Godlessness and choice

[quatona]

If you want. I don't know that I will respond any different than I already have.

Ah no. That sounds boring.

 

[anonymous person]

The 2nd Law says nothing about running out of energy. You are confusing energy with entropy. In fact, the 1st Law says exactly the opposite--energy can change form (as you know, it is convertible into mass--and vice-versa,) but it can never be created nor destroyed. Whatever energy you start with on side of the process will always equal what comes out on the other. A star converts its some of its mass to energy, which is radiated away, but that energy still exists in the form of photons. The total amount of energy/mass in the universe will never be gone.

If you will notice, I used the phrase "usable energy". The second law states that processes going on in a closed system tend to a state of disorder. For example, if we had a bottle with a closed vacuum inside and we were to introduce into the bottle some molecules of gas, the gas would spread itself evenly throughout the bottle. The reason for this is simply because there are far many more ways for the gas molecules to be disorderly in their distribution than for them to be orderly in their distribution. Thus, according to the second law, if you have a closed system, that system will tend toward a state of disorder.

When it comes to the universe, it is a closed system, and given enough time, the universe will eventually run down, so that matter and energy will diffuse themselves evenly throughout the universe. The universe will become a featureless soup in which all matter and energy are evenly distributed and no life is possible. There will be no more "usable energy" for it will all be dissipated into a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Some have labeled this the heat death of the universe. But we don't observe a universe in complete equilibrium, thus we can argue that it has not always existed.

And re. cyclic models: one question is if the universe has enough mass. Mass has gravity. Enough gravity will eventually reverse expansion and result in the Big Crunch. Leading to another Big Bang, and everything starts all over again. It has been discovered that neutrinos--once thought to be totally devoid of mass--do in fact have very tiny masses. And different neutrinos exist with different masses. But there are so many neutrinos completely filling the universe, that there could be enough mass to cause a contraction. There are other cyclic models involving M-theory with colliding branes and such. Sure, it's all very speculative. But at least naturalistic theories can be expressed mathematically. How would one do this with supernatural cosmology?

Such models make use of "imaginary numbers" and other constituents which although fascinating on paper, nevertheless are not intended to be construed as descriptions of any actual state of affairs. They're just simply not meant to be taken literally. None of them trump the standard model and yet discovery after discovery confirms the standard model's prediction of an absolute beginning of space and time and all matter and energy.

 

[Dave Ellis]

If you will notice, I used the phrase "usable energy". The second law states that processes going on in a closed system tend to a state of disorder. For example, if we had a bottle with a closed vacuum inside and we were to introduce into the bottle some molecules of gas, the gas would spread itself evenly throughout the bottle. The reason for this is simply because there are far many more ways for the gas molecules to be disorderly in their distribution than for them to be orderly in their distribution. Thus, according to the second law, if you have a closed system, that system will tend toward a state of disorder.

When it comes to the universe, it is a closed system, and given enough time, the universe will eventually run down, so that matter and energy will diffuse themselves evenly throughout the universe. The universe will become a featureless soup in which all matter and energy are evenly distributed and no life is possible. There will be no more "usable energy" for it will all be dissipated into a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Some have labeled this the heat death of the universe. But we don't observe a universe in complete equilibrium, thus we can argue that it has not always existed.

The universe is not a closed system. The observable universe is considered an open system whereas the total universe is considered an isolated system (Closed, open and isolated are the three types of thermodynamic systems). As the second law only applies to closed systems, it does not apply to the universe.

So, your second law argument is moot.

 

[anonymous person]

To me, a big issue with supernatural explanations is that they have no utility. You can't use them. If anything can happen at any time for unknowable reasons, then you can't really make confident predictions. I know this isn't an evidential argument against supernaturalism. It's a consequential one. Invoking supernatural agents leads to a dead end from a practical standpoint.

Obviously you can't use them if you're a naturalist! That goes without saying lol.

I find the explanation that the cosmos exists as the handiwork of a Grand Designer to be very useful when people ask me how I think it came to be!

Nor is saying that analogous to me saying things can just happen for any old reason. I believe everything that happens has an explanation for it happening. If I walk out in the street in front of a car and get hit and get hurt, I am not going to attribute my pain to some evil spirit or supernatural agent, im going to attribute it to me getting hit by a car! But if for instance, I have evidence that the universe began to exist, I am going to attribute that to the only thing that could have caused it, a supernatural cause.

In addition, utility is not a measure for truth. A proposition's truth is not determined by whether or not it is useful but whether or not it corresponds to an actual state of affairs.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Obviously you can't use them if you're a naturalist! That goes without saying lol.

I find the explanation that the cosmos exists as the handiwork of a Grand Designer to be very useful when people ask me how I think it came to be!

Nor is saying that analogous to me saying things can just happen for any old reason. I believe everything that happens has an explanation for it happening. If I walk out in the street in front of a car and get hit and get hurt, I am not going to attribute my pain to some evil spirit or supernatural agent, im going to attribute it to me getting hit by a car! But if for instance, I have evidence that the universe began to exist, I am going to attribute that to the only thing that could have caused it, a supernatural cause.

In addition, utility is not a measure for truth. A proposition's truth is not determined by whether or not it is useful but whether or not it corresponds to an actual state of affairs.

How did you determine the only thing that could have caused the universe is a supernatural agent?

 

[anonymous person]

Actually, no... physicists and cosmologists typically refer to the region of space which is causally connected to us as the universe, and nothing outside of that. They used to refer to everything as the universe, however that was before the multiverse idea came about. The sum total of everything is typically referred to as the cosmos now.

At least that's going by what scientists like Lawrence Krauss and Neil DeGrasse Tyson say, and seeing as they are prominent in astrophysics and cosmology, I'll take their word for it.

As for the multiverse, I'll agree there's definitely no solid proof and it would be extremely premature to claim it exists, but there is some evidence. As such, it's a hypothesis which is worth exploring.

That being said, the fact we can at least say the idea may be possible given what we know is a far cry from advocating for a supernatural realm which we legitimately have no evidence at all for.



What exactly serves as good evidence for the supernatural?

When Krauss and Tyson, who are prominent science popularizers, speak of our universe as possibly being a mere subset of a larger multiverse, they are not attempting to give a definition of what the universe is, but rather, they are theorizing as to how to reconcile the predictions of the standard model of a cosmic beginning with their naturalistic worldview.

For a definition, all one has to do is reference a dictionary. A swift Google search gives us this:

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Similarly,

"The universe is all of space and time(spacetime) and its contents.." Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0030062284.

In addition, when these popularizers speak of such things as multiverses and M-theory, they often use words like "if", "maybe", and "it is possible".

Additionally remember this, that mentioning hypothetical and purely speculative concepts such as "causally disconnected" spactimes is irrelevant to this discussion. For the very fact that these other natural realms would be causally disconnected from ours prohibits them from being alluded to as a cause of our universe coming into being, if they did in fact exist, which there is no evidence they do.

And most importantly, we need to remember that possibilities come cheap. We are not concerned here with what is possible, but with what is evidenced by good arguments and evidence. I could easily say it is possible that the universe owes its existence to a supernatural efficient cause. That's easy.

What we want to know is is there any good reason to think that is in fact the case. I think there are several.

 

[Dave Ellis]

When Krauss and Tyson, who are prominent science popularizers, speak of our universe as possibly being a mere subset of a larger multiverse, they are not attempting to give a definition of what the universe is, but rather, they are theorizing as to how to reconcile the predictions of the standard model of a cosmic beginning with their naturalistic worldview.

For a definition, all one has to do is reference a dictionary. A swift Google search gives us this:

"All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos. The universe is believed to be at least 10 billion light years in diameter and contains a vast number of galaxies; it has been expanding since its creation in the Big Bang about 13 billion years ago."

Similarly,

"The universe is all of space and time(spacetime) and its contents.." Zeilik, Michael; Gregory, Stephen A. (1998). Introductory Astronomy & Astrophysics (4th ed.). Saunders College Publishing. ISBN 0030062284.

In addition, when these popularizers speak of such things as multiverses and M-theory, they often use words like "if", "maybe", and "it is possible".

Additionally remember this, that mentioning hypothetical and purely speculative concepts such as "causally disconnected" spactimes is irrelevant to this discussion. For the very fact that these other natural realms would be causally disconnected from ours prohibits them from being alluded to as a cause of our universe coming into being, if they did in fact exist, which there is no evidence they do.

And most importantly, we need to remember that possibilities come cheap. We are not concerned here with what is possible, but with what is evidenced by good arguments and evidence. I could easily say it is possible that the universe owes its existence to a supernatural efficient cause. That's easy.

What we want to know is is there any good reason to think that is in fact the case. I think there are several.

You didn't answer my question, what serves as good evidence for the supernatural?

 

[HitchSlap]

You didn't answer my question, what serves as good evidence for the supernatural?

His incredulity, it would seem.

 

[anonymous person]

You didn't answer my question, what serves as good evidence for the supernatural?

Well I think before delving into that, it would be best if you told me whether or not you agree with all that I have said thus far and if not, what it is specifically you disagree with and why.

That way we will have a good foundation to build on and I can better know what evidence to present.

 

[Dave Ellis]

Well I think before delving into that, it would be best if you told me whether or not you agree with all that I have said thus far and if not, what it is specifically you disagree with and why.

That way we will have a good foundation to build on and I can better know what evidence to present.

They have been explicitly defining the universe as the region of space which is causally connected to us, and the cosmos as the entirety of everything. In fact in Tyson's case, he received a question on StarTalk (his show) a couple weeks ago which specifically dealt with this issue. Krauss has specifically defined things that way as well in both books that I've read of his, and talks that he's given.

I was explicit in my post saying the multiverse idea has not been proven and is still only a hypothesis. So, we agree there, however the definition between universe and cosmos is different. That being said, if it turns out the universe is all there is, then the universe is the entirety of the cosmos (which basically makes it the same thing).

So, what's your evidence for the supernatural?

 

[anonymous person]

They have been explicitly defining the universe as the region of space which is causally connected to us, and the cosmos as the entirety of everything. In fact in Tyson's case, he received a question on StarTalk (his show) a couple weeks ago which specifically dealt with this issue. Krauss has specifically defined things that way as well in both books that I've read of his, and talks that he's given.

I was explicit in my post saying the multiverse idea has not been proven and is still only a hypothesis. So, we agree there, however the definition between universe and cosmos is different. That being said, if it turns out the universe is all there is, then the universe is the entirety of the cosmos (which basically makes it the same thing).

So, what's your evidence for the supernatural?

Thank you for summarizing their views. It seems they are making a distinction between the "cosmos" and the "universe".

They seem to be implying that there is a cosmos that exists eternally?, which contains within it, causally disconnected spacetimes, ours being one of many, hence they sometimes refer to this cosmos as a "multiverse", the prefix "multi" obviously implying more than one. Our spacetime, taking language from the General Theory of Relativity, is what they call the "universe".

We agree that these men are speculating and that all the evidence we have indicates that our spacetime manifold, all matter, and all energy came into being at the big bang roughly 16 billion years ago. This spacetime manifold, all matter, and all energy, for the sake of this discussion, will be referred to as simply "the universe".

One line of evidence for the existence of the supernatural is the beginning of the universe alluded to earlier. Eliminating those hypotheses which are logically incoherent and or without evidential support, we are left with a supernatural efficient cause of the universe.

 

[jayem]

One line of evidence for the existence of the supernatural is the beginning of the universe alluded to earlier. Eliminating those hypotheses which are logically incoherent and or without evidential support, we are left with a supernatural efficient cause of the universe.

Totally wrong. All that can be stated is that the precise cause for the universe is unknown. You cannot evidentially justify a supernatural cause. It's purely an assumption, based on ignorance. And it fails even as a logical inference. As I stated earlier, supernatural agency has often been claimed for events that were not understood. But as we have come understand them, we know that they are perfectly natural phenomena. Is there evidence (and I mean empirical, observable evidence) that a supernatural explanation is valid for anything? So why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for those things we still don't understand?

 

[Dave Ellis]

Thank you for summarizing their views. It seems they are making a distinction between the "cosmos" and the "universe".

They seem to be implying that there is a cosmos that exists eternally?, which contains within it, causally disconnected spacetimes, ours being one of many, hence they sometimes refer to this cosmos as a "multiverse", the prefix "multi" obviously implying more than one. Our spacetime, taking language from the General Theory of Relativity, is what they call the "universe".

We agree that these men are speculating and that all the evidence we have indicates that our spacetime manifold, all matter, and all energy came into being at the big bang roughly 16 billion years ago. This spacetime manifold, all matter, and all energy, for the sake of this discussion, will be referred to as simply "the universe".

One line of evidence for the existence of the supernatural is the beginning of the universe alluded to earlier. Eliminating those hypotheses which are logically incoherent and or without evidential support, we are left with a supernatural efficient cause of the universe.

There is just a distinction between the terms Cosmos and Universe now, because when addressing the idea of a multiverse it makes sense to have different identifying words. As that is a part of cosmology which is under heavy investigation right now, it's basically required to clearly define the words when it comes to putting together a new hypothesis. It's possible that the universe makes up the entirety of the cosmos, however we don't know that and it's possible it doesn't, so we have different terms.

Either way, I think we both agree that the multiverse hypothesis has not yet been proven. But, the terms are there and have definitions.


As for the supernatural, how did you reach your conclusion that the supernatural is a valid explanation at all? Even if we eliminated every idea we've come up with as possible reasons for the beginning of the universe, that doesn't even make the supernatural idea plausible, much less probable.

 

[anonymous person]

Totally wrong. All that can be stated is that the precise cause for the universe is unknown.

We have established that the universe could not have created itself, such a hypothesis is eliminated by virtue of it being logically incoherent. We have also established that it could not have come into being from nothing without any cause whatsoever. Something caused it to come into being. The only way to escape this conclusion is to jettison logic and common sense. Such a price is too high for me to personally pay, which is one reason why I am a theist and no longer an atheist.

So it is simply incorrect to say that all that can be said about the cause of the universe is that it is unknown. We do know that:

1. this cause must exist,
2. it must be of such a nature as to be able to bring into existence the universe.
3. From 2, it follows that such a cause cannot be material, temporal, or extended in space.
4. From 3, it follows that such a cause is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless
5. In addition to 4, this cause is arguably a personal agent.
6. From 5, we have a personal, immaterial, spaceless, and timelessly existing (at least sans creation) efficient cause for bringing the universe into existence.

You cannot evidentially justify a supernatural cause.

You're a naturalist and thus, this is a position you have to maintain if you wish to continue to be a naturalist. However, I have presented evidence that naturalism is false. To maintain that it is not by saying that you cannot evidentially justify the existence of the supernatural is to land you in a position of begging the question, i.e. you are assuming as true a view which you have been given evidence is not, and are arguing against this evidence by simply assuming that it is false, for no other reason than you are committed to a naturalist view of the world.

So a prerequisite or a requirement, if you will, to being able to learn truth, is a willingness to change your views if you are shown they are wrong. None of the evidence that I have to present to you will compel you to change your views if, at the end of the day, you are unwilling to change them.

It's purely an assumption, based on ignorance.

Actually Jayem, all I have done is eliminate those hypotheses which are logically incoherent and applied abductive reasoning to infer what characteristics a cause of the universe, at minimum, must possess. We use logic and abductive reasoning everyday in numerous ways to draw conclusions about events and relationships of cause and effect.

The only course you have for objecting to what I have provided, is to say that logic and abductive reasoning cannot be applied to the notion of the beginning of the universe and if that is indeed your course, you will need to provide some arguments as to why this is the only exception and deal with the obvious and dare I say, insurmountable difficulties you would encounter if indeed you did claim that the explanation of the beginning of the universe does not have to be a logical one!

And it fails even as a logical inference.

How so?

As I stated earlier, supernatural agency has often been claimed for events that were not understood. But as we have come understand them, we know that they are perfectly natural phenomena.

This is an argument you presented earlier, to which I responded by saying that just because a certain event can be explained using natural terminology and by appealing to natural phenomena, it does not necessarily follow that therefore there is no supernatural agency behind said phenomena occurring.

At most, your argument would show that our knowledge about how the natural world works has increased, but this says nothing about whether or not a supernatural agent back of it all exists, and an argument can easily be made, as Antony Flew the long time atheist turned theist after having seriously considered the fine tuning of the universe's initial constants and quantities would support, that the more we know about the universe, the more we discover that a supernatural explanation is required!

Is there evidence (and I mean empirical, observable evidence) that a supernatural explanation is valid for anything? So why should anyone accept a supernatural explanation for those things we still don't understand?

Notice here I am not claiming we don't understand how the universe could come into existence, therefore God did it. That would be a god of the gaps argument. I am not appealing to what we don't know or are ignorant about. I am appealing to what we do know and for what we have very good evidence for.

In addition, you use the term "valid" here. As a naturalist, "validity" will be determined primarily by whether or not an explanation coheres with naturalism, but to demand that an explanation be for example reducible to the natural and material, is to simply beg the question that those are the only types of explanations that are acceptable.

So in your case Jayem, these things will strike at the very root of your total worldview and will turn it on its head, literally upside down. I don't expect you to accept all of this without there being much struggle and much vexation and much resistance. However I am confident, that as so many others who have come before you who desired truth at whatever the cost, that you too will find it if that is what you desire most.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

We have established that the universe could not have created itself, such a hypothesis is eliminated by virtue of it being logically incoherent. We have also established that it could not have come into being from nothing without any cause whatsoever. Something caused it to come into being. The only way to escape this conclusion is to jettison logic and common sense. Such a price is too high for me to personally pay, which is one reason why I am a theist and no longer an atheist.

So you can show that these are the only possible scenarios, and that leads you to the conclusion that something supernatural must exist?

ThIs I have to hear...

 

[bhsmte]

So you can show that these are the only possible scenarios, and that leads you to the conclusion that something supernatural must exist?

ThIs I have to hear...

Good luck.

 

[anonymous person]

So you can show that these are the only possible scenarios, and that leads you to the conclusion that something supernatural must exist?

ThIs I have to hear...

If all matter, energy, and spacetime itself comes into being, which we call the universe, the natural order, the natural realm, all that is natural, so on and so forth, then the cause has to be supernatural, ultramundane, non-natural, other than the natural, so on and so forth. This seems to me to be inescapable.

Unless you want to think, like Dan Dennett, that it literally created itself, or that it just comes into being from nothing, by nothing, for nothing, like Quentin Smith claims.

I can't agree with Dennett or Smith because I can't accept views that are logically incoherent and nonsensical. Such views are necessarily false and I cannot accept any view that I know to be false.

If you cannot accept anything you know to be false then you too should disagree with them.

 

[HitchSlap]

If all matter, energy, and spacetime itself comes into being, which we call the universe, the natural order, the natural realm, all that is natural, so on and so forth, then the cause has to be supernatural, ultramundane, non-natural, other than the natural, so on and so forth. This seems to me to be inescapable.

Unless you want to think, like Dan Dennett, that it literally created itself, or that it just comes into being from nothing, by nothing, for nothing, like Quentin Smith claims.

I can't agree with Dennett or Smith because I can't accept views that are logically incoherent and nonsensical. Such views are necessarily false and I cannot accept any view that I know to be false.

If you cannot accept anything you know to be false then you too should disagree with them.

So it's turtles all the way down?

 

[bhsmte]

So it's turtles all the way down?

Yep, it always has been.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If all matter, energy, and spacetime itself comes into being, which we call the universe, the natural order, the natural realm, all that is natural, so on and so forth, then the cause has to be supernatural, ultramundane, non-natural, other than the natural, so on and so forth. This seems to me to be inescapable.

Unless you want to think, like Dan Dennett, that it literally created itself, or that it just comes into being from nothing, by nothing, for nothing, like Quentin Smith claims.

I can't agree with Dennett or Smith because I can't accept views that are logically incoherent and nonsensical. Such views are necessarily false and I cannot accept any view that I know to be false.

If you cannot accept anything you know to be false then you too should disagree with them.

You didn't answer my question. Do you have evidence that the only possible non-deity scenarios regarding the origins of the universe are the ones you're currently describing?

Because if there's any non-deity scenarios beyond what you're describing, you'll have to list all of them and the reasons why they can't be possible in order to postulate that the only other possible remaining answer would be a deity related scenario.

You would, of course, also have to show that a deity is possible...

So, good luck with that.