Answering Atheists: Does God Exist? - The Design of the Universe

[BobRyan]

I don't think so lol

were that the case you would have a solution for it... I note you don't post it.

 

[BobRyan]

Although I agree that the multiverse theory multiplies entities beyond any empirical warrant, i.e. Occam's razor, it should be pointed out that there is nothing in Christian orthodox thought that prohibits God from making more than one universe.

All of the illustrations used in the video assume that only one kind of universe is actualized. What is the warrant for making that assumption? Yes, the atheist has no empirical warrant for positing multiple universes, i.e. the multiverse is ad hoc. But, by the same token, the theist has no theological warrant for assuming one, and only one, universe could be actualized. It's a "Mexican standoff," in other words. No slam dunk, for sure.

If I claim that a lot of birds flew around and made a tornado that destroyed one wall of my barn... some folks might say "well the odds of that being true are very tiny".

The insurance agent says "no I think it is more likely you backed your tractor into the barn and destroyed that one wall".

Then I say "well how many alternate universes would I have to imagine to take those odds and finally make it probable". Then they say "10 billion"... so then I respond: "fine. done! I just imagined them".

"So now we have a Mexican stand off"???

========================

Multiple or even infinite universe speculations are a "necessary fiction" for the atheist confronted with the problem presented in the OP. It is "Made necessary" with the observation that 1 in 10^120th power is too much fine tuning to be chalked up to "lucky chance".

"Necessary fiction" is not the same as "observed reality" or even "testable reality". They take what is obviously an impossibility and "imagine it to be possible" by first "imagining" 10^150 multiverses

 

[Hmm]

were that the case you would have a solution for it... I note you don't post it.

If you think can imagine a universe with possibly a completely different set of physical laws than this one, I would be amazed. M-theory in one of its variations posits 10 space dimensions for our universe but we can only imagine three space dimensions because that's all we can experience. No one can imagine four space dimensions let alone 10. However, as I said, this is completely understandable mathematically.

 

[BobRyan]

There isn't any and probably never can be because we are talking about universes that are not spatially or temoporally connected to our own.

so they can only be "imagined".

And the realm of "imagination" is not as predictable and constrained as one might have hoped for.

They can't be "imagined" because they're beyond our experience.

Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

If you think can imagine a universe with possibly a completely different set of physical laws than this one, I would be amazed. .

Let's try this example --

Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

If you think can imagine a universe with possibly a completely different set of physical laws than this one, I would be amazed.

Let's try this example --

Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

Atheists have imagined that 10^150 of such universes exist -- so that the 10^120th power level impossibility in this actual universe can be imagined as a solvable problem.

 

[Hmm]

so they can only be "imagined".

And the realm of "imagination" is not as predictable and constrained as one might have hoped for.



Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream



Let's try this example --

Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream



Let's try this example --

Exhibit A: I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

Atheists have imagined that 10^150 of such universes exist -- so that the 10^120th power level impossibility in this actual universe can be imagined as a solvable problem.

We obviously mean different things by "imagine". I don't believe anyone can imagine a number such as 10^150 in the usual sense of the word. A number that big lies completely outside of iut experience and we are sinoky unable to visualise, picture or comprehend. As I keep saying, all we can do is understand it mathematically

 

[HARK!]

We obviously mean different things by "imagine". I don't believe anyone can imagine a number such as 10^150 in the usual sense of the word. A number that big lies completely outside of iut experience and we are sinoky unable to visualise, picture or comprehend. As I keep saying, all we can do is understand it mathematically

The abstract concept of infinity can be expressed mathematically. It can approach being visualized in our imaginations; but our minds are incapable of truly quantifying the concept. How can we say that we truly understand something that we are incapable of even visualizing?

Let's take your relatively miniscule number of 10^150. Lets say that you made a deal for that many pennies. After you were paid; how would you know whether or not you had been short changed? How would you know whether or not your accountants were stealing from you, since even they couldn't count it all in their lifetimes? To be honest you would have no idea of what you were in possession of. All that you could approach, is what you believed you were in possession of, based on some abstract concept of a scribbling on a piece of paper.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality." -- Albert Einstein

 

[public hermit]

If I claim that a lot of birds flew around and made a tornado that destroyed one wall of my barn... some folks might say "well the odds of that being true are very tiny".

The insurance agent says "no I think it is more likely you backed your tractor into the barn and destroyed that one wall".

Then I say "well how many alternate universes would I have to imagine to take those odds and finally make it probable". Then they say "10 billion"... so then I respond: "fine. done! I just imagined them".

"So now we have a Mexican stand off"???

========================

Multiple or even infinite universe speculations are a "necessary fiction" for the atheist confronted with the problem presented in the OP. It is "Made necessary" with the observation that 1 in 10^120th power is too much fine tuning to be chalked up to "lucky chance".

"Necessary fiction" is not the same as "observed reality" or even "testable reality". They take what is obviously an impossibility and "imagine it to be possible" by first "imagining" 10^150 multiverses

I understand. I really have nothing to add besides what I have said in previous posts. If your position is that the proponent of the multiverse has no argument worth taking seriously, then okay. If you ever run across such a proponent you can make your argument and perhaps they will admit it is solid and they'll see things your way. I don't think their position is as easily discharged as you seem to think, but more than that I really have nothing to add.

 

[HARK!]

I understand. I really have nothing to add besides what I have said in previous posts. If your position is that the proponent of the multiverse has no argument worth taking seriously, then okay. If you ever run across such a proponent you can make your argument and perhaps they will admit it is solid and they'll see things your way. I don't think their position is as easily discharged as you seem to think, but more than that I really have nothing to add.

I've only argued with one. I didn't bring up unicorns, but the conversation busted open like a Mexican unicorn pinata, with little treats flying in all directions. I would rip apart his arguments with reality; and then he would modify his arguments with seemingly endless revisions in order to justify the faulty premise. I would demonstrate the flaws in each one of his revisions; until I finally stopped responding. I felt, at that point, that an objective onlooker would recognize how ridiculous his arguments were.

That said, I can only remember one; and this guy's background in science and logic was weak.

 

[HARK!]

Here is the basis of my series questions that none has been able to resolve. The condensed version: I go on the premise that the universe is finite. Based upon the physics which explains the empirical evidence; the EMR will be infinitely radiated over infinite space. If the universe had always existed, the temperature would have infinitely approached absolute zero.

These guys say that that there is not finite radiant energy; that it's infinite. If that is so; then why does the night sky have even a hint of darkness? If there were infinite universes, there would be infinite stars. "Oh! Oh! but... but.. the inverse square law!" Nope, with infinite universes there would be light coming from the spaces between the others, AND the light from the distant universes would pick up gain, from the universes between any two universes, to infinity BUT that sill wouldn't explain why the collective infinite universes have not yet reached a state of thermal equilibrium over the entirety of space between them, over infinite time.

Until I hear a logical, scientifically grounded, observable, explanation of this; I'm writing off this conjecture as a desperate grasp at straws, for a man about to meet his fate, on the sheer face of reality.

 

[chad kincham]

The argument for the potential of a multiverse falls under argumentum ad ignorantium; whereas the empirical evidence affirms a single universe. The physical laws which govern this universe, entropy for one, lead me to no other conclusion than that the universe was created. Those who refuse to accept the empirical evidence, will argue endless unfounded possibilities, ad nauseam, rooted from the abyss of their collective imaginations.

The multiverse is just the old ‘spontaneous creation of life out of nothing’ recycled and taken to another level - from abiogenesis of cellular life, to spontaneous creation of universes - that whenever two universes randomly bump together, a new Big Bang event occurs and a new universe is born.

This tenuous speculation allows atheists to ignore the evidence that the universe was designed specifically for life to exist, and that even this planet exists within very narrow parameters that allow life on it - and to explain it away with an uncountable number of randomly created universes with different laws of physics in each one - so that it’s inevitable that random chance hits the right variables for life to exist in at least one of them.

 

[chad kincham]

In other words, if the theologian is willing to allow for an entity that is not readily given via observable experience, then what constraint can the theologian hold the atheist to? The atheist might have made a self-commitment to empiricism, but if they step outside those self imposed bounds the theist can't really complain since the theist already operates outside the emprical.

The problem with this scenario is:

1. There is plenty of observational evidence that a vast intelligence is responsible for both the existence of the universe and life in it, as many physicists, cosmologists, astronomers, and other scientists attest they see in the research they do.

Just one example is Francis Collins, from the human genome project, who sees proof of great intelligence in DNA, which is a biological 4 letter programming language code, which is the operating system for the biological nano machinery called a cell - and wrote the book on DNA called The Language of God.

2. Atheists don’t tell the public they’ve stepped away from empirical proof and the scientific method, into tenuous speculation - they present it as something factual in the media.

 

[chad kincham]

When it comes to metaphysics it's not that clear cut. The metaphysician who asserts there is only one universe has made a metaphysical claim that bears the same burden of proof as the multiverse theorist. Why the same burden of proof? Because, as I have said ten ways from Wednesday, there is no empirical means to adjudicate between the two. You seem to think it is obvious there is only one universe. You have no way to show the obviousness of what you assume.

Except there’s a lot of evidence that this universe exists, and none at all for the multiverse.

Planets are round in all our observations.

If I claim square planets exist somewhere, that hypothesis is not just as likely to be true as the one that says all planets are round, IMO.

 

[HARK!]

No one can imagine four space dimensions let alone 10. However, as I said, this is completely understandable mathematically.

"… how the real proof should run. The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With mathematics one can prove anything." -- Albert Einstein

"I don't believe in mathematics" -- Albert Einstein

 

[Hmm]

"… how the real proof should run. The main thing is the content, not the mathematics. With mathematics one can prove anything." -- Albert Einstein

"I don't believe in mathematics" -- Albert Einstein

Don't forget though that Einstein spent all his later career trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics and he was proved wrong in this. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful and accurate mathematically defined scientific theory in history.

 

[chad kincham]

Don't forget though that Einstein spent all his later career trying to disprove Quantum Mechanics and he was proved wrong in this. Quantum Mechanics is the most successful and accurate mathematically defined scientific theory in history.

Actually he didn’t dispute quantum physics, but the “spooky action at a distance” aspect of it as this article shows:

Albert Einstein may be most famous for his mass-energy equivalence formula E = mc2, but his work also laid down the foundation for modern quantum mechanics.

His analysis of the “spookiness” of quantum mechanics opened up a whole range of applications including quantum teleportation and quantum cryptography, but he wasn’t completely convinced by the theory of quantum mechanics – and that story is as fascinating as the theory he attempted to nail down.

Quantum mechanics is downright bizarre. It implies that a particle, such as an electron, can pass through two holes at the same time.

More famously, German physicist Erwin Schrödinger’s equations proved that a cat could end up in a peculiar sort of quantum state, being neither dead nor alive.


None of this impressed Einstein. He believed quantum mechanics was correct, but desperately wanted to find a way to “complete” quantum mechanics so it made sense.

At the time, most quantum physicists adopted the “shut up and calculate” philosophy: get on with the job, and don’t worry about philosophical issues – just get the predictions.

Gaining momentum (and position)


bitznbitez ( was lucias_clay )/Flickr, CC BY-NC-ND
Einstein’s opponents used Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principleagainst him, which (among other things) states it is not possible to measure both the position and the momentum of a particle simultaneously to arbitrary accuracy.

If someone measures the position of a particle, the particle is disturbed, so its momentum changes. If it’s impossible to measure those two things at once, how can they be defined together?

Einstein’s opponents thought he simply didn’t understand quantum mechanics – but he knew the problem was deeper.

Then Eureka! In 1935, Einstein thought of a way to explain the problems with quantum mechanics. He would give a strong argument to show how position could indeed be measured without disturbing the particle!

Einstein (with American physicists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen) discovered quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement of two particles means – bear with me here – that the quantum wave function describing them cannot be mathematically factorised into two separate parts, one for each particle.

This has an important consequence. Once two particles undergo entanglement, they become specially connected in a “spooky” kind of way that was eventually made clear by Einstein’s arguments and the experiments that followed.

A video explaining quantum entanglement, if that’s easier.
Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen – known collectively as EPR – realised that quantum mechanics predicted entangled states, where the positions and the momenta for two particles are perfectly correlated, no matter how far apart the two particles are.

That’s what was important to Einstein, who believed there could be no immediate disturbance to the second particle, as a result of anything that was done to the first particle. He called this “no-spooky-action-at-a-distance”.

So, suppose a girl called Alice measures the position of the first particle and a boy called Bob simultaneously measures the position of the second particle. Then because of the perfect correlation, once Alice makes her measurement, she knows immediately the result of Bob’s measurement.

For Einstein’s magical entangled states, her prediction is absolutely spot on – no error at all.



Joanídea Sodret/Flickr, CC BY-NC
Then, Einstein argued that can only happen because Bob’s particle did actually have that precise position that Alice predicted. Nothing at Bob’s location can change because of Alice’s measurement, which cannot disturb the second particle.

As Bob and Alice’s measurements are separated by space, Einstein concluded there had to be a hidden variable to describe the precisely specified value of the position of the second particle measured by Bob.

Now, similarly, Alice can predict with absolute precision the momentum of Bob’s particle without disturbing it. Then, assuming no spooky action, Einstein claimed the momentum of Bob’s particle could also be precisely specified, regardless of Alice’s measurement.

This leaves us with Bob’s particle having simultaneously precise values for position and momentum – which contradicts the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Resolving spooky action
Einstein’s argument illustrated the contradiction between quantum mechanics as we know it and the assumption of “no-spooky-action-at-a-distance”. Einstein’s belief was to resolve the problem in the simplest way: to introduce hidden variables consistent with no spooky action that would complete quantum mechanics.

Of course, by far the simplest resolution would be that Einstein’s entanglement simply doesn’t exist in nature. There were proposals that maybe entanglement decays with the spatial separation of the particles, then there would be no conflict between quantum mechanics and spooky action.

There was the need to experimentally confirm Einstein’s entanglement.



Chien-Shiung Wu.
Chien-Shiung Wu – often referred to as Madame Wu or the First Lady of Physics – from the University of Columbia was first to give evidence of Einstein’s entanglement in the laboratory. She showed an Einstein-type correlation between the polarisation of two well-separated photons, which are tiny localised particles of light.

John Bell, a physicist working at CERN, took Einstein very seriously and wanted to develop a hidden variable theory along the lines Einstein suggested.

He examined the states Madame Wu had created, but on looking closely at their predictions for some small adjustment of measurements, he came across a startling result.

According to quantum mechanics, finding such a hidden variable theory would be impossible. The results of measurements in the laboratory would be different for Einstein’s hidden variables and quantum mechanics.

This meant that quantum mechanics was simply wrong, or else that any hidden variable theory enabling a completion of quantum mechanics would have to allow a “spooky-action-at-a-distance”.

Back to the lab
In a nutshell, experimentalists John Clauser, Alain Aspect, Anton Zeilinger, Paul Kwiat and colleagues have performed the Bell proposal for a test of Einstein’s hidden variable theories. All results so far support quantum mechanics. It seems that when two particles undergo entanglement, whatever happens to one of the particles can instantly affect the other, even if the particles are separated!

Have Einstein’s dreams of a better theory have been dashed by experiments?

Not quite. The experiments to date focus on photons, not massive particles such as electrons or atoms. Nor do they deal with very large systems.

So I don’t think Einstein would give up just yet. He’d think that maybe laws are different for real particles.

Australian scientists are examining ways to test Einstein’s and Bell’s ideas, using atoms and even miniature objects that have been cooled so much they have lost all their thermal jittering. Who knows what they’ll find?

And as for my contribution? On working with squeezed states of light in the 1980s, I thought of a way to test for the original Einstein’s entanglement, after noting scientists were able to amplify and detect the tiny quantum fluctuations of optical amplitudes.

In quantum mechanics, these are just like “position” and “momentum” and the experiment opened up a whole new way of testing Einstein’s entanglement.

Experiments since have confirmed this mesoscopic type of Einstein’s entanglement in a range of environments, which brings us closer to understanding Schrödinger’s cat.

This article is based on presentations given at Australian Academy of Science: new fellows and medallists symposium, June 12, 2014 and Science at the Shine Dome, May 27-29, 2014.

• Quantum mechanics

 

[Hmm]

Actually he didn’t dispute quantum physics, but the “spooky action at a distance” aspect of it as this article shows:

That's not actually the case as the article does show.

He disputed the uncertainty built into QM which you describe in your quote below. It was in trying to disprove this that he discovered quantum entanglement, "spooky action at a distance" as a consequence of QM. He thought this was so weird that it couldn't possibly be true and would therefore disprove the uncertainty principle. However, it turned out to be true

He objected to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle:

If someone measures the position of a particle, the particle is disturbed, so its momentum changes. If it’s impossible to measure those two things at once, how can they be defined together?

His reason was that if we can't exactly measure both quantities at the same time then neither can God and this led to him famously saying "God doesn't okay dice with the universe".

That’s what was important to Einstein, who believed there could be no immediate disturbance to the second particle, as a result of anything that was done to the first particle. He called this “no-spooky-action-at-a-distance”.

He called "spooky action at a distance" (also a term coined by Einstein) “no-spooky-action-at-a-distance" because he did not believe it was true for philosophical reasons.

 

[Hawkins]

The multiverse proponent says there are an infinite number of universes all of which are actualized, we just happen to be in the one in which we exist.

I simply think that reasoning is reversed. It seems to me that multiverse is proposed in order to explain an inprobability in physics. That is, in order to explain why some physics parameters/constants are as what they are, a multiverse theory needs to be introduced. Of course, no one can establish a testable multiverse model simply because it is out of human capability to do so. We can only mostly observe and research within our own time and space. We can't possibly go out of our own universe to gather evidence or to establish experiments.

 

[public hermit]

I simply think that reasoning is reversed. It seems to me that multiverse is proposed in order to explain an inprobability in physics. That is, in order to explain why some physics parameters/constants are as what they are, a multiverse theory needs to be introduced

This is correct. I mentioned this in an earlier post. There are, at least, two contexts where a multiverse is proposed. The primary context is as you say, in relation to physics. The other context is in discussions between atheists and theists. I was referring to the later context, in which the claim is that there are an infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in the one with the requisite parameters for life. I'm not sure which came first, but I'm assuming it initially was proposed in the context of physics.

Of course, no one can establish a testable multiverse model simply because it is out of human capability to do so. We can only mostly observe and research within our own time and space. We can't possibly go out of our own universe to gather evidence or to establish experiments.

Exactly. This is part of what I have been trying to say in this thread. We cannot get outside our own universe, which precludes the possibility of proving, not only the multiverse, but also the claim that the universe in which we live is the only one. Either claim is a beginning assumption, and not an empirically observable conclusion.

 

[Marc Perry]

119 Ministries presents the highly unlikely probability that life was created randomly. This comes from a perspective of Physics; let alone Biology. As one of the topics covered, the Multiverse Theory is explained as irrational in comparison to accepting Intelligent Design.

If all of the many necessary conditions for the universe to exist as we know it, didn't occur within seconds of the creation of the universe; the Universe could not support life. Again, let alone the biological improbabilities.

The video made me not want to answer your question.

 

[HARK!]

The video made me not want to answer your question.

How so?