A question for athiests

[The Nihilist]

that does seem pretty ridiculous. How do dimensions collide, how do they create a perfectly ordered univsere, and why did't they collide earlier? So these dimensions have just be moving around forevor? Is there any reason for their metaphysical existance? do you think all of this is viable?

I am not a scientist, so I do not know how universe's collide. I imagine they didn't collide earlier for the same reason you didn't write your post earlier. I dispute that the universe is perfectly ordered; I don't think Hurricane Katrina happens in a perfectly ordered universe, or AIDS or cancer, for that matter. I have no idea what you mean by "metaphysical existence." I don't understand what you mean by "any reason," either. I certainly do not know what caused such fifth dimensional universes, but if by reason you mean purpose, then I know that they have none unless they were created intentionally. Do I think this is viable? At least as viable as a God of the gaps that the argument from causality infers.

 

[jeff992]

Do I think this is viable? At least as viable as a God of the gaps that the argument from causality infers.

Question: would you say that God is then a logical possibily?

I think some sort of intelligent being is much more logical than colliding universes, etc. Though in this kind of discussion, there is no visible evidence of this intelligent being.

Is all evidence supporting science, direct evidence?

NASA has taken pictures of Mars and announced that water once flowed there.
But they don't have pictures of water flowing on Mars.
Why do they think it once did?

Cosmologists use particle accelerators to search for elementary particles.
They've announced they've discovered quarks, photons, etc. but they haven't
actually seen these particles. How do they know they exist?

Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence.

Some science isn't even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven't been verified by experiment, string theory, for example. So i think that one can determine there is good inferential evidence, making Intelligent, infinite being a rational choice as starter of the singularity (Big Bang)


Here is a small outline to demonstrate how the universe if very finely ordered and chances of it becoming what t is very small.

1. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.
2. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.
3. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly fine–tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon–based life.
4. The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.
5. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
6. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.
7. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.
8. One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbon–based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro–magnetic forces, etc.).
9. This information about the finely–tuned conditions requisite for a life– permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).
10. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance. (Craig, Demski)

We now know through modern mathematics/science that a universe is incredibly more likely to be life-prohibiting than life-sustaining.

 

[The Nihilist]

Question: would you say that God is then a logical possibily?
I think some sort of intelligent being is much more logical than colliding universes, etc. Though in this kind of discussion, there is no visible evidence of this intelligent being.
Is all evidence supporting science, direct evidence?
NASA has taken pictures of Mars and announced that water once flowed there.
But they don't have pictures of water flowing on Mars.
Why do they think it once did?
Cosmologists use particle accelerators to search for elementary particles.
They've announced they've discovered quarks, photons, etc. but they haven't
actually seen these particles. How do they know they exist?
Not all science deals in direct evidence, but only in circumstantial evidence and inference. Another example, they think that some stars have planets not because they can detect the planets directly, visually or otherwise, but because the way the star behaves something else seems to be having an effect on it.
They infer that this something else is a planet orbiting that star. Again, inferential evidence.
Some science isn't even based on inferential evidence, only elegant mathematical theories that haven't been verified by experiment, string theory, for example. So i think that one can determine there is good inferential evidence, making Intelligent, infinite being a rational choice as starter of the singularity (Big Bang)


Here is a small outline to demonstrate how the universe if very finely ordered and chances of it becoming what t is very small.

1. One learns that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang possess certain values.
2. Examining the circumstances under which the Big Bang occurred, one finds that there is no Theory of Everything which would render physically necessary the values of all the constants and quantities, so they must be attributed to sheer accident.
3. One discovers that the values of the constants and quantities are incomprehensibly fine–tuned for the existence of intelligent, carbon–based life.
4. The probability of each value and of all the values together occurring by chance is vanishingly small.
5. There is only one universe; it is illicit in the absence of evidence to multiply one's probabilistic resources (i.e., postulate a World Ensemble of universes) simply to avert the design inference.
6. Given that the universe has occurred only once, the probability of the constants and quantities' all having the values they do remains vanishingly small.
7. This probability is well within the bounds needed to eliminate chance.
8. One has physical information concerning the necessary conditions for intelligent, carbon–based life (e.g., certain temperature range, existence of certain elements, certain gravitational and electro–magnetic forces, etc.).
9. This information about the finely–tuned conditions requisite for a life– permitting universe is independent of the pattern discerned in step (3).
10. One is warranted in inferring that the physical constants and quantities given in the Big Bang are not the result of chance. (Craig, Demski)

We now know through modern mathematics/science that a universe is incredibly more likely to be life-prohibiting than life-sustaining.

While disease and death exist, you would do better to say that the universe is adequately tuned for life, rather than finely tuned. Why do you imagine that the universe has occured only once? Why do you imagine that there is more than once universe? You say that the universe happens to exist within the parameters that allow for carbon based life. This is undoubtedly very upsetting to all those hydrogen-based lifeforms who will never get to happen.
You are like a man who builds a house out of wood and stone, and later says that God put that wood and stone there specifically for him to make the house. He would have made the house out of whatever was available, and, in the same way, life would have formed in whatever way possible.

 

[jeff992]

While disease and death exist, you would do better to say that the universe is adequately tuned for life, rather than finely tuned. Why do you imagine that the universe has occured only once? Why do you imagine that there is more than once universe? You say that the universe happens to exist within the parameters that allow for carbon based life. This is undoubtedly very upsetting to all those hydrogen-based lifeforms who will never get to happen.
You are like a man who builds a house out of wood and stone, and later says that God put that wood and stone there specifically for him to make the house. He would have made the house out of whatever was available, and, in the same way, life would have formed in whatever way possible.

First, your argument about death an disease is surpfluous in this argument, it is a whole other argument. i can easily avoid by saying that assuming Christianity is true, everything started perfect, but because of man, it became abnormal. But we are not talking about this. The fact is that the universe is very ordered. Point two is also rather pointless.

Could you explain your 3rd point a little more so i can further engage?

 

[The Nihilist]

First, your argument about death an disease is surpfluous in this argument, it is a whole other argument. i can easily avoid by saying that assuming Christianity is true, everything started perfect, but because of man, it became abnormal. But we are not talking about this. The fact is that the universe is very ordered. Point two is also rather pointless.

Could you explain your 3rd point a little more so i can further engage?

Your whole argument is premised upon a finely-tuned universe, which doesn't seem to be the case. If you want to throw in the fall, that's fine, but suddenly, it's not so finely tuned.
The real thrust of my argument is more difficult to articulate, so bear with me. We cannot have the argument about whether the universe is good because the other side is present. The appicable constants are good for you and me, but the party that would argue that they are bad does not exist, because the universal constants are unsuitable for their existence. The opposition is silenced because what we are discussing prevented them from ever existing. Do you follow?

 

[Asimov]

I just love how my refutations have been ignored by jeff, since they show his utter irrationality.

 

[Veratis]

Just out of curiosity, if you don't believe that God is real, what do you believe governs reality? What's your theory? What is it that determines the rules of physics, the architecture of everything that is?

there isn't anything. the laws of physics could very well be wrong. everything we understand about the universe could be wrong. is it likely? no, im willing to bet we're right but there is still the possibility.
the only governing forces really are the 4 dimensions we live in (although if you subscribe to string theory that number goes up to 11) and even then, who says there cant be more?
the fact is the only thing we can be truly sure about is that we dont know all the answers. does that mean we'll never find them? perhaps. maybe our minds can't concieve of the true nature of reality, but i think otherwise. nver stop searching, even if you think you already have the answer.

 

[jeff992]

I just love how my refutations have been ignored by jeff, since they show his utter irrationality.

I am sorry about that. I don't have whole lot of time so i just havn't gotten to them yet. could you coherently explain your main position?

 

[jeff992]

there isn't anything. the laws of physics could very well be wrong. everything we understand about the universe could be wrong. is it likely? no, im willing to bet we're right but there is still the possibility.
the only governing forces really are the 4 dimensions we live in (although if you subscribe to string theory that number goes up to 11) and even then, who says there cant be more?
the fact is the only thing we can be truly sure about is that we dont know all the answers. does that mean we'll never find them? perhaps. maybe our minds can't concieve of the true nature of reality, but i think otherwise. nver stop searching, even if you think you already have the answer.

hmmmm not a bad post. So what do you think the answer is?

 

[Asimov]

I am sorry about that. I don't have whole lot of time so i just havn't gotten to them yet. could you coherently explain your main position?

1. You state that an actual infinity is impossible.
2. You then state that either the universe came from something infinite or popped out of nothing.
3. You then state that something actually infinite must have created the universe.

Don't you see the problem here, jeff?

 

[jeff992]

Your whole argument is premised upon a finely-tuned universe, which doesn't seem to be the case. If you want to throw in the fall, that's fine, but suddenly, it's not so finely tuned.
The real thrust of my argument is more difficult to articulate, so bear with me. We cannot have the argument about whether the universe is good because the other side is present. The appicable constants are good for you and me, but the party that would argue that they are bad does not exist, because the universal constants are unsuitable for their existence. The opposition is silenced because what we are discussing prevented them from ever existing. Do you follow?

hmmm so what is the significance of this as far as this discussion goes? By the party that does not exist, do you mean some kind of alternate form of life that has opposite conditions for life than ourselves? What do you mean by "good"?

 

[jeff992]

1. You state that an actual infinity is impossible.
2. You then state that either the universe came from something infinite or popped out of nothing.
3. You then state that something actually infinite must have created the universe.

Don't you see the problem here, jeff?

Yes that is my main argument. A finite universe must be contigent on some sort of infinite being or how else could it come into being because events could not go back to infinit.

Assume that an infinite being does exist. Infinity would be it's reality/characteristic. Now if this being created a universe (started the initial singularity of all space-time points), with time, than by definition, this universe would be non-infinite. This can be seen from entropy, for example. Now, the infinite being would not be bound to the same rules of the space-time universe. It would have a different reality. It makes sense in light of our universe, an finite universe.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Yes that is my main argument. A finite universe must be contigent on some sort of infinite being or how else could it come into being because events could not go back to infinit.

Assume that an infinite being does exist. Infinity would be it's reality/characteristic. Now if this being created a universe (started the initial singularity of all space-time points), with time, than by definition, this universe would be non-infinite. This can be seen from entropy, for example. Now, the infinite being would not be bound to the same rules of the space-time universe. It would have a different reality. It makes sense in light of our universe, an finite universe.

Infinate things are contingent on finite things...Pi for example only exists as an infinite because 1.We believe it is and 2.it exists as an infinite in a finite existence.

 

[jeff992]

Infinate things are contingent on finite things...Pi for example only exists as an infinite because 1.We believe it is and 2.it exists as an infinite in a finite existence.

pi is not an actual infinite, it is a number we made up for theroretical purposes. That is exacly my point, in our universe, infinite really does not exist. We only make it for theory.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

pi is not an actual infinite, it is a number we made up for theroretical purposes. That is exacly my point, in our universe, infinite really does not exist. We only make it for theory.

No, your saying a finite idea is dependent on a infinite idea. Which is not the case.

 

[jeff992]

No, your saying a finite idea is dependent on a infinite idea. Which is not the case.

How would this be the case and what are you saying the significance of this be, assuming it were true?

 

[Asimov]

Yes that is my main argument. A finite universe must be contigent on some sort of infinite being or how else could it come into being because events could not go back to infinit.

Assume that an infinite being does exist. Infinity would be it's reality/characteristic. Now if this being created a universe (started the initial singularity of all space-time points), with time, than by definition, this universe would be non-infinite. This can be seen from entropy, for example. Now, the infinite being would not be bound to the same rules of the space-time universe. It would have a different reality. It makes sense in light of our universe, an finite universe.

1. You said earlier than an actual infinite is impossible, so why are you trying to argue for an actual infinite?
2. How does entropy indicate that the universe itself is finite?

 

[jeff992]

1. You said earlier than an actual infinite is impossible, so why are you trying to argue for an actual infinite?
2. How does entropy indicate that the universe itself is finite?

1. Yes, I did argue that an actual infinite is impossible in our universe, our space-time reality. But it must be established that an infinite MUST exist to create our universe since there cannot be an infinite number of events. This means that a single "uncaused caused" must have started the initial singularity of space-time. Because this being existed before the universe it is separate from the rules of that univserse. This is the only possible explanation in light of our universe.

2. Because of entropy the universe is degrading, moving to chaos. If the universe were infinite, it would have already come to that point where it is at a point of total chaos (no energy necessary for work).

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

How would this be the case and what are you saying the significance of this be, assuming it were true?

You said, finite things are contingent on a infinate being. Finite things are beings, they are "what is" in everything "that is". Infinate things are existents in a finitude of existence...IE the infinite of a straight line, exists souly because beings in a finite existence...such as us, have created it.

 

[jeff992]

You said, finite things are contingent on a infinate being. Finite things are beings, they are "what is" in everything "that is". Infinate things are existents in a finitude of existence...IE the infinite of a straight line, exists souly because beings in a finite existence...such as us, have created it.

I think i know where you are going with this, but just in case i am wrong, why are you saying this matters in this conversation?

You obviously just said that the universe if finite. Alright, inifinity does not make sense in our universe. That being the case, there must have been a beggining to all things finite (that being the definition of finite). Obviously, then, the universe could not have logically come out of absolutely nothing, The significance of this is that there must have been an infinite something to start the finite. We made the infinite up because it does not exist in ou universe. It does not mean something separate from our universe is not infinite.