What's up with cosmologists who don't believe in God?

[tomarin]

That’s quite true. I was thinking about this thread today, and I’ll admit that I did sort of generalize all cosmologists as atheists, materialists, etc… There could certainly be Christian cosmologists, and I just want to point out that I don’t see anything inherently wrong with this line of work. I’m really trying to understand what would make someone pursue a question that logic (as far as I can see) would say is unsolvable IF they don’t believe in God.

You mean, what’s the point of studying the origins of the universe if one doesn’t believe in God?

 

[cranster]

The A-team again! :hey_bud: :whackadoo:

1. The God “theory” explains everything. The cosmological theories don’t.
2. Since God could create a universe of a trillion galaxies as easily as one, why not?
3. God lets nature do things contingently which manifests the wonder of his omnipotence more than if he ‘stacked the deck’ by creating the Earth and its living creatures with a deliverate miracle.
   When your consider the large number of unlikely situations which must exist in one place at the same time in order to support higher life and human beings:

-----tectonic plate activity with its volcanoes to recycle carbon every four hundred million years

----the right amount of carbon in the first place
----a rare sun whose radiation is remarkably stable compared to most stars
----temperatures that permit liquid water
----a large close moon that keeps the Earth from flipping over pole to pole every few thousand years in a physical phenomenon called precession that would make the development of higher life impossible ( Uranus currently has a pole to pole orientation along its orbital plane )
----the presence of oceans with enormous amounts of water derived apparently from trillions and trillions of distance comets which were drawn into the inner solar system by the system of four gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, that just happened to be in the neighborhood too
----the right amount of oxygen to support higher life
----the right amount of nitrogen to keep the oxygen from burning us up
----many other factors

then you realize Earth could very well be the only planet in the universe that supports higher life without a direct ‘stack the deck’ miracle, and this is why God created such a large universe.

Maybe this has already been addressed, but the latest through the wormhole had lee smollen theorizing that what accounts for fine tuning in the universe is universal evolotion. That the universe itself is undergoing random mutations and that accounts for the fine tuning just as evolution accounts for the rise of life on earth. Gotta have a naturalistic cause for fine tuning so as not to get boxed into intelligence anywhere in the chain of existence.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Maybe this has already been addressed, but the latest through the wormhole had lee smollen theorizing that what accounts for fine tuning in the universe is universal evolotion. That the universe itself is undergoing random mutations and that accounts for the fine tuning just as evolution accounts for the rise of life on earth. Gotta have a naturalistic cause for fine tuning so as not to get boxed into intelligence anywhere in the chain of existence.

Smolin’s hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection fails. I discuss this extensively in chapter 3 of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

 

[Poseidon]

The A-team again! :hey_bud: :whackadoo:

1. The God “theory” explains everything. The cosmological theories don’t.

One could say that the God theory raises a large number of questions as well…

1. Since God could create a universe of a trillion galaxies as easily as one, why not?

If he does indeed exist, I see no problems here.

1. God lets nature do things contingently which manifests the wonder of his omnipotence more than if he ‘stacked the deck’ by creating the Earth and its living creatures with a deliverate miracle.
   When your consider the large number of unlikely situations which must exist in one place at the same time in order to support higher life and human beings:

-----tectonic plate activity with its volcanoes to recycle carbon every four hundred million years
----the right amount of carbon in the first place
----a rare sun whose radiation is remarkably stable compared to most stars
----temperatures that permit liquid water
----a large close moon that keeps the Earth from flipping over pole to pole every few thousand years in a physical phenomenon called precession that would make the development of higher life impossible ( Uranus currently has a pole to pole orientation along its orbital plane )
----the presence of oceans with enormous amounts of water derived apparently from trillions and trillions of distance comets which were drawn into the inner solar system by the system of four gas giant planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, that just happened to be in the neighborhood too
----the right amount of oxygen to support higher life
----the right amount of nitrogen to keep the oxygen from burning us up
----many other factors

then you realize Earth could very well be the only planet in the universe that supports higher life without a direct ‘stack the deck’ miracle, and this is why God created such a large universe.

You should look into the anthropic principle, which (IMHO) explains these incredible coincidences extremely well. In a nutshell, the AP states that if these conditions were to arise somewhere it must necessarily be here, because we are here to observe them. Those trillions of other planets which have not met the conditions for life have no one on them to wonder why they are too hot for water, too cold, or whatever. The one planet on which life arises must necessarily be the one where someone exists to wonder at their extreme luck.

 

[exnihilo]

I was watching a TV show the other night - I think it was “Through the Wormhole with Morgan Freeman”, because I’m a huge science nerd. The topic was: What’s at the edge of the Universe? Some of the answers given by the scientists they interviewed were pretty mind-blowing…we could all be living inside a “hologram” universe where reality only exists in two dimensions at the edge of expanding spacetime, or we could be living in one of an infinite number of universes, all connected in a “multiverse”. Apparently theoretical physics has moved beyond the Big Bang as the great unknown, and now there are branches of cosmology that speculate on what came before.

Frankly I find these shows sophomoric. They truly sound like the wild speculations of a college student or the ramblings of a stoned hippie. The thing that most strikes me is that these authorities have the audacity or stupidity to speculate on all sorts of supernatural things (that is anything beyond our physical universe) and yet with great conviction can rule out God as understood by the simplest form of Theism. I’m not trained in cosmology and lack respect for academia but from what I can tell modern cosmology and physics are very much just wild mathematical speculation. It seems to me to hardly be the kind of science we are told is the only kind that matters: that which is actually observable and reproducible and therefore able to produce the only kind of actual knowledge.

 

[WillP]

You are assuming that there are minds. According to materialists there are only brains which produce “isomorphisms of atomic particles”. All mathematical equations are mere illusions - like all other human concepts… Your scepticism isn’t radical enough!

I am not so sure of your physics, or perhaps I am not understanding you. Anyway, radical skeptism is as radical skeptism does. Something like a box of chocolates–never know what you’ll get.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I am not so sure of your physics, or perhaps I am not understanding you. Anyway, radical skeptism is as radical skeptism does. Something like a box of chocolates–never know what you’ll get.

I disagree. I think I know exactly what you’ll get.

 

[Al_Moritz]

You should look into the anthropic principle, which (IMHO) explains these incredible coincidences extremely well. In a nutshell, the AP states that if these conditions were to arise somewhere it must necessarily be here, because we are here to observe them. Those trillions of other planets which have not met the conditions for life have no one on them to wonder why they are too hot for water, too cold, or whatever. The one planet on which life arises must necessarily be the one where someone exists to wonder at their extreme luck.

I agree. As I write in the article that I linked to above:

1.6. The Rare Earth hypothesis: a design argument?

The argument for the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature is often conflated by religious writers with the Rare Earth hypothesis. The hypothesis may make a rather good case that there are probably not trillions of Earth-like planets in our universe, but at least one Earth or more may be quite likely without special ‘design’. After all, there are about 300 billion galaxies in the universe, each containing about 300 billion stars, and possibly there are as many or more planets. So the chances that at least one, possibly more, planets are by default ‘just right’ for the development of complex, intelligent life might be quite good. I therefore reject the use of the hypothesis as a design argument.

---

But actually this what Empther whom you responded to appears to say (emphasis mine):

1. God lets nature do things contingently which manifests the wonder of his omnipotence more than if he ‘stacked the deck’ by creating the Earth and its living creatures with a deliverate miracle.

…]

then you realize Earth could very well be the only planet in the universe that supports higher life without a direct ‘stack the deck’ miracle, and this is why God created such a large universe.

 

[cranster]

Smolin’s hypothesis of Cosmological Natural Selection fails. I discuss this extensively in chapter 3 of my article:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/cosmological-arguments-god.htm

thanks, reading now

 

[tonyrey]

             *You are assuming that there are  minds. According to materialists there are only brains which produce  "isomorphisms of atomic particles". All mathematical equations are mere  illusions - like all other human concepts... Your scepticism isn't  radical enough!*

Radical scepticism doesn’t recognise anything whatsoever if it is radical enough to be total!

If it is not total it doesn’t recognise anything but “isomorphisms” of atomic particles. The problem is how isomorphisms of atomic particles recognise other isomorphisms of atomic particles… By chance? Magnetic attraction?!

 

[WillP]

Precisely. My contention is that not only does it take a mind to appreciate or recognize a rational concept, it takes a mind to construct one.

we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. Doesn’t sound (vibrations in the air) exist without ears to detect the vibrations in the air?

The proposition that the cosmos exists and is rational is certainly as valid of a hypothesis as that there is a personal agent (God) which contemplates the cosmos and thusly brings it into existence. In fact it is so much more parsimonious to posit it simply rather than to go so far as religions take it by endowing this personal agent with all sorts of human personality traits (mercy, goodness, justice, holiness, etc) and then to complicate the paradigm even further by casting this personal agent in a struggle with satan, dealing with fallen human nature and invoking a means for redemption. All of this is quite similar to the mystrey cult concepts of the period around the time of Christ, and, quite frankly, much too similar to mythology to suit my sense of reality.

 

[tonyrey]

Precisely. My contention is that not only does it take a mind to appreciate or recognize a rational concept, it takes a mind to construct one.

we’ll have to agree to disagree on this point. Doesn’t sound (vibrations in the air) exist without ears to detect the vibrations in the air?

The proposition that the cosmos exists and is rational is certainly as valid of a hypothesis as that there is a personal agent (God) which contemplates the cosmos and thusly brings it into existence. In fact it is so much more parsimonious to posit it simply rather than to go so far as religions take it by endowing this personal agent with all sorts of human personality traits (mercy, goodness, justice, holiness, etc) and then to complicate the paradigm even further by casting this personal agent in a struggle with satan, dealing with fallen human nature and invoking a means for redemption. All of this is quite similar to the mystrey cult concepts of the period around the time of Christ, and, quite frankly, much too similar to mythology to suit my sense of reality.

It doesn’t make sense to describe the cosmos as “rational” because the term implies insight and understanding.

 

[Gaber]

The devil’s playground.

God bless,
jd

I think it is fascinating that the first on the “10 Most Imporatant Books One Must Read” list of Neil deGrasse Tyson who has been on similar shows and is an avowed atheist, is
#1: the Bible.

 

[WillP]

It doesn’t make sense to describe the cosmos as “rational” because the term implies insight and understanding.

Yes, I know your argument. It is a form of idealism. However,As long as that remains your underlying “worldview”, I won’t be able to persuade you. And I am certain you can’t persuade me, because my sense is that a proposition can make sense (ie be rational) regardless of the existence of any minds which might recognize it as corresponding to reality. The example, I usually invoke is that the proposition 2 plus 2 make 4 was a rational concept before men or minds ever inhabited this planet.

Lets leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Yes, I know your argument. It is a form of idealism. However,As long as that remains your underlying “worldview”, I won’t be able to persuade you. And I am certain you can’t persuade me, because my sense is that a proposition can make sense (ie be rational) regardless of the existence of any minds which might recognize it as corresponding to reality. The example, I usually invoke is that the proposition 2 plus 2 make 4 was a rational concept before men or minds ever inhabited this planet.

Lets leave it at that and agree to disagree.

The laws of physics, and especially the laws of biology, extend far beyond basic arithmetic. In the absence of a fundamental intelligence, you are left with a rather large elephant in the room.

 

[Gaber]

The laws of physics, and especially the laws of biology, extend far beyond basic arithmetic. In the absence of a fundamental intelligence, you are left with a rather large elephant in the room.

Elephant

Yes, and because of limited resources and imagination, the Unexplainable is thought by some to be “designed,” throwing yet another obstacle to comprehension before us. Even if there is a fundamental intelleigence, it does notmake the Universe therefore a result of “design” activity. Or of “Creation” as ordinarliy construed.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Elephant

Yes, and because of limited resources and imagination, the Unexplainable is thought by some to be “designed,” throwing yet another obstacle to comprehension before us. Even if there is a fundamental intelleigence, it does notmake the Universe therefore a result of “design” activity. Or of “Creation” as ordinarliy construed.

I fail to see how the notion of design presents an obstacle to comprehension. If anything, it reinforces the idea that reality is indeed comprehensible.

What role, may I ask, do you see God playing in the “creation” of our universe?

P.S. That link doesn’t work.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, I know your argument. It is a form of idealism. However,As long as that remains your underlying “worldview”, I won’t be able to persuade you. And I am certain you can’t persuade me, because my sense is that a proposition can make sense (ie be rational) regardless of the existence of any minds which might recognize it as corresponding to reality. The example, I usually invoke is that the proposition 2 plus 2 make 4 was a rational concept before men or minds ever inhabited this planet.

Lets leave it at that and agree to disagree.

1. I am not an idealist. I believe in the reality of both mind and matter.
2. You are a materialist who believes the mind is merely the brain, i.e. matter, in action.
3. Matter knows nothing.
4. Nothing would make sense in a world consisting solely of matter.
5. Yet to** know** something wouldn’t make sense implies that the world doesn’t consist solely of matter.

 

[Gaber]

I fail to see how the notion of design presents an obstacle to comprehension. If anything, it reinforces the idea that reality is indeed comprehensible.

Design fails because it superimposes an anthropomorphized supposition on something infinitly greater thatn mortal mind, thus attempting to contain the Greater in the lesser. Fail. Neither it as a hypothesis nor its proponents whom I’ve encountered so far have nay interest further than the self verifying/promoting logic within the hypothesis. As a hypothses it leaves out the nature of the mind making the hyposthesis and is thus blind to factors relevant to its development.

What role, may I ask, do you see God playing in the “creation” of our universe?

The question as stated is a semantic impossibility due to the assumptions it makes about God, and likely in the mind of the questioner, creation and universe.

P.S. That link doesn’t work.

Sorry, try this and choose one.

 

[packermann]

How are the suggestions of a “hologram universe” or a “multiverse” any more “mind-blowing” than the claim that the universe was created by an all-powerful being for apparently nothing more than “testing” a handful of creatures on one single planet in the middle of nowhere among billions of stars that took billions of years to even begin to develop?

It is mind-blowing because it is these people who scoff at faith in God because they assert that we should not believe in anything that is not based on scientific evidence. And then they express their belief in a hologram universe or multiverses, without providing any scientific evidence that they exist. It is the contradiction that is mind-blowing.

The Catholic Church has never taught that we are the only ones in the universe. A Catholic is free to believe or disbelieve that is life on other planets. Personally, I used to think that there was life on other planets. But I read the book Rare Earth, that convinced me otherwise. The odds that another planet has the exact conditions to produce intelligent life are greater than the number of planets in the universe. But still God can beat those odds, if He chose to.

I doubt that many scientists would claim that discovering answers to these questions “proves” that God doesn’t exist, but I do think that most scientists – and most people, in fact – would have to admit that it would make God largely irrelevant and belief in such a God entirely superfluous…If we understand exactly how the universe came about, and it’s a completely natural process, then we don’t need to postulate a “god” or “gods” to explain anything. The concept of Gods would be entirely superfluous.

Historically, there have been two views of how God interacted with the universe.
One view is that God is the direct cause of everything that happened. This view has been taught by Calvinism, Protestant Fundamentalism and Islam. For instance, the Muslim would say that if shoot an arrow into a bulls-eye, it had nothing to do with your marksmanship or the wind or the distance. It was merely Allah’s will. Calvinists would see that everything that happens is directly God’s will.

The other view is the Catholic view. St Thomas Aquinas taught that God is not the direct cause of everything. He is the ultimate cause, but there are secondary causes. Catholic thinker John Buridan interpreted Genesis chapters of God rested on the seventh day that God established the scientific laws of the first six days (the Catholic Church does not take a literal interpretation of “days”) and then lets the natural process work itself out. Now and then God may decide to intervene in the natural process, which is what we call a miracle. But most of the time, the world runs on scientific principles. It was this view that allowed science to get off the ground. The Catholic scientists in the Middle Ages laid the groundwork for modern science.

Any scientific discovery only refutes the first view – that God directly caused everything to happen. It only made the first view of God superfluous. But it has never refuted the Catholic view, which has been taught by the Church since the Middle Ages. Science has validated the Catholic view over against traditional Protestantism and Islam.