God is not needed to explain universe

[buffalo]

Given a vast ensemble of universes (let’s say 10e500 as proposed in 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.

When you get odds like that you are crossing the threshhold from chance to design. Be careful ribo, you may have just proven yourself wrong.

 

[ribozyme]

When you get odds like that you are crossing the threshhold from chance to design. Be careful ribo, you may have just proven yourself wrong.

Well, I acknowledge that the universe had the illusion of design. How did I say it is designed? I never said that. I think string landscape is much more probable than Yahweh creating the universe. Because of this, I cannot wait to read Leonard Susskind’s new book: The Cosmic Landscape: String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design. I don’t understand why so many scientists dislike Susskind’s ideas.

 

[buffalo]

Well, I acknowledge that the universe had the illusion of design.

OK. Now I am going to turn the tales on you and some others here.

Did God purposely create an illusion to deceive us?

He cannot deceive or be deceived.

 

[ribozyme]

OK. Now I am going to turn the tales on you and some others here.

Did God purposely create an illusion to deceive us?

He cannot deceive or be deceived.

I did not say that God created the universe. The apparent “fine-tuning” is an illusion that is created by environmental selection; we can only live in a universe that is able to support life. If our universe is unable to support life, we would not be here to think about it. Since the parameters allowing carbon-based life are so strict, in a universe where observers (like Homo sapiens) exist, when they notice these parameters some will incorrectly infer design, as it seems unlikely for a single universe to generate those parameters randomly. But in the scheme of the multiverse, it is easily explained by environmental selection.
Sean Carroll:

Folks, just to be clear: environmental selection in the multiverse is not a close relative of ID in any way — it’s the opposite of ID. It proposes a completely mechanistic and non-teleological explanation for the apparent fine-tunings we observe in nature, without relying on any supernatural intervention.

Susskind’s mistake, in his enthusiasm for the multiverse, is to suggest that without a multiverse, ID might make sense as an explanation for such fine-tunings. He unfortunately ignores the fact that ID doesn’t make sense under any circumstances. It doesn’t provide any description of the “designer” (including, of course, who designed the designer), any mechanism through which the designer goes about designing things, any criterion for deciding whether something is designed or not, and so on. It’s just empty posturing by people who want to sneak religion into high-school education.

If there is no multiverse, then we just got lucky that the uniquely-determined laws of nature allow for us to be here. That statement, all by itself, is much simpler and straightforward than the invocation of a mysterious supernatural force with no role other than to fix the laws in their specific configuration.

cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/15/susskind-interview/

Carroll has got it wrong, a multiverse is needed to explain fine-tuning, or an eternally bouncing cosmology (such as the cyclic model). Chance is counter-intuitive to explain the fine-tuning.

 

[estesbob]

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.

It takes a lot more arrogance to believe in a non God created string landscape than it does a benevolent God. I wish you could have been hiking with me in the Mountains yesterday-we had 8 inches of Snow Tuesday and the hike was nothing less than spectacular. In one short hike I saw more evidence of the existence of God than you can find could possible find of his non- existence in a thousand textbooks.

I believe the biggest stumbling block for those who worship science instead of God is having to admit that there there is something greater than onesself.

As far as evidence of a benevolent God-look in the mirror.

 

[ribozyme]

It takes a lot more arrogance to believe in a non God created string landscape than it does a benevolent God…

I believe the biggest stumbling block for those who worship science instead of God is having to admit that there there is something greater than onesself.

As far as evidence of a benevolent God-look in the mirror.

Arrogance is not the question; it is a matter of which hypothesis is more probable: the multiverse or God.

Nope, I see myself an entity constructed by Darwinian evolution. Eventually I will die, and I will cease to exist. Not pleasant, but I have to deal with it because it is true. After I die, the matter in the universe will condense into black holes and neutron stars because of the second law of thermodynamics.

 

[VociMike]

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

Well at least you don’t shrink from the ultimate meaninglessness that results from your view.

If I may summarize the contending positions,

GOD:

-Unexplainable, requires faith
-Explains all of creation as the workings of an intelligent and loving mind
-Gives objective meaning and guidance to life
-Elevates mankind above our apparent insignificance in the universe
-Offers the ultimate hope beyond death

MULTIVERSES:

-Unexplainable, requires faith
-Explains all of creation as a vast collection of probabalistic flukes
-Gives no objective meaning or guidance to any aspect of life
-Reduces mankind ever farther to insignificance
-Offers no hope beyond death

So the scientific alternative to God has all of the ultimately unexplainable “limitations” of belief in God, and offers none of the “benefits”. And to think that, even so, a great many people are anxious, determined, to place their faith in the scientific alternative…

 

[VociMike]

Arrogance is not the question; it is a matter of which hypothesis is more probable: the multiverse or God.

How can you possibly assign probabilities to the two hypotheses?!

 

[ribozyme]

Well at least you don’t shrink from the ultimate meaninglessness that results from your view.

If I may summarize the contending positions,

GOD:

-Unexplainable, requires faith
-Explains all of creation as the workings of an intelligent and loving mind
-Gives objective meaning and guidance to life
-Elevates mankind above our apparent insignificance in the universe
-Offers the ultimate hope beyond death

MULTIVERSES:

-Unexplainable, requires faith
-Explains all of creation as a vast collection of probabalistic flukes
-Gives no objective meaning or guidance to any aspect of life
-Reduces mankind ever farther to insignificance
-Offers no hope beyond death

So the scientific alternative to God has all of the ultimately unexplainable “limitations” of belief in God, and offers none of the “benefits”. And to think that, even so, a great many people are anxious, determined, to place their faith in the scientific alternative…

Well, the multiverse has one benefit: it can be tested (well, indirectly). Well, if it is falsified, then it is false.
Sean Carroll:

The scenarios discussed in this paper involve the invocation of multiple inaccessible domains within an ultra-large-scale multiverse. For good reason, the reliance on the properties of unobservable regions and the difficulty in falsifying such ideas makes scientists reluctant to grant them an explanatory role [67]. Of course, the idea that the properties of our observable domain can be uniquely extended beyond the cosmological horizon is an equally untestable assumption. The multiverse is not a theory; it is a consequence of certain theories(of quantum gravity and cosmology), and the hope is that these theories eventually prove to be testable in other ways. Every theory makes untestable predictions, but theories should
be judged on the basis of the testable ones. The ultimate goal is undoubtedly ambitious: to 8 construct a theory that has definite consequences for the structure of the multiverse, such that this structure provides an explanation for how the observed features of our local domain can arise naturally, and that the same theory makes predictions that can be directly tested through laboratory experiments and astrophysical observations. Only further investigation will allow us to tell whether such a program represents laudable aspiration or misguided hubris.

arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0512148

Other than that, you correctly compare and contrast the God hypothesis and the multiverse. I do not expect to convert people to my worldview here (it does not provide the comfort of a strong faith in God), but I am willing to discuss its veracity.

 

[tdgesq]

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.

I have a question, and I ask this in good faith. How do these scientific theories lead to the conclusion that God is not needed to explain the universe? I still don’t see it. Is it really the problem of evil that leads you to this conclusion? If so, then maybe that is a topic worthy of your study. I have some reading suggestions in that regard if you are interested.

 

[ribozyme]

I have a question, and I ask this in good faith. How do these scientific theories lead to the conclusion that God is not needed to explain the universe? I still don’t see it. Is it really the problem of evil that leads you to this conclusion? If so, then maybe that is a topic worthy of your study. I have some reading suggestions in that regard if you are interested.

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.

 

[buffalo]

I did not say that God created the universe. The apparent “fine-tuning” is an illusion that is created by environmental selection; we can only live in a universe that is able to support life. If our universe is unable to support life, we would not be here to think about it. Since the parameters allowing carbon-based life are so strict, in a universe where observers (like Homo sapiens) exist, when they notice these parameters some will incorrectly infer design, as it seems unlikely for a single universe to generate those parameters randomly. But in the scheme of the multiverse, it is easily explained by environmental selection.

cosmicvariance.com/2005/12/15/susskind-interview/

Carroll has got it wrong, a multiverse is needed to explain fine-tuning, or an eternally bouncing cosmology (such as the cyclic model). Chance is counter-intuitive to explain the fine-tuning.

How many multi-verses are necessary to produce the fine tuning we observe?

 

[ribozyme]

How many multi-verses are necessary to produce the fine tuning we observe?

Good question, an exact quantification will be hard to give. I think a lower bound for that number of universes is 10^200. Lambda must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, and is only one number.

You are referring to universes, a multiverse contains universes.

 

[VociMike]

Well, the multiverse has one benefit: it can be tested (well, indirectly). Well, if it is falsified, then it is false.

Actually, they only hope that it can be tested.

Oh, and I forgot a critical point. Even a creation of Multiverses doesn’t rule out God. For one thing, where did the laws and the “stuff” which allows for an infinite assortment of multiverses come from? In fact, no possible physical theory of universal origins can rule out God, since God is not a part of the material world (except when He chooses to be).

Other than that, you correctly compare and contrast the God hypothesis and the multiverse. I do not expect to convert people to my worldview here (it does not provide the comfort of a strong faith in God), but I am willing to discuss its veracity.

It certainly is an interesting exercise.

 

[buffalo]

Good question, an exact quantification will be hard to give. I think a lower bound for that number of universes is 10^200. Lambda must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, and is only one number.

You are referring to universes, a multiverse contains universes.

I can’t remember the number exactly, but scientist have put the threshold from chance to design at 10 to the 150? or so. So this would be in the design area. God or chance?

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

ribozyme

You are referring to universes, a multiverse contains universes.
*__________________
*
None of which have been, or can be, proven to exist.

Your faith in their existence is mystical.

So you can’t very well discount Catholic mysticism without discounting your own.

 

[ribozyme]

Actually, they only hope that it can be tested.

Oh, and I forgot a critical point. Even a creation of Multiverses doesn’t rule out God. For one thing, where did the laws and the “stuff” which allows for an infinite assortment of multiverses come from? In fact, no possible physical theory of universal origins can rule out God, since God is not a part of the material world (except when He chooses to be).

It certainly is an interesting exercise.

You are correct, but it makes the existence of God unnecessary to explain the fine-tuning because of Occam’s razor.

 

[VociMike]

Good question, an exact quantification will be hard to give. I think a lower bound for that number of universes is 10^200. Lambda must be tuned to 120 orders of magnitude, and is only one number.

It is by no means obvious that Occam’s razor would lead one to call 10^500 universes a simpler explanation than one God.

BTW, to give these incredibly large numbers some meaning, there are very roughly 10^80 atoms in the visible universe.

 

[Ghosty]

You are correct, but it makes the existence of God unnecessary to explain the fine-tuning because of Occam’s razor.

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!

 

[VociMike]

You are correct, but it makes the existence of God unnecessary to explain the fine-tuning because of Occam’s razor.

But Occam’s razor tells us that entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity. We propose one God. You propose 10^500 universes. 1 << 10^500.