God is not needed to explain universe

[ribozyme]

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.

By definition eternal inflation is future-eternal, that is it never stops. It would seem that it is impossible for it to stop. Since the production of a universe leads to the production of another universe, and so on. It is impossible for it to stop. So the termination of inflation is not a possibility.

 

[john_doran]

By definition eternal inflation is future-eternal, that is it never stops. It would seem that it is impossible for it to stop. Since the production of a universe leads to the production of another universe, and so on. It is impossible for it to stop. So the termination of inflation is not a possibility.

i’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here, but it’s certainly not a proof that every possible state of affairs will occur in an infinitely long period of time.

all you’re doing here is re-asserting the claim that, according to a theory of endless inflation, the future is endless.

what*** i’m*** asking you to show is that, given an endless future, everything that can happen, will happen. why, for example, can’t eternal recurrence be true? that is, why can’t it be that the same few things will happen over and over again, for eternity?

 

[ribozyme]

i’m not sure what you’re trying to get at here, but it’s certainly not a proof that every possible state of affairs will occur in an infinitely long period of time.

all you’re doing here is re-asserting the claim that, according to a theory of endless inflation, the future is endless.

what*** i’m*** asking you to show is that, given an endless future, everything that can happen, will happen. why, for example, can’t eternal recurrence be true? that is, why can’t it be that the same few things will happen over and over again, for eternity?

I have little idea about what you are talking about.

I am saying that eternal inflation provides an explanation for this:

reasons.org/resources/apologetics/design_evidences/1998_design_evidence_update.shtml

I do not know how fine-tuned the universe is, but I think Ross overstates the case. But however, I think an extraordinary amount of fine-tuning is needed for life to exist.

If the values of the strong, weak nuclear forces, gravitation, and electromagnetic forces take different values when a universe if formed, what is preventing eternal inflation from conducting a brute-force search on all the values. Doing the brute-force search, the inflationary universe will repeatedly create universes with an apparently fined-tuned values for the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces so it could be amiable for the evolution of life. Show how this is an impossibility for the inflationary universe (or multiverse). Or show how inflation cannot be future-eternal.

Eternal inflation is a brute-force search, unlike cosmological natural selection proposed by Lee Smolin.

 

[Ghosty]

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.

If that’s the case of the warning then it’s way off. I’ve merely presented the stock-standard Thomistic argument against Intelligent Design. It’s hardly a matter of semantics, but fundamental principles; eternity is quite simply not the same as an infinite expanse of time, by definition.

Peace and God bless!

 

[tdgesq]

Doesn’t a brute force search require an algorithim?

In any case, it doesn’t appear that you are still seriously contending that you have demonstrated that God is not necessary to explain the universe. It looks like the best you could ever do is demonstrate that there are some reasons to doubt competing theories that conclude certain things about the universe are directly attributable to God. Of course I don’t find those theories - maybe better described as hypotheses - to be very persausive in establishing the necessity of God in the first place.

When I see overbroad claims, like you have made here, based upon a specific scientific hypothesis, it always raises a question in my mind. Why? As a student of science, what sense does the leap you’ve taken here make?

 

[estesbob]

I think the thread thus far is summed up nicely by:

**You think you are too intelligent to believe in God. I am not like you. --Napoleon Bonaparte **

 

[ribozyme]

Doesn’t a brute force search require an algorithim?

Yes, it does by definition as a brute-force search is a search algorithm, but it does not restrict the search space as it attempts to exhaust all the possible (name removed by moderator)ut values. A brute-force search involves the (name removed by moderator)ut of a large set of values into a problem, and observing whether a subset of those values give the desired solution.

Remember for the four fundamental forces, the search space is extremely large. For example the strong force is 10e38 times stronger than gravity in this universe.

Asking questions about why the strong force is not 10e34 or 10e11 times stronger than gravity is ultimately pointless. They can take those values in other universes, but if our universe had one of those values for the strong force, we would not be here to think about it. With values that low, Coulombic repulsion beats the strong force, thus protons cannot be held close together in the atomic nucleii. Moreover, even with values that low, it seems unlikely that protons and neutrons can exist, as protons and neutrons are composed of three quarks bound by the strong force.

 

[john_doran]

If the values of the strong, weak nuclear forces, gravitation, and electromagnetic forces take different values when a universe if formed, what is preventing eternal inflation from conducting a brute-force search on all the values.

what do you mean, “search”? that’s awfully anthropomorphic…

why do you think an eternally inflationary universe is going to produce a different universe every time? that’s what i’m talking about…

look, the theistic fine-tuners say that the various physical constants achieve their actual value only through the action of divine intelligent agency; you are apparently opposing their view by suggesting that…what? the universe is “searching” for the correct physical constants/values for the existence of life?

how does something without intellgience “search” for anything? why would an eternal, mechanistic universe ever produce more than the same sequence of events, over and over and over and over again?

your argument is this: “sure, the physical conditions necessary for life as we know it are infinitessimally small, but if the universe has existed eternally, then every infinitessimally small unlikelihood will happen. which means that the chance of these specific physical conditions is not 1*10^-1000, but rather 1”.

i am not sure how to be more clear. are you familiar with modal logic?

ribozyme:

Doing the brute-force search, the inflationary universe will repeatedly create universes with an apparently fined-tuned values for the weak, strong, electromagnetic, and gravitational forces so it could be amiable for the evolution of life.

but why is it necessary that the inflationary universe create different universes each time?

ribozyme:

Show how this is an impossibility for the inflationary universe (or multiverse).

??? why would i have to show that this is impossible? by that logic, anything that is possible is equally believable. which is absurd. (can you demonstrate to me that it is impossible that i am actually a brain in a vat in an alpha centaurian lab? does that mean that the propositions “i am at home typing on my laptop in front of the TV” and “i am a brain in a vat” are equally believable, because equally (logically) possible?)

ribozyme:

Or show how inflation cannot be future-eternal.

future-eternity does not entail future-diversity.

ribozyme:

Eternal inflation is a brute-force search, unlike cosmological natural selection proposed by Lee Smolin.

i’m not sure to which part(s) of smolin’s loop quantum gravity you are referring.

 

[ribozyme]

??? why would i have to show that this is impossible? by that logic, anything that is possible is equally believable. which is absurd. (can you demonstrate to me that it is impossible that i am actually a brain in a vat in an alpha centaurian lab? does that mean that the propositions “i am at home typing on my laptop in front of the TV” and “i am a brain in a vat” are equally believable, because equally (logically) possible?)

future-eternity does not entail future-diversity.

i’m not sure to which part(s) of smolin’s loop quantum gravity you are referring.

I’ll go one better, I think you are Mewtwo using your telepathic power to type in keys on a keyboard.

I do not think it is about loop quantum gravity see: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_natural_selection

Also, Smolin’s Scientific Alternatives to the Anthropic Principle is on my reading list. I will read it after I finish Susskind’s new book.

You should read it .

 

[kleary]

Who was it that said,

“THERE ARE NO AETHIESTS IN FOXHOLES”.

When death comes to you my friend I gaurantee you will believe in God.

Ken

 

[Nullasalus]

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.

I’m quoting this starting post, because I think people have missed an important point.

Ribo, if you’re approaching the topic from an objective point of view - if your belief about life and the universe (Everything is chance, there is no meaning, you are obliterated after death, nothing will exist but heat death) is one that you arrived at via unbiased means and inquiry… why are you jumping for joy at finding a paper like this? Why does it seem less that you are inquiring about the reasonability of a God behind the universe, and more that you are searching specifically for evidence you can wield to refute the theist’s position?

And finally - if you’re clinging to MWI to eliminate the implications of the anthropic principle, and eternal inflation to eliminate the need for a first cause… don’t your arguments necessarily imply that God, who CAN exist, therefore MUST exist? After all, if all possibilities are realized, and God is a possibility… well, you do the rest.

Though honestly, I think this entire thread can be summed up as ‘The atheist’s last, desperate hope for a scientific refutation of an act of creation and the anthropic principle.’ - relying on a theory that cannot be falsified now and may never be falsified in the future to protect a metaphysical worldview. So much for the reasonable, rational world of scientific atheism.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Nullasalus

Though honestly, I think this entire thread can be summed up as ‘The atheist’s last, desperate hope for a scientific refutation of an act of creation and the anthropic principle.’ - relying on a theory that cannot be falsified now and may never be falsified in the future to protect a metaphysical worldview. So much for the reasonable, rational world of scientific atheism

Well done!

 

[StRaphael]

Apologist Dr. William Lane Craig said it best:

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence. 2.The universe began to exist. 2.1 Argument based on the impossibility of an actual infinite: 2.11 An actual infinite cannot exist. 2.12 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite. 2.13 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist. 2.2 Argument based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition: 2.21 A collection formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite. 2.22 The temporal series of past events is a collection formed by successive addition. 2.23 Therefore, the temporal series of past events cannot be actually infinite. 2.3 Confirmation based on the expansion of the universe. 2.4 Confirmation based on the thermodynamic properties of the universe. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence. 4. If the universe has a cause of its existence, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent. 4.1 Argument that the cause of the universe is a personal Creator: 4.11 The universe was brought into being either by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions or by a personal, free agent. 4.12 The universe could not have been brought into being by a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions. 4.13 Therefore, the universe was brought into being by a personal, free agent. 4.2 Argument that the Creator sans creation is uncaused, beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent: 4.21 The Creator is uncaused. 4.211 An infinite temporal regress of causes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23) 4.22 The Creator is beginningless. 4.221 Whatever is uncaused does not begin to exist. (1) 4.23 The Creator is changeless. 4.231 An infinite temporal regress of changes cannot exist. (2.13, 2.23) 4.24 The Creator is immaterial. 4.241 Whatever is material involves change on the atomic and molecular levels, but the Creator is changeless. (4.23) 4.25 The Creator is timeless. 4.251 In the complete absence of change, time does not exist, and the Creator is changeless. (4.23) 4.26 The Creator is spaceless. 4.261 Whatever is immaterial and timeless cannot be spatial, and the Creator is immaterial and timeless (4.24, 4.25) 4.27 The Creator is enormously powerful. 4.271 He brought the universe into being out of nothing. (3) 4.28 The Creator is enormously intelligent. 4.281 The initial conditions of the universe involve incomprehensible fine-tuning that points to intelligent design. 5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans creation is “beginningless,” changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful and intelligent.

 

[magician]

Well you’re all wrong, so get over it. At least, this scientist says so:

houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689776

Description:
A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster

 

[Nullasalus]

Well you’re all wrong, so get over it. At least, this scientist says so:

At this point, Dawkins’ forays into such topics are so embarassing and vitriolic that many atheists cringe when his name is brought up. Kind of a Penn Jilette without the magic tricks.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well you’re all wrong, so get over it. At least, this scientist says so:

houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689776

Description:
A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster

One thing that strikes me about this description of the book is that Dawkins is really talking as an amatuer. He argues from history and philosophy, but neither of these is his profession. So really, the fact that he is a scientist means nothing about the quality of this book.

 

[ribozyme]

Well you’re all wrong, so get over it. At least, this scientist says so:

houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689776

Description:
A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.
With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being … The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly. It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster

I will finish reading that book after I will finish Susskind’s The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design . You should read Susskind’s book, I think it will change the way you look at life, the universe, and Darwinian evolution after you read it.

Regarding Craig, I do not think that it has been shown that the inflationary universe is past-eternal, and to the contrary, I do not think it is past-eternal. I think the inflationary universe (and Alan Guth) started from a quantum creation event (not by God).
Alan Guth:

Another intriguing feature of inflation is that almost all versions of inflation are eternal—once inflation starts, it never stops completely. Inflation has ended in our part of the universe, but very far away one expects that inflation is continuing, and will continue forever. Is it possible, then, that inflation is also eternal into the past? Recently Guth has worked with Alex Vilenkin (Tufts) and Arvind Borde (Southampton College) to show that the inflating region of spacetime must have a past boundary, and that some new physics, perhaps a quantum theory of creation, would be needed to understand it.

web.mit.edu/physics/facultyandstaff/faculty/alan_guth.html

The bottom line is that inflation is eternal as stated by the leading cosmologists who constructed inflationary theory (e.g. Guth and Linde), and there is strong evidence that the universe inflated when the universe is about 10e-35 seconds old. Look for Cosmic Inflation on wikipedia. Well, I challenge one to show that inflation cannot be future-eternal. If so, my polemic against the fine-tuning argument is destroyed.

Well, personally, I am not happy acknowledging that there is no God who loves me. To the contrary I wanted to believe in the existence of such a figure…

"I have made it clear that my contemplation is not rooted in reason. I thought of accepting the existence of a personal God because I am human: I desire to be loved. When I initially did some research on the origin of life, I did not attempt to pursue a religious agenda, but I was merely curious. After some time I acknowledged the difficulties of various origin of life hypotheses pointed by the scientists I have mentioned above (Joyce, Orgel, and Shapiro). During this time, I was not satisfied with “I do not know” for an answer, and a part of me wanted to satisfy some need to know that my life has a purpose and that an all-powerful deity loves me. I thought by acknowledging that God did it would satisfy this desire.

Why Roman Catholicism? This remark will not directly answer the question, but I think one reason is that I live in the United States where Christianity is prevalent. Another facet (regarding to Catholicism not Christianity) is mentioned in a letter below concerns fundamentalism and I think Catholics are not fundamentalists who believe in a literal Bible and YECism. My previous comments only superficially answered the question, but I will mention my primary reason next. Also I do think Catholicism appeals to my desire to “connect” with the divine. An obvious example that makes Catholicism unique (this statement could be falsified if the Anglicans believe in the Real Presence too) is transubstantiation. Who doesn’t want to personally experience the presence of the risen Christ

iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=163978

I only thanked Linde in the beginning of this thread because his cosmology is groundbreaking, not because he destroyed the fine-tuning argument. Well, I think the evidence supports the veracity of his cosmology, and he is a competent scientist. I have to be willing to confront reality, and not ignore anything facts that contradict the notion of a creator God.

BTW, do you like that quote in my signature .

 

[tdgesq]

Well you’re all wrong, so get over it. At least, this scientist says so:

houghtonmifflinbooks.com/catalog/titledetail.cfm?titleNumber=689776

Everyone that has posted here is wrong? Since some of them agree with you I suppose that can’t be what you mean. I guess it must mean all of those you disagree with that have posted are wrong.

Description:
A preeminent scientist – and the world’s most prominent atheist – asserts the irrationality of belief in God and the grievous harm religion has inflicted on society, from the Crusades to 9/11.

Oh, but don’t you see, we didn’t have any choice. It was just our genetics and environment that make us act this way. Thank Go… I mean thank goodness that Dawkins has decided to write a book in order to change our minds . . … whoops . . . environment such that we might believe in his arbitrary views and act like him.

With rigor and wit, Dawkins examines God in all his forms, from the sex-obsessed tyrant of the Old Testament to the more benign (but still illogical) Celestial Watchmaker favored by some Enlightenment thinkers. He eviscerates the major arguments for religion and demonstrates the supreme improbability of a supreme being. He shows how religion fuels war, foments bigotry, and abuses children, buttressing his points with historical and contemporary evidence. The God Delusion makes a compelling case that belief in God is not just wrong but potentially deadly.

So what if belief in God creates bigots, fuels wars, causes child abuse, and is potentially deadly? Ask Dawkins what’s wrong with that.

It also offers exhilarating insight into the advantages of atheism to the individual and society, not the least of which is a clearer, truer appreciation of the universe’s wonders than any faith could ever muster

I appreciate the wonders of the universe and how science has been able to advance our understanding of it. What I don’t appreciate is a silly unattributed quote from the back of a book that makes it sound like science can disprove the existence of God.

 

[tdgesq]

BTW, do you like that quote in my signature .

So what do you know about Heinlein and economics? I bet I know more than you do.

 

[valient_Lucy]

Well, personally, I am not happy acknowledging that there is no God who loves me. To the contrary I wanted to believe in the existence of such a figure…

Why is that?