes! I totally agree, I cannot prove that our universe arose from chance any more than anyone else can prove that it was designed. That is the core part of my argument. All I am trying to say is that it is OKAY to say that YOU DO NOT KNOW. I DO NOT KNOW. No amount of belief or faith will bring me to know for sure. I will likely never know. And I am okay with that. Just recognize that your belief is not evidence for anything.

No, it is not proof, but evidence, yes it is that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that we have no other universe to compare to. I would say that the probability that natural processes 100% will form a universe like ours, because it has. We do not know what the universe was created from, we think it may have been created from a singularity (based on complex mathematics). But that is just theory. We simply DO NOT KNOW. You saying that the universe was created from literally nothing is a belief that you have based on science that you obviously do not understand. It is no more valid than your belief in God, or my belief in Santa Claus.

In the case of probabilities you are very far from correct. As I stated earlier in another post to LG, the fact that we have the universe we have does not mean we succeeded against all odds, the odds are such that the only word to account for the concept is "impossible".

Edited by Jor-el

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And where exactly would any particles have come from before there was a big bang? Everything and that means, even those particles did not exist before the big bang, there was no quantum foam. That is what the word nothing means.

Again, we don't know. We don't know what if anything existed before the big bang. We can only observe the universe and try to infer what may have occurred before the universe based on what we observe. We DO NOT KNOW. We don't know if our universe exists in some kind of higher dimensional space, or if it is the only thing in existence like it. We don't know that it was nothing. We used to think that space was nothing, now we know that it is a dynamic environment of a frothing quantum foam.

No that is not the interpretation of the data, that is exactly what the latest data is telling us, the model of the universe must fit the observed data and the only model that does that, is with a universe that had a beginning. I've posted a number of papers by Alexander Vilenkin that demonstrate exactly this issue when a number of people were contesting this statement.

Yes the latest data is telling us that the universe had a beginning. But who's to say it is not cyclical in nature? Nobody knows for sure. This is not evidence for God. The beginning of the universe could have been caused by some kind of natural phenomena in the higher dimensional space in which the universe exists. We don't know.

Except that the multiverse theory is not even a hypothesis, it is merely an explanation that scientists use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis. Even scientists admit that. It is untestable at this time, which lays it exactly at the same level as believing God did it. Except there are more arguments for God, then a multiverse.

Just as the God theory is not even a hypothesis. It is merely an explanation religious people use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis either. Scientists also admit this. It is totally untestable at this time as well. There are more arguments negating God, than there are for a multiverse as well.

I have no fear of saying I don't know, but that is where the odds come up, the odds are that it was a designer, much more so than a multiverse.

Again I post a video, because it becomes easier to let someone else explain it than having to do it again for the tenth time in the same thread.

Yeah I have seen the video's. Nothing that I was not already aware of. If you consider that whatever exists (if anything) outside our universe may be infinite., even odds of 10^210 is a small number. An eventual certainty.

By saying the above you show me that you have no conception of what 10120 actually means... it means that there would need to be more universes in this multiverse than there are atoms in our universe...by a factor of at least 40. just to raise the probability of a universe such as ours arising by chance so that highly improbable (actually impossible) becomes minimally probable. Do you realize what you are asking me to believe here?

We aren't talking of a billion to 1 chance we are talking of something that exceeds the human minds capacity to imagine.

I totally understand what 10^120 is. I am simply stating a logical fact. That in the face of infinity, odds of 10^120 mean that it is an eventual certainty. Infinity is hard to comprehend I know, even harder to comprehend that your outrageously large number. But infinity means that any probability no matter how remote, is an eventual certainty.

No, it is not proof, but evidence, yes it is that.

Evidence:

Noun:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Verb:

Be or show evidence of.

As you can see, belief itself is NOT evidence. Evidence would be something that backs up the belief. The belief itself is not, and cannot be, evidence unto itself. Your belief in God is no more evidence for God's existence than another person's belief that there is no God is evidence for God's non-existence.

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the case of probabilities you are very far from correct. As I stated earlier in another post to LG, hte fact that we have the universe we have does not mean we succeeded against all odds, the odds are such that the only word to account for the concept is "impossible".

As I just stated in my last post. In the face of infinity. Even the smallest odds are an eventual certainty. You seem to not understand this, and seem to think I do not understand the odds. You base these odds on nothing more than assumptions and flawed science for one, and you are failing to account for the fact that infinity trumps ANY odds no matter how large the odds may be. In an infinite place, no matter what the odds are for something to happen, that something will eventually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No pain! This is why I am a member of this site :)

You are making a flawed assumption. You assume that the constants could be different than what they are. We DO NOT KNOW if this is the case, or if some other higher natural laws are at work that we do not yet understand. A lack of understanding is not evidence for God. So calculating probabilities for numbers that we do not fully understand is garbage science. We cannot prove or disprove anything in doing so. Even if these numbers could be different in different universes. The fact that we exist does not prove anything, because we could only exist in a universe that has the constants of ours. So you see? There could be five billion trillion other universes for each one like ours, we just DON'T KNOW. We do not know if our universe is the only one, we do not have anything else to compare our universe too, so you are just speculating.

Well then my speculation if you insist on calling it that falls far shorter than yours in a multiverse. And yet the logical fallacy of that speculation is that we still won't know if God is the creator of the multiverse, but I don't need to go there. There is but one universe that we know exists, this universe not only has the fine tuning but also has something else which dominates the entirety of this universe from the quantum foam right up to the very structure of galaxies. It is evident in our very DNA, it is evident in nature, in architecture,in our concepts of music and beauty, and you cannot ascribe a chance factor to it because it is so regularly portrayed everywhere you look, that is the golden ratio.

More assumptions. You are assuming that the universe had a cause, quantum physics shows that at very small scales spacetime is probablistic, not deterministic, meaning that the postulated singularity that expanded into the universe would have been governed by probability, which means that it could, actually, have spontaneously created our universe for no reason other than simple probability. According to logic, a designer is not at all necessary

Again, the most recent findings, dispense with a singularity of any kind. There was nothing there. You are trying at all costs to say that there was something there, and that is your error. There was no spacetime, there were no particles , there was no singularity. There wasn't even probability.

You or I have no idea what could or could not, might or might not exist outside of the universe. You are just speculating, we simply do not know. Again you are basing you argument on speculation and assumption. A logical fallacy.

No I am basing my argument on the evidence of fine tuning, on the golden ratio and on the probabilites admitted by scientists themselves of the universe coming about like it did purely by chance. It is the very reason for the existence of the multiverse speculation, because it isn't even a theory or a hypothesis based on any evidence whatsoever.

Again this entire argument is based on speculation, and assumptions, not on hard science.

If that makes you sleep easier, then sure go ahead and believe that.

This is your opinion, not fact. You do not know this for a fact. You might have faith in it, you might believe in it, but that does not make this fact. The fact is, the multiverse theory is just as valid as the creator theory.

As you have faith in your speculation of a multiverse. At least my theory doesn't need to resort to Hectillions upon hectillions of other universes to artificially inflate the odds.

Kudos to that! I simply admit that I do not know, what I believe in is irrelevant, because it is my belief and I cannot prove it, disprove it, or make you see it how I see it. It is irrelevant. Objective truth is what I seek, and indeed objective truth is the only that can be proven to another. I admit I do not know, I concede that there could be a God, but I also concede that there might not be a God. What is wrong with this view? Why are religious people so threatened by the unknown?

Well that is your stance, I see no reason to take the skeptic standpoint on this issue. That is why I am opposing the naturalistic viewpoint on this thread, it strains credulity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I just stated in my last post. In the face of infinity. Even the smallest odds are an eventual certainty. You seem to not understand this, and seem to think I do not understand the odds. You base these odds on nothing more than assumptions and flawed science for one, and you are failing to account for the fact that infinity trumps ANY odds no matter how large the odds may be. In an infinite place, no matter what the odds are for something to happen, that something will eventually happen.

Sorry Einsteinium, that is BS. It is the equivalent of another argument held by others on this thread about making a square become circle. If you understand the odds and you have to rely on a multiverse to get you those odds, then who is making the logical fallacy here?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well then my speculation if you insist on calling it that falls far shorter than yours in a multiverse. And yet the logical fallacy of that speculation is that we still won't know if God is the creator of the multiverse, but I don't need to go there. There is but one universe that we know exists, this universe not only has the fine tuning but also has something else which dominates the entirety of this universe from the quantum foam right up to the very structure of galaxies. It is evident in our very DNA, it is evident in nature, in architecture,in our concepts of music and beauty, and you cannot ascribe a chance factor to it because it is so regularly portrayed everywhere you look, that is the golden ratio.

Again, the most recent findings, dispense with a singularity of any kind. There was nothing there. You are trying at all costs to say that there was something there, and that is your error. There was no spacetime, there were no particles , there was no singularity. There wasn't even probability.

No I am basing my argument on the evidence of fine tuning, on the golden ratio and on the probabilites admitted by scientists themselves of the universe coming about like it did purely by chance. It is the very reason for the existence of the multiverse speculation, because it isn't even a theory or a hypothesis based on any evidence whatsoever.

If that makes you sleep easier, then sure go ahead and believe that.

As you have faith in your speculation of a multiverse. At least my theory doesn't need to resort to Hectillions upon hectillions of other universes to artificially inflate the odds.

Well that is your stance, I see no reason to take the skeptic standpoint on this issue. That is why I am opposing the naturalistic viewpoint on this thread, it strains credulity.

I do not have faith in the multiverse theory. I don't even think it is a good theory. But I also think that simply stating "God MUST be the answer!" because we do not understand something is lazy and stains the face of human reasoning and logic. The latest findings point that maybe there was nothing, no singularity, okay, but those are just the latest findings. We still don't know very much, findings could come out next year that show that in fact, there was something.

Fine tuning is not evidence for a creator. It just is not. It IS however, evidence that we are lacking understanding, and we need to dig deeper to search for the answers. Someone else said that in the past people were told "God is over the next hill" They got there, no God. So "God is over those mountains" Got there, no God. "God is over the ocean" got there, no God. "God must be in the sky!" Created instruments to look, no God. God is always the thing that is unknown, unseen, 'over the next hill' 'when you die you will meet him' etc. And when we don't find God there..Where then will you say he must be next? When we find one day (hypothetically) that the golden ration, PI, etc. are all derived from a higher physics that we currently have no understanding of, and that it makes perfect sense, where then will you point and say, "God is over there" God will always exist because there will always be things we cannot fully explain in the minds of men. Does that mean God exists or does it mean we are all scared of the unknowable and scared of death so we create God in our minds because the thought of God comforts us? I think the odds are about 50/50, but that is only my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, we don't know. We don't know what if anything existed before the big bang. We can only observe the universe and try to infer what may have occurred before the universe based on what we observe. We DO NOT KNOW. We don't know if our universe exists in some kind of higher dimensional space, or if it is the only thing in existence like it. We don't know that it was nothing. We used to think that space was nothing, now we know that it is a dynamic environment of a frothing quantum foam.

Yes the latest data is telling us that the universe had a beginning. But who's to say it is not cyclical in nature? Nobody knows for sure. This is not evidence for God. The beginning of the universe could have been caused by some kind of natural phenomena in the higher dimensional space in which the universe exists. We don't know.

Just as the God theory is not even a hypothesis. It is merely an explanation religious people use to explain fine tuning. It does not even merit the title of hypothesis either. Scientists also admit this. It is totally untestable at this time as well. There are more arguments negating God, than there are for a multiverse as well.

Yeah I have seen the video's. Nothing that I was not already aware of. If you consider that whatever exists (if anything) outside our universe may be infinite., even odds of 10^210 is a small number. An eventual certainty.

I totally understand what 10^120 is. I am simply stating a logical fact. That in the face of infinity, odds of 10^120 mean that it is an eventual certainty. Infinity is hard to comprehend I know, even harder to comprehend that your outrageously large number. But infinity means that any probability no matter how remote, is an eventual certainty.

Evidence:

Noun:

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

Verb:

Be or show evidence of.

As you can see, belief itself is NOT evidence. Evidence would be something that backs up the belief. The belief itself is not, and cannot be, evidence unto itself. Your belief in God is no more evidence for God's existence than another person's belief that there is no God is evidence for God's non-existence.

No go, again the argument from infinity... and the reliance of a multiverse, that is your way of beating the odds. In a card game we would call that cheating by adding cards to the table.

As I said evidence, not proof. Proof needs to be incontrovertible, I admit I do not have that, but evidence yes that I do have, no matter how much you try to deny it by inventing a way out by the argument of a multiverse and infinity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Einsteinium, that is BS. It is the equivalent of another argument held by others on this thread about making a square become circle. If you understand the odds and you have to rely on a multiverse to get you those odds, then who is making the logical fallacy here?

You, because you are basing your so called 'odds' on a bunch of assumptions. The main assumption being that those constants could be different anyways. We don't know this, the only observation we have is of those constants being what they are.

It does not require a multiverse. Only for infinity to exist, and probability to exist outside of the universe as we know it. Infinity is a mathematical fact, and probability is an observed, verified phenomenon. God is not. For example we do not know if the quantum foam exists only in the universe or outside it as well. We don't know if our universe has a boundary. It could be that our universe is infinite in all directions. It could be that big bangs happen because of random chance in the quantum foam every 10^2000 years of our time, even in that event, our existence is an eventual certainty- given the one assumption- that infinity exists in time and space.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No go, again the argument from infinity... and the reliance of a multiverse, that is your way of beating the odds. In a card game we would call that cheating by adding cards to the table.

As I said evidence, not proof. Proof needs to be incontrovertible, I admit I do not have that, but evidence yes that I do have, no matter how much you try to deny it by inventing a way out by the argument of a multiverse and infinity.

You have evidence for the universe being an amazing, precision tool as it were. That does not mean that God created it, or that it was designed. Although I like the idea that it was! Its just a belief, no more valid than any other person's belief in the non-existence of God.

And besides, adding God into the mix is not adding cards to the table? There are untold numbers of cards that we have not even discovered yet. Your calling the fine tuning evidence for God is like me saying that because I got dealt 4 Aces in a hand at one time it must be a miracle, but without even knowing what cards or how many cards are in the deck.

Edited by Einsteinium

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not have faith in the multiverse theory. I don't even think it is a good theory. But I also think that simply stating "God MUST be the answer!" because we do not understand something is lazy and stains the face of human reasoning and logic. The latest findings point that maybe there was nothing, no singularity, okay, but those are just the latest findings. We still don't know very much, findings could come out next year that show that in fact, there was something.

Fine tuning is not evidence for a creator. It just is not. It IS however, evidence that we are lacking understanding, and we need to dig deeper to search for the answers. Someone else said that in the past people were told "God is over the next hill" They got there, no God. So "God is over those mountains" Got there, no God. "God is over the ocean" got there, no God. "God must be in the sky!" Created instruments to look, no God. God is always the thing that is unknown, unseen, 'over the next hill' 'when you die you will meet him' etc. And when we don't find God there..Where then will you say he must be next? When we find one day (hypothetically) that the golden ration, PI, etc. are all derived from a higher physics that we currently have no understanding of, and that it makes perfect sense, where then will you point and say, "God is over there" God will always exist because there will always be things we cannot fully explain in the minds of men. Does that mean God exists or does it mean we are all scared of the unknowable and scared of death so we create God in our minds because the thought of God comforts us? I think the odds are about 50/50, but that is only my opinion.

I have no answer for that, but I am not an unreasonable person, if the time comes where evidence becomes proof, I will again join the ranks of atheism. I long ago lost the fear of death and if my death is to be the final chapter in existence, then that will be what it will be. I won't regret my life.

But man , I would regret never having the opportunity to see the universe for myself.

But I sincerely believe that you will find that the answers will confirm rather than deny the evidence of a creator, designer whom we could call God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.