Another Argument for God's Existence

[Marc_Anthony]

Hello,

I noticed a proof for God on the profile of poster Cat Herder. I asked him if I could post it for discussion and he said that it wasn’ being posted because of the ban on atheism, and said that it would be posed if the moderators gave permission. So, I’m posting on the grounds that there is currently a thread out now discussing the Ontological argument for God’s existence, thereby setting precedent that discussing proofs for God is not equal to discussing atheism. So:

Does God Exist?

There are six constants which determine the makeup of the Universe (viz. mass of a neutron, mass of a proton, strength of electroweak force, strength of strong and weak nuclear forces, and energy in the Big Bang). The constants have two, and only two, possible explanations:

1. They are random
2. They were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being

If these constants are random, they can be potentially any value from zero to infinity. Hence, there are infinite possible universes. Pursuant to probability theory, the probability of a given Universe being generated by the random constants is the set of the six variables divided by the number of possible Universes:

The probability of any Universe being generated is zero. However, this Universe exists. Conclusion: The cosmological constants were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being.

(I’d like to point out that there was a graphic that went with this that I can’t post, but I still think the proof is fairly intelligible.)

 

[Touchstone]

Hello,

I noticed a proof for God on the profile of poster Cat Herder. I asked him if I could post it for discussion and he said that it wasn’ being posted because of the ban on atheism, and said that it would be posed if the moderators gave permission. So, I’m posting on the grounds that there is currently a thread out now discussing the Ontological argument for God’s existence, thereby setting precedent that discussing proofs for God is not equal to discussing atheism. So:

Does God Exist?

There are six constants which determine the makeup of the Universe (viz. mass of a neutron, mass of a proton, strength of electroweak force, strength of strong and weak nuclear forces, and energy in the Big Bang). The constants have two, and only two, possible explanations:

1. They are random
2. They were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being

These don’t exhaust all the options. How about:

1. There is a more fundamental mathematical principle or formula that unifies them and produces them.
2. An impersonal multiverse cycles through different values of the constants, procedurally and incrementally.
3. The constants are perfectly brute, and it is the nature of all reality that these forces have the value that they do. There was no “picking” or “phase space” even to make the settings random. They simple are.

If these constants are random, they can be potentially any value from zero to infinity.

That doesn’t follow. Perhaps some of the values are constrained to just a very small number of values, discrete as separate quanta. In a multiverse where the weak nuclear force has a limit of +/- 0.1% of the value of the value of our universe, you have not only a smaller range of options, but you have all generated universes being closely configured to ours in respect (within 0.2% of each other, all of them).

Hence, there are infinite possible universes. Pursuant to probability theory, the probability of a given Universe being generated by the random constants is the set of the six variables divided by the number of possible Universes:

1/infinity is DEFINED, for practical purposes, in real number math to be 0. This is just a convention, a practical definition. 1/infinity outside of that forcing convention is called an ‘infinitesimal’.

That aside, you have contradicted yourself in your argument. If each of the six parameters can have a value, no matter if that value is drawn from an infinite phase space or not, there is by DEFINITION a non-zero chance by any possible chance. If it’s zero, by definition, the values in question are not possible. But you’ve said they are, by assumption, so you have a contradiction.

This is resolved by understanding 1/infinity as a limit problem, an exceedingly small number, but not zero. Now the likelihood of any particular combination is exceedingly small, but there is still a likelihood, which means your assumptions don’t collapse (that the constants can have different possible values, and those values range to infinity).

The probability of any Universe being generated is zero. However, this Universe exists. Conclusion: The cosmological constants were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being.

Setting aside the math problems here, what about the other options you left out? Why were they not considered?

-TS

 

[danserr]

Marc Antony,
I’d suggest tinkering with the argument to make it a little stronger. One suggestion is to be more modest with the goal of the argument. Instead of saying “The probability of any Universe being generated is zero,” say instead that the probability of a a universe in which the constants are such as to permit life is incredibly small. To be a good argument, this doesn’t have to be a complete 100% mathematical proof for God, it just has to give good reason for thinking that given the fine tuning of the constants in a way that allows life, design is a more probably explanation than chance.

Another suggestion, there are 6 or so constants, true, but there are also another half dozen or other instances of fine tuning. Stephen Hawking, as one example, points out that if, after the Big Bang, the universes rate of expansion decreased by even 1/hundred thousand million million second, then the universe would have collapsed long ago. There are actually a dozen or so instances of fine tuning, not six.

Most important, rephrase the argument slightly, because there is one possibility that the argument as you formulated leaves out, Touchstone is right to point out that physical necessity is a possible explanation of the cosmic fine tuning. so the argument shoudl go like this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance
   3.Therefore, it is due to design
3. exhuasts all the possibilities (the multi-verse hypothesis goes with the chance theory).
4. a). **Physical necessity **means that it could be that there was not chance that those constants and other example of fine-tuning could be different, they had to assume the values they did.
   answer: this is a very radical view and the burden is on them to prove it, but the values (of fine tuning) are independent of each other, and the smallest change would render this universe not life permitting. The main way people try to maintain this by using string theory, which would explain only 4 constants, not even all of them, and Hawking admits “does string theory predict the state of the universe? the answer is that it does not.”
   b). chance The probability that the fine-tuning of the universe for life has occurred by chance is so minuscule, that some people have tried to claim the perhaps our universe is one in a sea of multi-verses, each of which assume different values. There are a range of problems with this. No evidence, only theories. The need to suggest a plausible way such a multi-verse could be generated. The fact, pointed out by Oxford physicist Roger Penrose that if out world were part of a multi-verse, then it is overwhelmingly probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe.

This is can lead to the conclusion that with physical necessity and chance being improbable explanations of fine-tuning, design is most probable.

 

[inocente]

Conclusion: The cosmological constants were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being.

A note of caution. A good criterion for accepting an argument about God’s existence, even for a non-Catholic like me, is whether it would be wise for a pope to proclaim it infallibly. In this case the answer would be no, as fine-tuning may be explained in future.

 

[Liinus]

If this were a " proof " for God’s existence it certainly would not be understood by many. It would include a very restricted set of physicists and a few of their students. I think your friend is working too hard. The universe exists ( i.e. all forms of physical substances including waves, particles, and energy, and all spiritual substances (( i.e. all non-physical substances)). It cannot account for it’s own existence. Therefore it has its existence from another who has his own existence from himself. This being is who all men call God.

Other universes may indeed exist, but their origins would be the same as ours. Why does everyone throw out the possible existence of other universes as a great problem?

It is the teaching of the Catholic Church however that God created everything which exists, did exist, will exist ( including any other universes you may imagine ) in time, before which nothing existed ( not even " empty space " ) except Himself, and He maintains their existence by his continuous creative act and that his continued creative act is what moves, changes, and directs every minutest act of everything that in any way may be said to exist and that there are no " accidents " or " randomness " any where in the universe and there was none at the beginning either.

Have you read the Modeling of Nature by William A Wallace? He has much to say about the Thomistic proofs for God’s existence and His providence in the face of the " challanges " of modern science. William A Wallace is the Editor of the Philosophy sections of the New Catholic Encyclopedia and is a great scholar and author holding PhD’s in physics, philosophy and theology. He is also a specialist in the history of philosophy.

The Church also teaches that the existence of God may indeed be proved by His effects in the universe. But since not all have equal or suitable inferential skills and since not all have sufficient intellectual skill to grasp the formal proofs it has pleased God the reveal Himself and all things necessary and beneficial for salvation. Now how can you not love a Church like that and a God like that!!! He and His Church cover all the bases!!!

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m the originator of the argument and while I’m late to the party (having found this through googling), I still have some fight left in me.

These don’t exhaust all the options. How about:

1. There is a more fundamental mathematical principle or formula that unifies them and produces them.

This leads to recursion, as the fundamental principle/variable (and any other principle/variable) is just another variable in the universe-generating formula.

1. An impersonal multiverse cycles through different values of the constants, procedurally and incrementally.

Again, more recursion.

1. The constants are perfectly brute, and it is the nature of all reality that these forces have the value that they do. There was no “picking” or “phase space” even to make the settings random. They simple are.

This is either more recursion or a concession that science cannot explain all observable phenomona.

That doesn’t follow. Perhaps some of the values are constrained to just a very small number of values, discrete as separate quanta.

Why? More recursion, as each constraint and quantum is another variable.

In a multiverse where the weak nuclear force has a limit of +/- 0.1% of the value of the value of our universe, you have not only a smaller range of options, but you have all generated universes being closely configured to ours in respect (within 0.2% of each other, all of them).

Again, you have to explain the limit and that’s just more recursion. If you start saying “things just are” then you have to deal with the God Who Just Is.

1/infinity is DEFINED, for practical purposes, in real number math to be 0. This is just a convention, a practical definition. 1/infinity outside of that forcing convention is called an ‘infinitesimal’.

The “convention” that 1/infinity == zero comes from set theory. If you get rid of set theory you also have to throw out fundamental physics.

But the point is that just as it is impossible for an asymptote to actually reach zero, so it is impossible to actually pick our Universe from a bag of infinite possible universes.

That aside, you have contradicted yourself in your argument. If each of the six parameters can have a value, no matter if that value is drawn from an infinite phase space or not, there is by DEFINITION a non-zero chance by any possible chance. If it’s zero, by definition, the values in question are not possible.

… unless there is an unknown outside influence Who makes it possible, otherwise known as God.

 

[hatsoff]

The “convention” that 1/infinity == zero comes from set theory.

Actually, it comes from analysis.

But the point is that just as it is impossible for an asymptote to actually reach zero, so it is impossible to actually pick our Universe from a bag of infinite possible universes.

I’m not sure what you mean by this. For uncountably infinite sample sizes, probability distributions are typically continuous, not discrete. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the probability of an individual universe being realized. Instead we can only talk about ranges, i.e., the probability of a universe falling within a range of specified parameters.

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m not sure what you mean by this. For uncountably infinite sample sizes, probability distributions are typically continuous, not discrete. It doesn’t make any sense to talk about the probability of an individual universe being realized. Instead we can only talk about ranges, i.e., the probability of a universe falling within a range of specified parameters.

I don’t think that picking a set of ranges rather than picking a particular set of discrete values changes the result, since the grab bag is still infinitely full.

 

[hatsoff]

I don’t think that picking a set of ranges rather than picking a particular set of discrete values changes the result, since the grab bag is still infinitely full.

We have to define on the sample space a density function. Then the probability of a universe falling within a particular range is the integral of the density function over that range.

 

[Cat_Herder]

We have to define on the sample space a density function. Then the probability of a universe falling within a particular range is the integral of the density function over that range.

But then the range would have to be infinitely large, so infinity remains in the picture.

 

[hatsoff]

But then the range would have to be infinitely large, so infinity remains in the picture.

The range would not have to be infinitely large. In many cases (e.g. beta distributions) the range cannot be infinitely large.

 

[Cat_Herder]

The range would not have to be infinitely large. In many cases (e.g. beta distributions) the range cannot be infinitely large.

But first we’d have to find out what shape the distribution is. And that requires a representative sample. The problem then is getting a representative sample of an infinite amount of data, and even before that, determining how we can have a sample size that is representative and still be less than infinite. Frankly, I don’t think the sample size is less than infinity and even if it was, there is no way a finite quality can represent an infinite one with any degree of accuracy.

 

[hatsoff]

But first we’d have to find out what shape the distribution is. And that requires a representative sample. The problem then is getting a representative sample of an infinite amount of data, and even before that, determining how we can have a sample size that is representative and still be less than infinite. Frankly, I don’t think the sample size is less than infinity and even if it was, there is no way a finite quality can represent an infinite one with any degree of accuracy.

I’m not really sure how to read this. You may want to check out some book on introductory probability theory. I suggest Wackerly’s Mathematical Statistics if it is available. You can get the fifth edition used for $11 shipped.

 

[grannymh]

I know of another argument for God’s existence. It is illogical nonsense, perfectly irrational, more emotional than intellectual, yet it has worked for more than half a century.

It is my own proof, the one I came up with as a high school student stamping her foot and telling God that it was now or never. “I want to know if You exist.” Proofs for God’s existence need to be our own reaching up to God. Does God really care if others accept our proof? God is quite content with our fumbling.

Blessings,
granny

Luke 23: 33-43

 

[Cat_Herder]

I’m not really sure how to read this.

Let’s say you wanted to make predictions about the distribution of all the stars in the Universe. You need a representative sample of stars to do that. So you start sampling stars. Problem: The only stars you can see are the ones in the Milky Way Galaxy. One galaxy is not the Universe. Any conclusion you would draw from your star sample would be valid as to this particular galaxy but not the Universe.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

There are six constants which determine the makeup of the Universe (viz. mass of a neutron, mass of a proton, strength of electroweak force, strength of strong and weak nuclear forces, and energy in the Big Bang).

Your proof begins with an unsourced assertion. Who proved to the general scientific community that the makeup of the Universe is determined by only these six constants?

According to Wikipedia:

“Many candidate theories of everything have been proposed by theoretical physicists during the twentieth century, but none has been confirmed experimentally. The primary problem in producing a TOE is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are hard to unify. This is one of the unsolved problems in physics.”

The Standard Model of the Universe requires twenty-something constants and yet doesn’t fully explain gravitation nor dark matter.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Your proof begins with an unsourced assertion. Who proved to the general scientific community that the makeup of the Universe is determined by only these six constants?

The more the merrier. The more unbounded constants there are, the more infinities there are, and the more ridiculous it becomes to assert a randomly generated Universe.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

Cat Herder:

The more unbounded constants there are, the more infinities there are, and the more ridiculous it becomes to assert a randomly generated Universe.

When the central premise of an argument is dubious, it doesn’t hold out much promise for the rest, but I will continue onto the next lines:

1. They are random
2. They were designed by an intelligent Supreme Being
   If these constants are random, they can be potentially any value from zero to infinity.

False. Random doesn’t imply infinite. If I toss an unweighted coin or die, the set of results is random but finite.

Pursuant to probability theory, the probability of a given Universe being generated by the random constants is the set of the six variables divided by the number of possible Universes:

And if he could prove at least one of the constants takes on an infinite range of values, he hits another major stumbling block here. To say the probability of a given Universe being generated is 1 / all_universes, you must prove that only one universe is generated. Many have speculated upon the possibility of multiple dimensions or of many (perhaps an infinite number of) parallel universes.

 

[Cat_Herder]

False. Random doesn’t imply infinite.

Then you have to explain why the values are finite. And to do that you must bring in some law governing those variables—which has its own variables. And then you must explain why those variables are finite. And then you have to explain that law and its variables, and … ad infinitum, which is the point.

And if he could prove at least one of the constants takes on an infinite range of values, he hits another major stumbling block here. To say the probability of a given Universe being generated is 1 / all_universes, you must prove that only one universe is generated. Many have speculated upon the possibility of multiple dimensions or of many (perhaps an infinite number of) parallel universes.

One of the properties of infinity is that it cannot be decreased by a finite number; further, a given universe may be generated more than once. So increasing the number of universes doesn’t change the probability ratio for each universe generated. Infinity minus one or infinity minus three, or three thousand… it’s all the same.

 

[LifeIsAbsurd]

If these constants are random, they can be potentially any value from zero to infinity.

That a constant is random does not imply that it is infinite. I have given two concrete counter-examples from probability theory to drive home the point (a coin and a die).
Cat Herder:

Then you have to explain why the values are finite.

No I don’t. The burden of proof rests on his shoulders as he claimed to prove something. His proof relies on his unporven assumption that there are an infinite number of potential universes (as opposed to being an extremely large but finite number).
Cat Herder:

One of the properties of infinity is that it cannot be decreased by a finite number; further, a given universe may be generated more than once. So increasing the number of universes doesn’t change the probability ratio for each universe generated. Infinity minus one or infinity minus three, or three thousand… it’s all the same.

Aww, you missed my pièce de résistance :

LifeIsAbsurd:

And if he could prove at least one of the constants takes on an infinite range of values, he hits another major stumbling block here. To say the probability of a given Universe being generated is 1 / all_universes, you must prove that only one universe is generated. Many have speculated upon the possibility of multiple dimensions or of many (perhaps an infinite number of) parallel universes.

His proof also relies on the unproven assumption that there are a finite number of actual universes, and I’m pointing out that is contested. You sound like you’ve had college-level math. I’m sure you know we can’t say that (infinity / infinity => 0).

In short form, his proof is:

1. 
   *]Assume if the world’s not randomly created then an intelligent, supreme being designed it.
   *]Assume there are a finite number of actual universes.
   *]Assume there are an infinite number of potential universes.
   *]The chance of our actual universe existing given so many potential universes (finite/infinity) approaches zero, therefore it couldn’t have occured at random.
   *]Therefore our world must be created by an intelligent, supreme being
   
   What he is missing is a proof of his three assumptions, and I doubt anyone on this forum can prove the second one–that would probably make the news.
   
   Without those this proof has no legs to stand on.