Other eternal forces?

[coolduude]

Could gravity (or another force) be an eternal force that creates? Could gravity (or other force) be “God”?

I don’t quite understand why God as we know Him must be the eternal force. I accept God on faith but I am having trouble in this one aspect.

Couldn’t something else be ‘God’?

 

[The_Reginator]

Could gravity (or another force) be an eternal force that creates? Could gravity (or other force) be “God”?

I don’t quite understand why God as we know Him must be the eternal force. I accept God on faith but I am having trouble in this one aspect.

Couldn’t something else be ‘God’?

I have to answer with a question. What does the Catechism teach you?
Think on this: Who do you think created gravity or all other forces in nature?

– Reg.

 

[AntiTheist]

Could gravity (or another force) be an eternal force that creates? Could gravity (or other force) be “God”?

I don’t quite understand why God as we know Him must be the eternal force. I accept God on faith but I am having trouble in this one aspect.

Couldn’t something else be ‘God’?

The flaw of all the cosmological arguments for god is that they argue that there is an “uncaused cause” that produced the universe.

These arguments themselves have a number of problems, but if we assume that they are valid and that they really do suggest that there might be an “uncaused cause” – which is far from certain – there’s still the added problem that most of them leap to the assumption that this “uncaused cause” is a god, with all of the baggage associated with that word (a conscious being with volition and intelligence and attributes).

The fact is that the universe very well might be the product of some kind of blind cosmic law that has always existed. If you’re going to walk around believing that a god has always existed, you can’t complain when other people suggest that a cosmic law might have always existed.

To be clear: I’m not saying that I accept that some blind cosmic law is the “cause” of the universe – I’m proposing it as a viable possibility, one that demonstrates that the assumptions of religionists are not necessarily correct at all.

 

[tonyrey]

Could gravity (or another force) be an eternal force that creates? Could gravity (or other force) be “God”?

I don’t quite understand why God as we know Him must be the eternal force. I accept God on faith but I am having trouble in this one aspect.

Couldn’t something else be ‘God’?

What do you think is a more adequate explanation - an unconscious, purposeless thing or a rational, purposeful Being?

 

[Light1111]

Could gravity (or another force) be an eternal force that creates? Could gravity (or other force) be “God”?

I don’t quite understand why God as we know Him must be the eternal force. I accept God on faith but I am having trouble in this one aspect.

Couldn’t something else be ‘God’?

Don’t forget that the laws of physics dealing with the behavior of the very tiny (quantum mechanics) are entirely contrary to the laws of the very large (gravity). This contradiction, in and of itself, has no scientific explanation whatsoever – in fact, answering this “question” is the Holy Grail of science!

This contradiction is impossible. To the extent I am capable of comprehending physics at all – in my layman’s understanding of what is being discussed – I get the chills.

To me, this alone can point to a proof of God. It’s “impossible” that we can observe gravity acting upon an object with substantial size (if you let go of your pencil, it is without doubt that it will fall), and simultaneously, we can observe (through electron microscopy and the like) that the most minute particles that make up all objects – like the pencil – behave in a rather opposite way. There is no predicting the patterns, movements or behavior of the very tiny particles – the quarks, electrons, and so on.

Right as we say something is ‘impossible’ we remember that it has to be possible – it is a fact. Something doesn’t require explanation to be real! Yet how can we account for it? Physicists cannot.

If gravity were the preeminent force in this Universe, what would quantum mechanics be on about?



At one in the same time, it doesn’t take me through terribly trying mental gymnastics to imagine the response of an atheist to my ideas – that God is not inherently responsible for all this, merely because these two theories of physics cannot be unified. I appreciate that stance as well. However, I myself find a true awe at this refusal of the major and the tiny to “agree” – I witness God’s hand in that dilemma/impossibility.

Thanks for the lively discussion. One of my very favorite topics to ponder!

Since you state you are a proud Catholic, I appreciate that you are simply applying your curiosity to this mind-bender of a problem. I too enjoy such exercises!

Peace to you!

 

[coolduude]

What do you think is a more adequate explanation - an unconscious, purposeless thing or a rational, purposeful Being?

Good point.

However, according to some therorists, a gravity field could produce fluctuations, thus giving rise to our universe.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Good point.

However, according to some therorists, a gravity field could produce fluctuations, thus giving rise to our universe.

True, but then you must account for the Anthropic Principle.

 

[coolduude]

True, but then you must account for the Anthropic Principle.

Another good point.

But as the atheists point out, it could happen without God because (assuming the gravity field exists) there is a chance, however small.

Don’t forget about M-Theory.

 

[AntiTheist]

But as the atheists point out, [the arising of a universe that could sustain life] could happen without God because (assuming the gravity field exists) there is a chance, however small.

Not just “there is a [small] chance.”

I often use this analogy: in a game of bridge, the odds of being dealt a perfect hand (two through ace, all of the same suit) are astronomical – one in several billion, if I remember correctly.

But what are the odds of being dealt a hand like the king of diamonds, the four of clubs, the eight of diamonds, the jack of hearts, etc. (some other hand that we haven’t designated as “special”)? The odds are exactly the same.

The only difference is that when the “perfect hand” comes out, we already have developed a standard by which to call it “special” – but it’s not, in fact, any rarer than any other combination of cards.

Something similar is going on with this whole “anthropic principle” nonsense. If the universe was “randomly generated” (with a random configuration of variables), then the odds of any particular set of variables arising are exactly the same as any other particular set of variables.

The universe we got is capable of sustaining life, at least on one planet that we know about. If the universe were a little different, perhaps it would have been capable of supporting a different kind of life, or perhaps no life at all would have emerged in a different universe. But in terms of odds, none of those potential universes is any “rarer” than another.

[And, naturally, we’re ignoring the possibility that some cosmic law governs the arising of universes and regulates potential sets of variables]

The point is that you can’t take the result that we got, treat it as “special,” and use it as the standard to measure the “odds,” as if the universe we got were “intended” by something all along – to do that is to presume that there is a god already, which makes your argument circular.

 

[tonyrey]

Good point.

However, according to some theorists, a gravity field could produce fluctuations, thus giving rise to our universe.

Even if that is so - which is doubtful - you still need to explain the existence of a mindless gravity field and its subsequent development into an immensely complex and beautiful universe containing rational beings with a capacity for love and creativity…

 

[coolduude]

Even if that is so - which is doubtful - you still need to explain the existence of a mindless gravity field and its subsequent development into an immensely complex and beautiful universe containing rational beings with a capacity for love and creativity…

Well that’s my point. The gravity field would be eternal.

On another note, AntiTheist makes a good point. Can someone address that please?

 

[tonyrey]

Well that’s my point. The gravity field would be eternal.

eternally mindless and purposeless?

 

[coolduude]

eternally mindless and purposeless?

It wouldn’t be so pointless or purposeless if it created something would it?

But by eternal, I mean that it explains it’s own existence. It is existence itself.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Meh, Antitheist is technically right. But it’s sort of like a firing squad surrounded us, trained their laser sights on us, took several moments to aim after tying us down, all fired at the same time-and missed.

 

[tonyrey]

It wouldn’t be so pointless or purposeless if it created something would it?

It would if it didn’t know why it was creating something!

But by eternal, I mean that it explains its own existence. It is existence itself.

In that case I agree with you. Not surprisingly we cannot understand the nature of “existence itself” - given our finite intelligence - but it is certainly a more reasonable explanation than the notion that everything has come from nothing.

 

[4Horsemen]

Since there is a theorem that establishes a boundary, the claim is that such a universe without a beginning is impossible. If classical gravity is operating near the boundary, then it’s a singularity and therefore has a beginning in time. If quantum effects are near the boundary, then it could be an opening to another earlier region of space-time which may or may not require a boundary. But the theorem (re: BVG for the three scientists) applies to any universe that there be a boundary which is an absolute boundary. The theorem responds to various scenarios such as string-theory, eternal inflation, etc . . . (Haven’t read all of the possibilities yet, )

Also, if the probability of our universe is the same for any other universes existing, it matters that our universe has an intrinsic order to be able to sustain a life form. In fact, there are enormous odds, like 10 to the 10thpower to the 123rd power. This is so extraodinarily rare for such “fine-tuning”. The argument that another type of universe coming into existence requires the same odds is meaningless since there would be no evidence of design. It would be disordered just like a bunch of other possible universes that don’t have the constants fitted exactly to make a setting for order and life.

 

[4Horsemen]

Oh no! Did I shut this thread down? I must have said something too, well. . . definitive?

Sorry.

 

[Luke_K]

Not just “there is a [small] chance.”

I often use this analogy: in a game of bridge, the odds of being dealt a perfect hand (two through ace, all of the same suit) are astronomical – one in several billion, if I remember correctly.

But what are the odds of being dealt a hand like the king of diamonds, the four of clubs, the eight of diamonds, the jack of hearts, etc. (some other hand that we haven’t designated as “special”)? The odds are exactly the same.

The only difference is that when the “perfect hand” comes out, we already have developed a standard by which to call it “special” – but it’s not, in fact, any rarer than any other combination of cards.

Something similar is going on with this whole “anthropic principle” nonsense. If the universe was “randomly generated” (with a random configuration of variables), then the odds of any particular set of variables arising are exactly the same as any other particular set of variables.

The universe we got is capable of sustaining life, at least on one planet that we know about. If the universe were a little different, perhaps it would have been capable of supporting a different kind of life, or perhaps no life at all would have emerged in a different universe. But in terms of odds, none of those potential universes is any “rarer” than another.

[And, naturally, we’re ignoring the possibility that some cosmic law governs the arising of universes and regulates potential sets of variables]

The point is that you can’t take the result that we got, treat it as “special,” and use it as the standard to measure the “odds,” as if the universe we got were “intended” by something all along – to do that is to presume that there is a god already, which makes your argument circular.

You are ignoring the concept of microstate vs. macrostate. The most probable macrostate of a system is one that has the most microstates giving the same equivalent macrostate. Statistical entropy is explained in this way.

Take for example a set of 3 numbers which can only have values 0,1,2, or 3. Imagine that these three numbers must add up to 3. There are three different ways of choosing the numbers:
A: 012 021 102 120 201 210 (In which each number can be 0,1 or 2)
B: 111 (In which each number can only be 1)
C: 003 030 300 (In which each number can be 0 or 3)

A, B, and C are the distinguishable classes/macrostates for each set of microstates. You can see that the macrostate A has the most possible microstates, and is therefore the most probable. It is also the one that is the most “mixed up”, so to speak.

When you talk about numbers on the scale of the gas particles in a room, the most probable macrostate becomes very much more probable than any others, and it is the one that is the most mixed-up. There are more ways to arrange the particles in the room in an uninteresting, or un-orderly way than otherwise. This is why you don’t have to worry about all the gas particles moving to the half of the room you’re not sitting in, even though it’s technically possible.

We can imagine then that it’s incomprehensibly more likely for the universe to have started in a jumbled up, dispersed manner than one in which distinguishable, meaningful objects formed out of the big bang giving rise to very specific conditions necessary for life. In fact, the universe is always spontaneously moving towards a uniform distribution of energy by the second law. Why didn’t it just start that way to begin with? It’s an interesting question.

 

[Luke_K]

As an edit to my above post, apparently (according to the all-knowing Wikipedia) the initial state of the universe did have uniform energy distribution because of gravity, or whatever. I can’t say I know squat about all that. Seems like there’s so much relevant information to scientific issues nowadays that truly meaningful discussion between people outside the field of study is almost impossible.

 

[nbtrap]

These arguments themselves have a number of problems, but if we assume that they are valid and that they really do suggest that there might be an “uncaused cause” – which is far from certain – there’s still the added problem that most of them leap to the assumption that this “uncaused cause” is a god

The cosmological arguments prove that there MUST BE an uncaused cause, and they define God to be the uncaused cause, not the other way around. There is no mistaken assumption in this. You have made a very elementary philosophical mistake.

The “extra baggage” to which you refer is attributed to God through various other proofs and divine revelation. When we say that God is knowable by reason alone, we mean only that certain things about him can be known by reason alone, e.g. his existence, non-contingency &c.