God is not needed to explain universe

[Struggling]

Please. According to my philosophy book Aquinas himself actually ASSUMED a universe infinite in duration in both directions when making his arguments for God.

Aquinas himself believed it had a beginning, but for the sake of the arguments, his premise did not exclude a universe infinite in time.

Because the arguments are not one of “well, it had to start sometime” but a question of causation, necessity, changing to act from mere potential etc (ie, why is there something instead of nothing).

Science doesn’t claim to investigate the nature of Being or Reality, and shouldn’t try to.

I hate it when scientists (with an agenda) try to be philosophers. Two totally different subjects. Science cannot touch metaphysics, epistemology, or value-theory. They are by their nature beyond empiricism.

I don’t believe in unicorns, but i don’t go to pro-unicorn websites and try to tell them they’re all wrong.

But Unicorns ARE real, and it’s only people with an agenda who try to obscure that fact:

Deut 33:17His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns: with them he shall push the people together to the ends of the earth: and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.

Isaiah 34:7And the unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.

There are many biblical passages which (in the King James Version and several others) reference Unicorns, so don’t dismiss them.

Many translators make the wild conjecture that the hebrew “re’em” just meant Wild Ox (though there is no real proof of this, and the Jews themselves don’t claim to know what the word originally meant.)

But most likely, (it was historically translated in such ways as unicorn, monoceros, einhorn, etc…so the emphasis was on the one horn) it was this animal:

http://www.amazilia.net/images/Mammals/IndianRhinoceros_03.JPG

The Indian Rhinoceros, or rhinoceros unicornis so named because it is the beast with ONE HORN.

I prefer to call my crocodiles “leviathans,” my hippos “behemoths,” and my rhinos “unicorns,” thank you very much…

It’s only people who wanted to make christians look foolish who insisted on the name “rhinoceros” and passed around this crazy story about the unicorn being a horse with one horn.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

*Well, could you refute the hypothesis that the inflationary universe is future-eternal? *

No need to. A hypothesis is just that … something unproven. Why bother to disprove something unproven? If, as some atheists are now begging the question, the universe came from nothing, why can’t it return to nothing?

Or you are going to point out that the inflationary universe is not past-eternal and argue for the God of the Gaps?

There is no scientific evidence whatever that the universe is past-eternal. So it’s up to the atheist to figure out where it came from if it didn’t come from God.

He’s between the rock and the hard place, isn’t he?

 

[Ghosty]

Aquinas himself believed it had a beginning, but for the sake of the arguments, his premise did not exclude a universe infinite in time.

Because the arguments are not one of “well, it had to start sometime” but a question of causation, necessity, changing to act from mere potential etc (ie, why is there something instead of nothing).

Exactly. Any arguments against God based on an endless expanse of time in either direction don’t even scratch the philosophical and theological arguments for God established by the likes of Aquinas.

Furthermore, as a bit of a side note, an endless expanse of time is not eternity. Rather, it is merely an infinite temporality, which isn’t even close to the definition of eternity. It amazes me how sloppy the use of such basic terms and understandings has become since the time of the Medieval philosopher theologians.

This is to say nothing of the loss of basic logical principles, such as final and formal causes, which are now all but absent from philosophical language. A darn shame of a loss too, since science is more and more demonstrating the reality of formal causes, especially as we probe further and further into the “sub-atomic” realm. We have brilliant minds “discovering” that matter is merely the shape given to energy (formal cause meets prime matter, anyone?), which itself is less and less definable; if they had read Aquinas or even Aristotle they would have known this without having to smash atoms and measure particles

Any five year-old can tell you that a wheel rolls because of it’s shape, not because it’s made of wood, and any first year philosophy student in the 1200s could have told you that wood itself is merely a shape. They wouldn’t have been shocked at all to learn that matter is merely a form given to energy; they practically assumed it as a first principle of their learning

Sorry, off-topic rant. It just never ceases to amaze me how much modern “proofs”, both in favor of God and against, completely ignore the solid foundation provided historically. The question isn’t who/what hit the first cue ball, it’s why there’s “ball”.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

*Well, could you refute the hypothesis that the inflationary universe is future-eternal? *

No need to. A hypothesis is just that … something unproven. Why bother to disprove something unproven? If, as some atheists are now begging the question, the universe came from nothing, why can’t it return to nothing?

Well, if the inflationary universe is future-eternal, then the fine-tuning argument is useless, as Guth stated:

“In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes trivial—anything is possible, unless it violates some absolute conservation law. To extract predictions from the theory, we must therefore learn to distinguish the probable from the improbable.”

So even if the probability of our universe forming is 1 in 10^(10^120) an extremely improbable event, it will happen in eternal inflation an infinite amount of times.

Who should trust? You, or Alan Guth and Andrei Linde?

I’ll take the latter over the former, unless you show me evidence that inflation can be true, but not eternal. Cosmic inflation is here to stay, and even if it is displaced, that hypothesis will postulate an eternal universe (like the cyclic model).

How about delving into the arXiv so views that conflict with Guth and Linde’s?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Who should trust? You, or Alan Guth and Andrei Linde?

Don’t take my word for it. Read the article cited by buffalo in post #4. There are plenty of experts sounding off there and asking questions that have to be answered only by atheists willing to entertain science fiction to the nth degree.

*So even if the probability of our universe forming is 1 in 10^(10^120) an extremely improbable event, it will happen in eternal inflation an infinite amount of times. *

There is no proof of eternal inflation, as you call it.

Fine-tuning of the universe happened only once at the start. There were no infinite opportunities to come up with the right fine-tuning sooner or later.

Even Fred Hoyle, who held out the longest for an eternal universe, finally admitted some super-intellect seems to have monkeyed with the universe right from the start.

But I guess you don’t trust Fred Hoyle either.

I’m thinking you haven’t, and probably won’t, read the article cited in post #4.

 

[RomanCrusader]

Most atheists have major psychological disorders.

 

[ribozyme]

Most atheists have major psychological disorders.

Could you provide support for that assertion?

Anything? How do multiverses give true objective meaning and purpose to your life?

Good question. They don’t. The answer is that simple! We have to create our own purpose in our lives. I have to borrow a trick that characterizes religion to do this: self-delusion. Deep-down I know there is no ultimate purpose in my life, and that eventually I will die and never exist again, and after that the universe will become a mass of black holes and neutron stars. Not a pleasant thought. I have to use delusion to convince myself that there is some sort of purpose in my life; it is not objective, but it is subjective. Personally, I want to understand the origin of DNA/protein-based biochemistry. That is what I consider to be my purpose in life.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Read this paper:

pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/nd-paper.html

Wow, that paper is so enlightening, thank you Sean!!!

Well, God is superfluous and it is best not to invoke him as an explanation for anything.

Thank you Andrei Linde for eternal inflation! Well, with multiverses that fine-tuning argument is rendered useless. With eternal inflation, universes are created eternally, and the process never stops. Some of those universes will possess that properties that allow life.

God is not an explanation.​

It’s as unsound as a method to use God to explain phenomena in the physical sciences, as it would be to use God to explain the physics of walking or lying down or sitting.

God is not for use. People who think God can be found in the universe, are like people who search novels so as to find the authors of them, only even more so.

God can be known - but not on atheistic premises. For atheists to complain, as sometimes they do, of not finding evidence of God is as sensible as for a non-swimmer to complain of not being awarded a medal for swimming the English Channel. How can they be given what their own ideas forbid them the ability to recognise ? God can only be found by those with faith - for only faith apprehends God as God. ##

 

[ribozyme]

I will say it again; if anyone can cast serious doubt about the self-reproduction aspect of cosmic inflation, then my argument regarding the the futility of the fine-tuning argument is rendered useless. Well, if the universe can reproduce eternally, then different universes will have different physical laws. Most of them, of course, will be unable to support life. In a very small fraction of them, they will be able to support life (such as our universe). Cast doubt on self-reproduction of the inflationary universe, that means it is doubtful inflation is future-eternal. If inflation is not future-eternal, then the fine-tuning argument can be used.

I am not looking for a rehash of Aquinus’ arguments, but rather references from peer-reviewed journals, or from arXiv. I don’t care if anyone brings up the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin theorem, as if we accept it, it shows that an inflationary universe cannot be past-eternal. It doesn’t disprove the future-eternal aspect, and I am concerned with that.

For the AP article, I stopped reading at “Tailor-made universe” as I already know the universe possesses the illusion of it being designed for life. For example, I skimmed it, and it mentioned lambda. Yes, that number (the cosmological constant) is the worst fine-tuning problem as the energy from a vacuum fluctation will be high and it must cancel out, and it is hard to explain even with future-eternal inflation. But others can be explained, such as the strength of the electromagnetic, strong, weak, and gravitational forces with future inflation; they all possessed different values when new universes formed. The AP article did not give me any reason to doubt the validity of future-eternal inflation. Note how I stress the word “future”.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

*Well, if the universe can reproduce eternally, then different universes will have different physical laws. *

This is clearly for you a dogma of your atheistic faith, since there is no scintilla of scientific evidence to prove it.

You’re religious after all. You worship at the altar of Nogod.

 

[tdgesq]

Could you provide support for that assertion?

Good question. They don’t. The answer is that simple! We have to create our own purpose in our lives. I have to borrow a trick that characterizes religion to do this: self-delusion. Deep-down I know there is no ultimate purpose in my life, and that eventually I will die and never exist again, and after that the universe will become a mass of black holes and neutron stars. Not a pleasant thought. I have to use delusion to convince myself that there is some sort of purpose in my life; it is not objective, but it is subjective. Personally, I want to understand the origin of DNA/protein-based biochemistry. That is what I consider to be my purpose in life.

You mean your genetics and conditioning in the world make you consider that to be your purpose in life. If you worship at the altar of pure science, then that is the only explanation. As for your use of the term “eternity,” Ghosty is right. You use it as if it means infinite time. That is not the common understanding of that term in philsophy or theology.

But hasn’t this always been the problem. The answer to the question of “why” always evades you. It is because you avoid the questions that must be answered before science and doing science make any sense. You have no answer for the problem of induction. You have no answer for the origin of the laws of logic and why they must always apply. You have no answer for why we should engage in scientific discovery at all, other than that we have no choice and are compelled by forces outside of ourselves.

It is also wrong to chalk up the answers to any possible answer to these questions as purely subjective. Philosophy comes first, as it must to make your scientific approach intelligible at all. As I’ve said before, you will not find the answers to why the universe is the way that it is until you are willing to take a look at the very “objective” answers that philosophy, and dare I say, theology have to offer.

 

[buffalo]

Well, could you refute the hypothesis that the inflationary universe is future-eternal? Or you are going to point out that the inflationary universe is not past-eternal and argue for the God of the Gaps?

There will forever be at least one gap.

 

[john_doran]

Thank you Andrei Linde for eternal inflation!

Linde’s model does not eliminate the initial singularity - it simply places it in the indefinite past.

check out his papers, and you’ll see that he himself admits this point.

 

[john_doran]

Well, if the inflationary universe is future-eternal, then the fine-tuning argument is useless, as Guth stated:

“In an eternally inflating universe, anything that can happen will happen; in fact, it will happen an infinite number of times. Thus, the question of what is possible becomes trivial—anything is possible, unless it violates some absolute conservation law. To extract predictions from the theory, we must therefore learn to distinguish the probable from the improbable.”

this is a gratuitous philosophical assumption - why should anyone believe it to be true?

ribozyme:

How about delving into the arXiv so views that conflict with Guth and Linde’s?

it’s not that they contradict Linde, but rather what you think Linde is saying…

arxiv.org/PS_cache/gr-qc/pdf/9306/9306035.pdf

“Thus, inflation solves many problems of the Big Bang theory and ensures that this theory provides an excellent description of the local structure of the Universe. However, after making all kinds of improvements of this theory, we are now winding up with a model of a stationary Universe, in which the notion of the Big Bang loses its dominant position, being removed to the indefinite past.”

right from the horse’s mouth…

 

[thechrismyster]

I am not looking for a rehash of Aquinus’ arguments.

truth stings a little.

 

[estesbob]

. Some of those universes will possess that properties that allow life.

Prove it.

 

[ribozyme]

Prove it.

Given a vast ensemble of universes (let’s say 10e500 as proposed in [String landscape](en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String landscape)) with varying values for the strong, weak, gravitational, electromagnetic forces, a very small subset of those universes will be able to support life. One example of this, of course, is our universe. Most of them would not be able to form long-lived stars, and stellar nucleosynthesis would not be able to produce carbon, oxygen, and other elements required for carbon based life. Well, if anyone will object and allow for other life forms, such as silicon life, they have the burden of proof to show that silicion life is possible. To me, it is not.

Remember, the values of the these forces must have the appearence of being fine-tuned or we would not be here to wonder why they are at these values in our universe. The strengths are the fundamental forces are vast; over several orders of magnititude. For example, the strong force is 10e38 stronger than gravity, the weakest force.

 

[estesbob]

Given a vast ensemble of universes (let’s say 10e500 as proposed in [String landscape](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String landscape)) with varying values for the strong, weak, gravitational, electromagnetic forces, a very small subset of those universes will be able to support life. One example of this, of course, is our universe. Most of them would not be able to form long-lived stars, and stellar nucleosynthesis would not be able to produce carbon, oxygen, and other elements required for carbon based life. Well, if anyone will object and allow for other life forms, such as silicon life, they have the burden of proof to show that silicion life is possible. To me, it is not.

Remember, the values of the these forces must have the appearence of being fine-tuned or we would not be here to wonder why they are at these values in our universe. The strengths are the fundamental forces are vast; over several orders of magnititude. For example, the strong force is 10e38 stronger than gravity, the weakest force.

Pure speculation-one must have a lot of FAITH to beleive it.

 

[Ghosty]

ribozyme: The problem is that you’re not actually asserting anything spectacular. It doesn’t matter if there is an endless expanse of time with an endless amount of potential universes. None of that cuts to the key question which is “what is form”, and “where does form come from?”

All you’ve done is shifted the age-old problem to a “new” data set without actually providing anything to address the underlying question. The universe doesn’t have to have a “beginning” for this issue to arise, it just has to exist and be measurable in some way. Since you are positing a formula, you have to explain where the form of it comes from, and why the form is in act and not merely in potential.

This is why you need to go back and read up on Aquinas; no matter what mathematical formulas you present, whether endless or finite, they are still "form"ulas. Assuming that they are in actuality, and not merely conjecture, you then the next step is to explain how this form is in act. If the form is its own act (which it is not in anything you’ve put forth so far, since you haven’t actually dealt with eternity but rather an infinite expanse of temporality), then you need to show how this is so. This is elementary philosophy. You have presented a “form” that is a endless inflation of universes that spawn further endless inflations, but you’ve not at all dealt with where this form comes from, and how it can explain itself.

So the challenge to you is to show that this form is the cause of itself, that it is its own definition and reason for being. The problem is that your arguments, like all of modern atheistic arguments, work only from the basis of temporal efficient causes, you presume that if you can show that there is an infinite stream of temporal efficient causes that you’ve somehow ruled out God, and that is a glaring blindspot in your argument. A personal God (most especially the Christian God) is not a necessary philosophical conclusion, but there must be something that transcends the form you are presenting.

Peace and God bless!

 

[ribozyme]

Pure speculation-one must have a lot of FAITH to beleive it.

Show why heaven, hell, purgatory, and limbo are more likely to exist than an future-eternal inflating universe, or string landscape.

It requires a lot more faith than to believe in a benevolent God than string landscape. What empirical evidence do you have that shows God is benevolent; I do not see His hand on Earth. As far as I am concerned, He is not interested in the affairs of humans. He is apathetic, and allows calamity to be inflicted on humans.