God is not needed to explain universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter ribozyme
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Quite simple, Occam’s razor slices out the existence of God. String landscape allows Occam’s razor to slice the hypothesis of God setting up the strengths of the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational force.
wait a second - you’re proposing that an eternity full of an infinite number of different universes is somehow a simpler hypothesis than a finite time and one divine creator?

i don’t think that ockham’s razor does what you think it does…

edit: mike beat me to it…
 
wait a second - you’re proposing that an eternity full of an infinite number of different universes is somehow a simpler hypothesis than a finite time and one divine creator?

i don’t think that ockham’s razor does what you think it does…

edit: mike beat me to it…
Yes, but you got the money quote: I don’t think that ockham’s razor does what you think it does… 🙂
 
You are correct, but it makes the existence of God unnecessary to explain the fine-tuning because of Occam’s razor.
Actually Occams razor favors the existence of God, Is the unbelievable compelxity and beauty of the universe the random result of a massive primordial fart billions of years ago or is it the result of intelligent design? Occams razor would favor the latter.

BTW-where did the matter that triggered this primordial fart come from?
 
If all you’re doing is arguing against design, I HIGHLY recommend you read some serious philosophy and theology. The “Argument from Design” is not even a sound philosophical argument, and is not used by any serious philosophers or theologians. 😛

Peace and God bless!
Huh? Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig use the fine-tuning argument. If you think the argument from design is an argument against evolution, you are incorrect. The fine-tuning argument is utilized by those sophisticated theologians. Or are you saying the are not “serious philosophers or theologians”. Of course, if theologians uses an argument against evolution as a design argument, they will be ridiculed. Theologians are much more sophicated than that. The fine-tuning argument is an interesting argument.

Regarding Craig, I have some respect for him, although I disagree with him. I dislike his arguments for the resurrection, but I think he does a good job in his exposition of Kalam (although I do not agree with his argument).
 
Actually Occams razor favors the existence of God, Is the unbelievable compelxity and beauty of the universe the random result of a massive primordial fart billions of years ago or is it the result of intelligent design? Occams razor would favor the latter.

BTW-where did the matter that triggered this primordial fart come from?
Vacuum fluctuation…
 
this is a gratuitous philosophical assumption - why should anyone believe it to be true?

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…
Huh, I never said on this thread that Linde thinks inflation is past-eternal. Linde doubts it, but he thinks that it is a possibility.

See: arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503195 ; page 12-13.

I said that Linde thinks it is future eternal. I challenge you to find a recent reference that says he doesn’t think so as I think I represented his opinions accurately in this thread. On page 12 of that paper, he explicit says that it is future-eternal because of the self-reproduction aspect. It is mentioned clearly, and not under the subterfuge of technical language. I did not say much about inflation in this thread except that Linde (and other cosmologists such as Guth and Vilenkin think) it is future-eternal.

Linde cautions:
Andrei Linde:
One should be careful, however, with the interpretation of these results. There is still an
ongoing debate of whether eternal inflation is eternal only in the future or also in the past.
 
Quite simple, Occam’s razor slices out the existence of God. String landscape allows Occam’s razor to slice the hypothesis of God setting up the strengths of the strong, weak, electromagnetic, and gravitational force.
I don’t believe Occam’s razor could ever be employed here one way or the other because of the nature of the question I asked. I will just leave it at that.

For the sake of argument, I will grant that the string landscape you propose demonstrates that God did not directly cause EM and gravitational forces. It does not bear out your conclusion that God is not needed to explain the universe. Your conclusion does not follow from your premises.
Richard Swinburne and William Lane Craig use the fine-tuning argument. If you think the argument from design is an argument against evolution, you are incorrect. The fine-tuning argument is utilized by those sophisticated theologians.
I have not encountered Swinburne’s and Craig’s fine-tuning argument before. Very interesting stuff. Again, for the sake of argument only, I grant you that your scientific theory meets their objections. You have still not demonstrated that God is not needed to explain the universe. At best, you have neutralized the fine-tuning argument - not that anyone here that I saw ever offered that in objection to your theories.

I am still left without an anwer. What say you?
 
I* said that Linde thinks it is future eternal.*

And the proof?

This is getting very tedious. How does what one thinks suddenly become a fact? With proof. Where’s the pudding?

Where’s the beef?
 
I have not encountered Swinburne’s and Craig’s fine-tuning argument before. Very interesting stuff. Again, for the sake of argument only, I grant you that your scientific theory meets their objections. You have still not demonstrated that God is not needed to explain the universe. At best, you have neutralized the fine-tuning argument - not that anyone here that I saw ever offered that in objection to your theories.

I am still left without an anwer. What say you?
That’s exactly what Guth said:
The theorem does show, however, that an eternally inflating model of the type usually assumed, which would lead to Hav > 0 for past-directed geodesics, cannot be complete.
Some new physics (i.e., not inflation) would be needed to describe the past boundary of the inflating region. One possibility would be some kind of quantum creation event.
The theorem refers to the Borde, Guth and Vilenkin theorem (I do not understand the mathematics behind it). Here is the paper that refers it it: arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 . If you do not understand the technical material, their conclusion is clear.

So Guth acknowledge that a quantum creation event is needed for a singularity. In an earlier post, I said Linde said it is possible (but Linde expresses some uncertainity about this) that no singularity is needed.
 
I* said that Linde thinks it is future eternal.*

And the proof?

This is getting very tedious. How does what one thinks suddenly become a fact? With proof. Where’s the pudding?

Where’s the beef?
Well, Linde’s argument for future-eternal inflation is found here:
arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0503195 (page 12)

I doubt you could understand his argument (I cant, but I could understand the content in biochemistry journals easily though, cosmology is not my speciality). I just take his word for it, but I am looking for another authority who disagrees his position on future-eternal inflation.

The fact of the matter is that I am not a cosmologist, you are not a cosmologist. However, Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are cosmologists and highly respected scientists. Regarding cosmology, I’ll take the position of Guth and Linde over yours. So do you know any other cosmologists who think inflation cannot be past and future eternal?
 
The fact of the matter is that I am not a cosmologist, you are not a cosmologist. However, Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are cosmologists and highly respected scientists.
If this was already answered I missed it, but do Linde and Guth argue that their theories prove that God does not exist?
 
If this was already answered I missed it, but do Linde and Guth argue that their theories prove that God does not exist?
I would say that they would say it renders his existence unnecessary to explain the universe. It does not disprove the God hypothesis per se. I think that Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are atheists though. Why don’t you ask them via e-mail if you are curious?
 
I would say that they would say it renders his existence unnecessary to explain the universe. It does not disprove the God hypothesis per se. I think that Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are atheists though. Why don’t you ask them via e-mail if you are curious?
This suggests that before their theory, God was necessary to explain the universe. Does anybody actually argue that?

It seems, rather, that this theory only “pushes God back” by a few hundred orders of magnitude, but doesn’t turn “necessary” God into “unnecessary”.

Like I said, where does the vacuum flucuation come from? 🙂
 
It seems, rather, that this theory only “pushes God back” by a few hundred orders of magnitude, but doesn’t turn “necessary” God into “unnecessary”.
I did not say their theory is correct, I am saying that it seems a preponderence of the evidence supports it (unless you demonstrate otherwise from articles in the arXiv or peer-reviewed journals.

Well, yes, eternal inflation “pushes God back” by a few hundred orders of magnitude, but doesn’t turn “necessary” God into “unnecessary”.

Here are some interesting bit from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
CCC 282:
Catechesis on creation is of major importance. It concerns the very foundations of human and Christian life: for it makes explicit the response of the Christian faith to the basic question that men of all times have asked themselves:120 “Where do we come from?” “Where are we going?” “What is our origin?” “What is our end?” “Where does everything that exists come from and where is it going?” The two questions, the first about the origin and the second about the end, are inseparable. They are decisive for the meaning and orientation of our life and actions.
Well, Linde, Guth, and Vilenkin say that there is no end. Believe me, these people are not fringe scientists. Their position on inflation is highly regarded.
 
Well, Linde, Guth, and Vilenkin say that there is no end. Believe me, these people are not fringe scientists. Their position on inflation is highly regarded.
But you see, even if it were absolutely proven that universes would be created ad infinitum, that in no way impinges on the question of God. God could, if He existed, suddenly cause “non-ending” creation to end. In fact, that was the assumed method believed for most of the Christian era, and it never was considered problematic for the existence of God! The existence of God does not stand or fall on whether the material world will end by “natural” means as opposed to “unnatural” means.

But like I said, interesting discussion.
 
ribozyme

The fact of the matter is that I am not a cosmologist, you are not a cosmologist. However, Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are cosmologists and highly respected scientists.

Well, as long as we are citing better men than ourselves:


**Nicolaus Copernicus **Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

“The universe has been wrought for us by a supremely good and orderly Creator.”

**Johannes Kepler **Laws of Planetary Motions

“[May] God who is most admirable in his works … deign to grant us the grace to bring to light and illuminate the profundity of his wisdom in the visible (and accordingly intelligible) creation of this world.”
Isaac Newton Thermodynamics, Optics, etc.

“God in the beginning formed matter in solid, massy, hard, impenetrable, movable particles, of such sizes and figures, and with such other properties, and in such proportion to space, as most conduced to the end for which he formed them.”

Benjamin Franklin Electricity, Bifocals, etc.

”Here is my creed. I believe in one God, the creator of the universe. That he governs by his providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to him is doing good to his other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. These I take to be the fundamental points in all sound religion, and I regard them as you do in whatever sect I meet with them.” Letter to Ezra Stiles 3/9/1790

James Clerk Maxwell Electromagnetism, Maxwell’s Equations

“I have looked into most philosophical systems and I have seen none that will not work without God.”

Lord William Kelvin Laws of Thermodynamics, absolute temperature scale

“I believe that the more thoroughly science is studied, the further does it take us from anything comparable to atheism.”

Louis Pasteur Germ Theory

“The more I study nature, the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator.”

Max Planck Father of Quantum Physics

“There can never be any real opposition between religion and science; for the one is the complement of the other.”

J.J. Thompson Discoverer of the Electron

“In the distance tower still higher peaks which will yield to those who ascend them still wider prospects and deepen the feeling whose truth is emphasized by every advance in science, that great are the works of the Lord.”

Werner Heisenberg Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle

“In the course of my life I have been repeatedly compelled to ponder the relationship of these two regions of thought (science and religion), for I have never been able to doubt the reality of that to which they point.”

Arthur Compton Compton Effect, Quantum Physicist

“For myself, faith begins with the realization that a supreme intelligence brought the universe into being and created man. It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning God.’”

Max Born Quantum Physicist

“Those who say that the study of science makes a man an atheist must be rather silly.”

Paul A.M. Dirac Quantum Physicist, Matter-Anti-Matter

“God is a mathematician of a very high order and He used advanced mathematics in constructing the universe.”

**George LeMaitre **Father of the Big Bang Theory, Catholic Priest

“There is no conflict between religion and science.” Reported by Duncan Aikman, New York Times, 1933
 
ribozyme

The fact of the matter is that I am not a cosmologist, you are not a cosmologist. However, Andrei Linde and Alan Guth are cosmologists and highly respected scientists.

Well, as long as we are citing better men than ourselves:
Nope, the issue is about whether inflation can be eternal or not. Have these people read and comprehend Guth and Linde’s work to give a critique. I am looking for your critique on eternal inflation. What’s your critique on eternal inflation
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top