God is not needed to explain universe

[Ridgerunner]

In the debate concerning whether God does or does not exist, the burden of proof is on the atheists, because:

If, as most scientists admit, the universe is so complex that we are unlikely ever to fully understand it or even perceive much of it, it is admitted that we cannot possibly know much of anything about a Being so utterly beyond our calculation and perception that the Being does not, Itself, disclose in “our language”. That consideration does not leave sufficient room for an outright denial of the existence of such a Being.

Science can give us no reason to believe there is no intelligence so vastly beyond our own that we would not be able to perceive its actions on its own terms, in a way comprehensible to us. We are limited beings, and all would admit that, and do. Since comparing ourselves to lower creatures tells us widely disparate beings are clearly possible; so disparate that some, e.g., a slug, can only perceive the existence of a higher one , e.g., a human, when the higher touches it, it is impossible to claim we are the apogee of intelligence or motive power.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

And just for good measure:

Charles Darwin Theory of Evolution

“There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved*.” Origin of the Species*, 1872 (last edition before Darwin’s death).

Albert Einstein Theories of Relativity

“I have never found a better expression than “religious” for this trust in the rational nature of reality and of its peculiar accessibility to the human mind. Where this trust is lacking science degenerates into an uninspired procedure. Let the devil care if the priests make capital out of this. There is no remedy for that.”

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

Nope, the issue is about whether inflation can be eternal or not.

ribozyme, this is the issue of your own thread:

God is not needed to explain universe.

After reading the long list of authorities that I threw at you, to counter the two you threw at us, I’d say you have some explaining to do.

Have these people read and comprehend Guth and Linde’s work to give a critique.

Critique of what? G & L are blowing rather speculative smoke.

Multiverses indeed!

 

[ribozyme]

ribozyme

Nope, the issue is about whether inflation can be eternal or not.

ribozyme, this is the issue of your own thread:

God is not needed to explain universe.

After reading the long list of authorities that I threw at you, to counter the two you threw at us, I’d say you have some explaining to do.

Have these people read and comprehend Guth and Linde’s work to give a critique.

Critique of what? They are blowing rather speculative smoke.

As I stated before, those people weren’t even alive to even read about Alan Guth or Andrei Linde’s theories. The question is about whether inflation is eternal. If so, it destroys another God of the gaps: the fine-tuning of our univese. Well, it seems that God is regressing back, maybe it is reasonable to say he was not involved in the initial singularity as he was not involved in any of the world’s affairs today.

If you cast doubt using papers in the arXiv or from peer-reviewed journals (instead of saying that their work is “speculative”) on eternal (in the future direction as I have stressed before) inflation, I will concede. You do not have to cast doubt on cosmic inflation, just the future-eternal aspect of it.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

*maybe it is reasonable to say he was not involved in the initial singularity as he was not involved in any of the world’s affairs today. *

Then again, maybe it’s not reasonable?

 

[john_doran]

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.

even if that’s true, what does the possible future-endlessness of the uni-/multiverse have to do with the existence of god? since theistic arguments deal with the beginnings of time/space, it’s not clear to me what inconsistency there is between traditional arguments for god’s existence and the idea of eternal future temporl duration.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Eventually I will die, and I will cease to exist.

Pure speculation.

 

[ribozyme]

even if that’s true, what does the possible future-endlessness of the uni-/multiverse have to do with the existence of god? since theistic arguments deal with the beginnings of time/space, it’s not clear to me what inconsistency there is between traditional arguments for god’s existence and the idea of eternal future temporl duration.

So apparently you acknowledge the futility of the fine-tuning argument? Eternal inflation destroys it.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

No, I’m saying the “argument from design” is an inherently flawed philosophical argument for God; it’s a non-starter. All of its points can be proven faulty purely from philosophy, without recourse to empirical science. If Intelligent Design had been proposed to the classic Scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas in particular, they would have ripped it to shreds in a single discourse (which is something that many serious modern Thomists continue to do, much to the dismay of their fellow Theists ).

Where the Intelligent Design-er looks at the universe and argues “See how complex this is? Someone must have designed it” the Thomist says, “The universe is a complexity-evolving thing”. The Intelligent Designer looks within the universe, at the lowest order of things (the material) and tries to argue from its internal complexity that there must be a designer; a Thomist would say that’s bunk because all you can really do by examining something in such a way is describe it, you can’t account for it one way or another. Complexity does not ever imply design in and of itself.

The Thomist would say that the REAL proof of something that trancends the universe is the fact that the universe’s being does not account for itself. The only thing that accounts for its own being within itself is being itself, but being in itself would be inherently static rather than constantly unfolding, and that’s the exact opposite of what we see in any possible model of the universe, and we CAN’T conceive of such stasis because our minds are inherently discursive and not static. If our minds are discursive, and our minds are within the formula of the universe, then the universe can’t be static even if everything outside of our mindseye really is static and the apparent “discursion” is merely illusion.

Now, since the universe “is”, and can’t account for its own being because of its inherent movement, then there must be something that DOES account for the universe, and not only the universe but itself as well, and this must be “being in itself”. This “being in itself” must transcend the universe because it is static, and the universe is not. Without going further into the philosophy of what this “transcendent being” would be, the Thomist would point out that the flaw in Intelligent Design is that it stops at describing the thing, the universe; the reason for complexity in the thing can simply be that it’s a complex thing by its very nature, and that’s essentially the materialist argument (and the Thomist one). The real issue, which materialists are incapable of approaching, and Intelligent Design fails to approach, is how the universe can account for its being while itself being a “fluxuating” thing, a “discursive” thing.

At least materialism provides a sound methodology for studying the “complex thing” (which is really all it can do, if materialists are honest with themselves); Intelligent Design fails on this account because it ignores all the features of the “complex thing” that can account for complexity, including the proposition that it’s complex because it’s a complex thing by nature (which is basically all that your original link is saying). In this the Thomist sides with materialism so far as materialism can go, yet ironically sides with Intelligent Design precisely where Intelligent Design (and materialism) can’t go.

Peace and God bless!

 

[corvidae]

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:

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.

Just pointing out, that end in the Catechism more likely means the philosophical meaning of end, i.e. purpose.
If Linde, Guth, and Vilenkin say there is no purpose to any of us, then why are they saying it?

I think it is just a semantic error. Thought I would let you know so you can correct it.

A lone Raven

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

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.

See post # 79.

Their position on the necessity of God (the subject of this thread) is clear.

They were, and still are I think, regarded much more highly as scientists than Linde, Guth, and Vilenkin.

So I don’t think you want to use “highly regarded” as a sign or proof of someone’s speculations.

Atheists who develop unprovable theories in astronomy in an effort to do away with God are not very objective.

That seems to be the main thrust of this thread … the direction you want to take us.

Is that right?

 

[buffalo]

No, I’m saying the “argument from design” is an inherently flawed philosophical argument for God; it’s a non-starter. All of its points can be proven faulty purely from philosophy, without recourse to empirical science. If Intelligent Design had been proposed to the classic Scholastics, St. Thomas Aquinas in particular, they would have ripped it to shreds in a single discourse (which is something that many serious modern Thomists continue to do, much to the dismay of their fellow Theists ).

Where the Intelligent Design-er looks at the universe and argues “See how complex this is? Someone must have designed it” the Thomist says, “The universe is a complexity-evolving thing”. The Intelligent Designer looks within the universe, at the lowest order of things (the material) and tries to argue from its internal complexity that there must be a designer; a Thomist would say that’s bunk because all you can really do by examining something in such a way is describe it, you can’t account for it one way or another. Complexity does not ever imply design in and of itself.

The Thomist would say that the REAL proof of something that trancends the universe is the fact that the universe’s being does not account for itself. The only thing that accounts for its own being within itself is being itself, but being in itself would be inherently static rather than constantly unfolding, and that’s the exact opposite of what we see in any possible model of the universe, and we CAN’T conceive of such stasis because our minds are inherently discursive and not static. If our minds are discursive, and our minds are within the formula of the universe, then the universe can’t be static even if everything outside of our mindseye really is static and the apparent “discursion” is merely illusion.

Now, since the universe “is”, and can’t account for its own being because of its inherent movement, then there must be something that DOES account for the universe, and not only the universe but itself as well, and this must be “being in itself”. This “being in itself” must transcend the universe because it is static, and the universe is not. Without going further into the philosophy of what this “transcendent being” would be, the Thomist would point out that the flaw in Intelligent Design is that it stops at describing the thing, the universe; the reason for complexity in the thing can simply be that it’s a complex thing by its very nature, and that’s essentially the materialist argument (and the Thomist one). The real issue, which materialists are incapable of approaching, and Intelligent Design fails to approach, is how the universe can account for its being while itself being a “fluxuating” thing, a “discursive” thing.

At least materialism provides a sound methodology for studying the “complex thing” (which is really all it can do, if materialists are honest with themselves); Intelligent Design fails on this account because it ignores all the features of the “complex thing” that can account for complexity, including the proposition that it’s complex because it’s a complex thing by nature (which is basically all that your original link is saying). In this the Thomist sides with materialism so far as materialism can go, yet ironically sides with Intelligent Design precisely where Intelligent Design (and materialism) can’t go.

Peace and God bless!

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/Jokemouse_sm.jpg

 

[VociMike]

Atheists who develop unprovable theories in astronomy in an effort to do away with God are not very objective.

That seems to be the main thrust of this thread … the direction you want to take us.

Is that right?

This does seem to be a case of replacing the Judeo-Christian God with the Worst Possible God; one with no proof, that offers no meaning, and gives no hope. And this is an improvement?

 

[john_doran]

So apparently you acknowledge the futility of the fine-tuning argument? Eternal inflation destroys it.

no. as i observed before in response to one of your previous posts, the assumption “in an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized” is just that: an assumption, and a baseless one at that.

 

[thechrismyster]

“in an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized”.

hmmm. lets think about that. lets revise that to read…

In an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized… EXCEPT a finite amount of time.

kinda throws a monkeywrench into that one, eh?

 

[john_doran]

hmmm. lets think about that. lets revise that to read…

In an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized… EXCEPT a finite amount of time.

i’ll go you one better: in an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized, except those that aren’t…

 

[Ghosty]

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/Jokemouse_sm.jpg

Can’t say I understand the relevance to my post.

Peace and God bless!

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

http://kolbecenter.org/graphics/Jokemouse_sm.jpg

---

I can’t speak for buffalo, but I read into that visual the warning that you are about to be trapped by semantics and need to put on your thinking helmet.

 

[ribozyme]

no. as i observed before in response to one of your previous posts, the assumption “in an infinite amount of time, every possibility is realized” is just that: an assumption, and a baseless one at that.

Look for my quote of Alan Guth in this thread. I really did not need to quote him, as he was stating the obvious: Given a infinite number of trials, what can happen will happen an infinite number of times.

 

[john_doran]

Look for my quote of Alan Guth in this thread. I really did not need to quote him, as he was stating the obvious: Given a infinite number of trials, what can happen will happen an infinite number of times.

it doesn’t matter who makes a baseless assumption - it’s still baseless.

this is a modal claim that you’re making here, not a scientific one; perhaps you’d do better not to take the word of a scientist when it comes to making non-scientific assertions.

but whatever. demonstrate to me that this claim of yours is true. that is, demonstrate that there is no possible world in which both an infinite temporal duration occurs, and some possible state of affairs is not actual.