Atheism and the Beginning

[Paradoxum]

What do you consider the best, or some of the best, possible explanations for the universe, considering that the universe appears to be right for life when it seems it need not have been?

There is the possibility that there are many universes, each with different laws of physics, and we are living in one which allows for life. This appear to be the main explanation.

Are there any other alternatives, or should we be thinking it's rather probable that we exist in a multiverse?

Considering how often cosmological and design arguments are brought up, do Christians have any objections?

I suppose there are at least two questions that could be asked: 1) 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'; 2) 'Why are the laws of the multiverse the way they are?'

(1) could be applied to God as much as the multiverse, (eg: Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?).

(2) might be considered similar to asking why the nature of God is the way it is. Why is God omniscient, why is God good, why is God a being?

Maybe asking (2) will becoming meaningless once we have a theory of everything. Perhaps it will make it obvious why reality couldn't have been any different.

 

[Eudaimonist]

There is the possibility that there are many universes, each with different laws of physics, and we are living in one which allows for life. This appear to be the main explanation.

I personally don't know that this is possible. I've heard it speculated by physicists, but I don't know if this speculation is the inevitable result of what is firmly known to be true, or if it is at least partly based in speculation.

Are there any other alternatives, or should we be thinking it's rather probable that we exist in a multiverse?

Yes, there are at least two interesting alternatives.

1) Physical reality is much, much, much older than you think. Instead of billions of years, try a billion times a billion years, or even an infinite number of years, if that is possible. The "constants" of physics aren't fixed, but rather change over time (perhaps with each Big Bounce), and we exist in a Bounce that has the right sort of physics for us.

2) There are billions (or an infinite) number of universes, and the constants are different between them. We just happen to have evolved in a universe in which that was possible.

1) 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'

That is a nonsensical question. Any cause or explanation for the existence of "something" would itself be "something", which means that one will always and necessarily fail to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. We may logically conclude that since something clearly does exist, it doesn't require a cause or explanation outside of itself.

2) 'Why are the laws of the multiverse the way they are?'

Again, this falls under the same conceptual problem as (1).


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Ana the Ist]

What do you consider the best, or some of the best, possible explanations for the universe, considering that the universe appears to be right for life when it seems it need not have been?

There is the possibility that there are many universes, each with different laws of physics, and we are living in one which allows for life. This appear to be the main explanation.

Are there any other alternatives, or should we be thinking it's rather probable that we exist in a multiverse?

Considering how often cosmological and design arguments are brought up, do Christians have any objections?

I suppose there are at least two questions that could be asked: 1) 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'; 2) 'Why are the laws of the multiverse the way they are?'

(1) could be applied to God as much as the multiverse, (eg: Why is there something (God) rather than nothing?).

(2) might be considered similar to asking why the nature of God is the way it is. Why is God omniscient, why is God good, why is God a being?

Maybe asking (2) will becoming meaningless once we have a theory of everything. Perhaps it will make it obvious why reality couldn't have been any different.

I've never bought the whole "universe must be designed because it supports life" story...simply because so much of the universe appears to be completely inhospitable. If it were "designed for life" it wouldn't seem so completely life-threatening to explore. Still, there's always life popping up in places we seem to least expect. A coworker (don't ask for verification of this, I couldn't find any) told me about some microorganism that was discovered (in space?) that after being blasted apart by radiation was able to reform itself anew. Crazy stuff.

1. Krauss had a book on this "A Universe from Nothing" which has some pretty mixed reviews. I think his one sentence answer would be, "nothing is far too unstable to exist" which seems like the opposite of what it should be. Personally, I accept this question as possibly being unanswerable. Unless some mathematical genius manages to figure it all out, I've always settled for "I don't know, and neither does anyone else".

2. Maybe they cannot be any other way? I'm well aware of the many theoretical "universes" that have been mathematically expressed...but whether they actually exist or not is another thing. I'm not up on multiverse theory...but couldn't every universe operate exactly as ours does? Perhaps changing the constants of a universe changes the type of life found therein. I never understood why some people think life requires water and carbon...I wouldn't be surprised if we found life on our own planet that didn't. Again though, I usually file this one under, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else".

 

[Chesterton]

Are there any other alternatives, or should we be thinking it's rather probable that we exist in a multiverse?

Considering how often cosmological and design arguments are brought up, do Christians have any objections?

Multiverses are completely speculative. However, if they exist, I think my objection would take this form: "Universe" has traditionally meant "everything there is", so I'd mentally lump all the multiverses together and call it the "uni-verse". A universe. We're back where we started.

 

[Paradoxum]

I personally don't know that this is possible. I've heard it speculated by physicists, but I don't know if this speculation is the inevitable result of what is firmly known to be true, or if it is at least partly based in speculation.

I think it is still a hypothesis that could be wrong.

Yes, there are at least two interesting alternatives.

1) Physical reality is much, much, much older than you think. Instead of billions of years, try a billion times a billion years, or even an infinite number of years, if that is possible. The "constants" of physics aren't fixed, but rather change over time (perhaps with each Big Bounce), and we exist in a Bounce that has the right sort of physics for us.

2) There are billions (or an infinite) number of universes, and the constants are different between them. We just happen to have evolved in a universe in which that was possible.

(1) seems interesting, but (2) sounds the same as what I said.

With the big bounce, I'd wonder if it's safe to think there would have been enough to give us a high chance to exist. I mean, isn't it said now that our universe might expand forever... if any other universe in the past did this we would never get here.

That is a nonsensical question. Any cause or explanation for the existence of "something" would itself be "something", which means that one will always and necessarily fail to answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. We may logically conclude that since something clearly does exist, it doesn't require a cause or explanation outside of itself.

Again, this falls under the same conceptual problem as (1).

I'm not sure why an explanation would be a 'something'. I suppose that the two questions can be considered the same though.

I've never bought the whole "universe must be designed because it supports life" story...simply because so much of the universe appears to be completely inhospitable. If it were "designed for life" it wouldn't seem so completely life-threatening to explore. Still, there's always life popping up in places we seem to least expect. A coworker (don't ask for verification of this, I couldn't find any) told me about some microorganism that was discovered (in space?) that after being blasted apart by radiation was able to reform itself anew. Crazy stuff.

I do take it seriously because if the laws were changed only a little then apparently life couldn't exist. God could want it so that there isn't life absolutely everywhere all the time. Even without involving God, it still makes sense to ask why we were so lucky.

In the future humans (and aliens) might colonise much of the galaxy, or universe, so then it will look like there is alot of life. It just took us longer to adapt with technology to the larger universe.

1. Krauss had a book on this "A Universe from Nothing" which has some pretty mixed reviews. I think his one sentence answer would be, "nothing is far too unstable to exist" which seems like the opposite of what it should be. Personally, I accept this question as possibly being unanswerable. Unless some mathematical genius manages to figure it all out, I've always settled for "I don't know, and neither does anyone else".

I'm not sure why absolute nothing would be unstable. That might be true, I don't know. I think that the question might make more sense once we have a better picture of how everything works.

2. Maybe they cannot be any other way? I'm well aware of the many theoretical "universes" that have been mathematically expressed...but whether they actually exist or not is another thing. I'm not up on multiverse theory...but couldn't every universe operate exactly as ours does? Perhaps changing the constants of a universe changes the type of life found therein. I never understood why some people think life requires water and carbon...I wouldn't be surprised if we found life on our own planet that didn't. Again though, I usually file this one under, "I don't know, and neither does anyone else".

I don't know if other universes exist, but they could.

People think we need water and carbon because they best allow for complexity. Some have suggested silicon instead of carbon, but that isn't as complex as carbon.

Multiverses are completely speculative. However, if they exist, I think my objection would take this form: "Universe" has traditionally meant "everything there is", so I'd mentally lump all the multiverses together and call it the "uni-verse". A universe. We're back where we started.

What question do you think still needs answering in this case?

 

[Chesterton]

What question do you think still needs answering in this case?

Why would atheists or anyone think multiverses present some solution to the problem of why this universe is so fine-tuned for life?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Why would atheists or anyone think multiverses present some solution to the problem of why this universe is so fine-tuned for life?

If one person wins the lottery, that's amazing luck in the face of a very tiny probability of success. If billions of people play the lottery, the odds that someone will win approaches 100%.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

With the big bounce, I'd wonder if it's safe to think there would have been enough to give us a high chance to exist. I mean, isn't it said now that our universe might expand forever... if any other universe in the past did this we would never get here.

That was just an example. (Loop quantum gravity suggests that there will finally be a contraction to the universe, despite any expansion taking place now. But that model isn't proven.)

I'm not sure why an explanation would be a 'something'.

By an explanation being a something, I mean that an explanation would refer to some state of affairs that would give rise to something else. That state of affairs is the something I mean.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Chesterton]

If one person wins the lottery, that's amazing luck in the face of a very tiny probability of success. If billions of people play the lottery, the odds that someone will win approaches 100%.


eudaimonia,

Mark

The analogy of existence, and drawing numbers out of a hat, where the numbers and hat already exist, is a false analogy. We humans have no reason to suppose that we should have ever come to be through physics and chemistry, because there is no reason to suppose that any physics and chemistry should have come to be. If you know of a non-religous reason, please tell me, I'm almost literally dying to know.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The analogy of existence, and drawing numbers out of a hat, where the numbers and hat already exist, is a false analogy.

You are wondering how it is that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. If there is a multiverse where billions (or some huge number) of individual "universes" each have some set of randomly developed physical constants, then the odds that one of those universes will have the right ones for our sort of life increases dramatically.

We humans have no reason to suppose that we should have ever come to be through physics and chemistry, because there is no reason to suppose that any physics and chemistry should have come to be.

We have no reason to think that physics and chemistry would not come to be in a universe with the physical constants that it currently has.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Received]

At bottom, asking why there's something rather than nothing might be a *nonsense* claim, given that it assumes there is a beginning, or that we're capable of understanding how things worked back then (i.e., the principle of sufficient reason might have not applied way back in the cosmos day).

Which is totally a faith-based claim, but a pretty one.

 

[durangodawood]

...By an explanation being a something, I mean that an explanation would refer to some state of affairs that would give rise to something else. That state of affairs is the something I mean.....

So lets rephrase the question:

Why is there a (putative) eternal something rather than an eternal nothing?

 

[Chesterton]

You are wondering how it is that the universe is "fine-tuned" for life. If there is a multiverse where billions (or some huge number) of individual "universes" each have some set of randomly developed physical constants, then the odds that one of those universes will have the right ones for our sort of life increases dramatically.

The odds increase by how much?

We have no reason to think that physics and chemistry would not come to be in a universe with the physical constants that it currently has.


eudaimonia,

Mark

If I remove your double negative, I get:

"We have __ reason to think that physics and chemistry would __ come to be in a universe with the physical constants that it currently has."

So, again, what is the reason?

 

[Resha Caner]

So, again, what is the reason?

The reason is that we are here and have articulated laws, constants, etc. as best we can ... unless you get into the whole "How do we know we exist" thing, which is pointless IMO.

I was about to start a thread with the question: What do you think is the most pressing issue regarding what we don't know? But, this thread seems to carry some residue of that question, so I'm not sure a separate thread is needed.

My comment would be that this thread also seems to bear a strong resemblance to questions asked about God. The only difference would be that in this case whether the source is living and intelligent has been left open to question. However, in that regard, I would ask how the approach here would differ from all those past philosophical ponderings. In fact, there is another recent thread here called "Debating Creationists" from which I had hoped for something different - that the topic would actually touch on issues that arise when debating creationists such as: What are the goals of such debates? How do those goals differ from creationist goals? What techniques work with (are convincing to) creationists? What are the implications of not convincing creationists? etc. For this thread, one could substitute "Christian" for "creationist".

Finally, the whole "multiverse" thing is very curious to me given its highly speculative nature. I've always been intrigued by what appear to me to be "goddidit" explanations wearing physicalist, atheist, or other such clothing.

To explain, I will note a very insightful comment once made here about multiverses. The hope seems to be the offer of alternative physical laws, which opens the door to moving past the laws that prevent us from answering such questions in this universe. Yet, if such a thing existed, how would it interact with us? In order for us to be aware of it, it must be accessible to our senses. In order for it to be accessible to our senses, it must interact with the physical in some way. In order for it to interact with the physical in some way, it must at least border the laws of physics in some way ... I think you see where this will lead.

 

[Paradoxum]

That was just an example. (Loop quantum gravity suggests that there will finally be a contraction to the universe, despite any expansion taking place now. But that model isn't proven.)

Okay, I agree that it's possible that one universe could be recreated over and over again.

By an explanation being a something, I mean that an explanation would refer to some state of affairs that would give rise to something else. That state of affairs is the something I mean.

You might be right, but I'm not sure. The explanation could be something like, 'Nothingness doesn't prevent something spontaneously existing with no cause'. So, things exist because nothing is stopping them existing. This wouldn't be based on a state, but rather the lack of a state preventing existence.

Does that require a state of prior existence? I don't know... it's quite mind bending to think about.

Why would atheists or anyone think multiverses present some solution to the problem of why this universe is so fine-tuned for life?

Similar to Eudaimonists reply. With the multiverse the laws of physics are no longer just right for life.

The analogy of existence, and drawing numbers out of a hat, where the numbers and hat already exist, is a false analogy. We humans have no reason to suppose that we should have ever come to be through physics and chemistry, because there is no reason to suppose that any physics and chemistry should have come to be. If you know of a non-religous reason, please tell me, I'm almost literally dying to know.

You are asking why anything exists now, rather than why existence is fine-tuned, aren't you?

Assuming string theory for now; there is physics and chemistry because those are one of the outcomes of string theory.

You might ask why string theory is true rather than something else, and I'll ask why God is real and has the nature he has.

If I remove your double negative, I get:

"We have __ reason to think that physics and chemistry would __ come to be in a universe with the physical constants that it currently has."

So, again, what is the reason?

That isn't a double negative. If I say, "I have no reason to think my calculator is not in my top draw", that doesn't mean I have a reason to think it is there.

It might be in my top draw, but I have no positive reason to think it is there rather than somewhere else.

Finally, the whole "multiverse" thing is very curious to me given its highly speculative nature. I've always been intrigued by what appear to me to be "goddidit" explanations wearing physicalist, atheist, or other such clothing.

I'd think that most people would say it is only possible that there is a multiverse, not that it IS true. I'm happy to say I don't know, but the multiverse gives an alternative to show why you shouldn't jump to God if you don't know. If we say it could be God, the multiverse, or multiple big bounces, then there's no reason to jump to God. Therefore fine-tuning doesn't prove God.

 

[essentialsaltes]

What do you consider the best, or some of the best, possible explanations for the universe, considering that the universe appears to be right for life when it seems it need not have been?

In what sense 'right for life'? As far as we know, life can exist only in an infinitesimal fraction of just our solar system, much less the universe.

1) 'Why is there something rather than nothing?';

It may be that the alternative to something existing is impossible.

2) 'Why are the laws of the multiverse the way they are?'

Could be that there is no other possible way for things to be. I think this is what was motivating Einstein's statement "What really interests me is whether God had any choice in the creation of the World."

More likely (if some form of multiversism is true) it is the weak anthropic principle. We can only live in a universe that has laws that allow us to exist. So in all the many multiverses where the laws aren't like that, there isn't anyone to ask the question. And if you can ask the question, then necessarily you must live an a universe that allows for life.

 

[Eudaimonist]

So lets rephrase the question:

Why is there a (putative) eternal something rather than an eternal nothing?

An eternal something doesn't require any cause or explanation for its existence. That's part of being eternal.

Just like "why is there something rather than nothing?", your question doesn't make any logical sense and can't be answered.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

If I remove your double negative[...]

If you change my sentence, you'll be changing its meaning. I'm not going to defend a claim I haven't made.

Did you notice my answer to Paradoxum's question: "Why are the laws of the multiverse the way they are?"

I replied that such a question can't be answered, just as "why is there something rather than nothing?" can't be answered, and pretty much for the same reason.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

The explanation could be something like, 'Nothingness doesn't prevent something spontaneously existing with no cause'.

I've never found much sense in that line of reasoning. I'll leave it for the physicists to wrestle with that one, but my impression is that virtual particles come into existence within the context of spacetime, not out of a pure, philosophical nothingness, so I'm not convinced that is any kind of explanation.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

An eternal something doesn't require any cause or explanation for its existence. That's part of being eternal.

Yes. The eternal doesnt have a cause. Cause is a relation in time.
.
But there's no such basis for dismissing an explanation, which need not be limited by considerations of time/sequence.
.