Inflation, String Theory, Evolution, Anthropic Principle

[NumberTenOx]

Suppose someone, claiming to be God, shows up in your living room and, as "proof," shows you the Sun going nova and then returning it to normal. Is it God?

I just wanted to answer this because you asked me a direct question, even though I'm not done thinking about it.

This thread has turned into "Do you need to see physical evidence of God's hand in the universe to have faith? And if so, what kind?" I've unfortunately argued two positions:

1) There is no physical evidence of God's existence in nature (even in creation, see OP), therefore to believe in him you have to make a personal decision based on faith alone.

2) If there was physical evidence, it would have to be built in the fabric of the universe in a repeatable, widely discoverable way (perhaps the Vogon method counts, not sure).

You've asked me if I had a personal experience that gave me evidence of God, would I have faith? Perhaps that would be sufficient, but without it being a repeatable, testable event, I'm not sure that I could trust my senses or my memory. I don't know. I'm still thinking about it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As you say, it doesn't eliminate God. But it neither confirms nor refutes His hand in creation. You mentioned finely-tuned constants against the notion of a multiverse. But what if someone figures out how to test a multiverse and then shows that there are many universes? I suspect you will push God back to, "Where did the multiverse come from?"

That is the same problem, how did the multiverse come into being. It only pushes the problem for non-believers back one step. That is the issue, even if we discover more and more the more we understand how God is already there. It isn't God of the gaps when God is necessary for any of the explanations that nature gives us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Translation: "I'm right, even when I'm wrong...."

No, translation, "Creation Declares God's Glory" even when we have an explanation that explanation takes God to work.

 

[Willtor]

I just wanted to answer this because you asked me a direct question, even though I'm not done thinking about it.

This thread has turned into "Do you need to see physical evidence of God's hand in the universe to have faith? And if so, what kind?" I've unfortunately argued two positions:

1) There is no physical evidence of God's existence in nature (even in creation, see OP), therefore to believe in him you have to make a personal decision based on faith alone.

2) If there was physical evidence, it would have to be built in the fabric of the universe in a repeatable, widely discoverable way (perhaps the Vogon method counts, not sure).

You've asked me if I had a personal experience that gave me evidence of God, would I have faith? Perhaps that would be sufficient, but without it being a repeatable, testable event, I'm not sure that I could trust my senses or my memory. I don't know. I'm still thinking about it.

Okay, that's a good point. I haven't made a distinction between physical and mathematical (what you are calling, "fabric of the universe") evidence. I want to undermine the latter:

Carl Sagan selected Pi, a number he knew not to contain the information he mentioned, early in its sequence. If I understand Loudmouth, I think that's what he's getting to. If he already knows the irrational number, and knows that it doesn't have the property he would find compelling, it isn't fair to say, "God could make this one have this property."

Approaching it from another angle: we could construct an irrational number that has the complete text of the Christian Bible as its first n digits, where n is the number of characters in the Bible. Here is the process:

1. Take the complete text of the Bible in UTF-16, and interpret each character as the corresponding sequence of digits.
2. Concatenate those digits into a string.
3. Prepend a decimal point to the beginning of the string.
4. Append the digits of Pi to the string.

Voila! An irrational number that has the complete text of the Bible at the beginning. The trouble is, we could do the same for the Qur'an or the Bhagavad Gita or A Catcher in the Rye. And, if there is a multiverse, one of them has A Catcher in the Rye at the beginning of a trivially discoverable number. In one of those universes where there is life that reasons, that life could cite the "anthropic" principle... and they would be RIGHT!

The Bible appearing at the beginning of Pi in our universe would be no stronger evidence for God than any apparently finely tuned parameters. The anthropic principle would adequately address Carl Sagan's argument, even if the preconditions were met.

If it were so, would you believe in God because of it, anyway?

 

[Willtor]

That is the same problem, how did the multiverse come into being. It only pushes the problem for non-believers back one step. That is the issue, even if we discover more and more the more we understand how God is already there. It isn't God of the gaps when God is necessary for any of the explanations that nature gives us.

Perhaps the multiverse came into being through a natural process. Suppose it did. Suppose, now, that we could not possibly have the means to identify that natural cause, ever. Would it be appropriate to stick God into that hole in our knowledge, even though the reality is that it is nature?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's what we call starting from a conclusion and then working back...
You start with the assumption that a god exists and did everything and with each new discovery, you simply say "that's how god did it".

You start from the assumption that evolution did it and with every discovery, you simply say "evolution did it". You don't understand that you do this all the time. I've been debating you for quite some time and you always claim evolution even when there is no evidence to support that evolution could produce it.

But in reality, you have the exact same support for that claim as you had when you provided that answer before asking the questions: none at all.

That is your opinion. Based on your opinion. Supported by your opinion and nothing more.

In fact, your ilk has been consistently wrong throughout the ages about how "god did things". This is why I said in my previous post that you seem to be saying "I'm right, even when I'm wrong".

This is so ironic. Science has consistently been wrong throughout the ages but you still claim if science can't show it, it is wrong. All the while knowing full well that science is wrong throughout history.

God created the world in a few days - until science proved otherwise. Then suddenly a "day" has some kind of meaning that isn't really a "day".

I find this so ridiculous. We have a narrative that has been given to a people that at the time had little understanding of the universe at all. For all they knew, the universe was eternal and so was mankind. We have a narrative that is 31 verses long describing the creation of the universe which amazingly fits very well with the evidence we find in our universe. 31 verses that explains what it has taken us hundreds of thousands of years to discover. 31 verses that cover a mass amount of information that fills hundreds of thousands of books and you want to squabble over how long a day is?

God created humans from clay - until science proved otherwise. Then suddenly "from clay" is metaphorical and evolution is how god-dun-it.

Suddenly is not used in the Bible to explain it.
https://cornell.app.box.com/clay

Tell me, can you mention even a single hypothetical that would falsify the idea of your god doing anything at all?

If we found man in the Cambrian. If we found a cow in the Cambrian. If we didn't find life first swarming in the oceans but rather found land animals first.

And others were pantheists, polytheists, muslims, atheists,....
So what?

Not who were involved in developing modern science.

By this, you off course mean: starting from the assumption that this is true and sticking to that assumption, no matter what. And even defining this assumption in such a way that it is literally unfalsifiable. Providing the answers before asking the questions. Again.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

What consistency and laws? When has there ever been a single observation that is directly linked to this cultural deity that you happen to believe in?

The Bible claims that God put forth the laws and consistency.

In other words: "reality exists, therefor god"?

Reality exists in the way it should if God of the Christian faith exists.

Yes. You know why? Because the religious beliefs are irrelevant. Which is why you can be a scientist and an atheist, muslim, jew, christian, hindu, etc etc etc.

Now that Christian beliefs constructed the metaphysical background that modern science was developed from.

Because those beliefs don't matter one bit when it comes to actual reality.
Ask yourself why.

It was necessary for science in the first place.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Perhaps the multiverse came into being through a natural process. Suppose it did. Suppose, now, that we could not possibly have the means to identify that natural cause, ever. Would it be appropriate to stick God into that hole in our knowledge, even though the reality is that it is nature?

Hypothetical questions can lead us to all sorts of possibilities but we can't know how that can reflect truth. God claimed that He created the universe in the way in which we as His created can see His hand in it. WE do. If you wish to claim what might be possible that is fine if that is what you feel is necessary to feel confident that nothing is going to prove God wrong. I don't have the need to cover my bases. I know that whatever we discover will only provide more confirmation of God's work in the universe.

 

[bhsmte]

Perhaps the multiverse came into being through a natural process. Suppose it did. Suppose, now, that we could not possibly have the means to identify that natural cause, ever. Would it be appropriate to stick God into that hole in our knowledge, even though the reality is that it is nature?

Those who stick God in holes or gaps in our knowledge, do so for a reason, because they need to put God in that gap.

I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest and admit they do so on pure faith and also don't claim others who don't place God in these gaps, are somehow missing the boat and are inferior to them.

 

[Willtor]

Hypothetical questions can lead us to all sorts of possibilities but we can't know how that can reflect truth. God claimed that He created the universe in the way in which we as His created can see His hand in it. WE do. If you wish to claim what might be possible that is fine if that is what you feel is necessary to feel confident that nothing is going to prove God wrong. I don't have the need to cover my bases. I know that whatever we discover will only provide more confirmation of God's work in the universe.

Suppose, then, that we _can_ identify the natural cause. Once again, you've planted your flag on a hill and must relinquish the hill. More than that, with this post, you've accused everyone else who would not stand on that hill with you of being unfaithful.

 

[Willtor]

Those who stick God in holes or gaps in our knowledge, do so for a reason, because they need to put God in that gap.

I have no problem with that, as long as they are honest and admit they do so on pure faith and also don't claim others who don't place God in these gaps, are somehow missing the boat and are inferior to them.

Even if they don't say we're inferior, I would encourage them to think differently. It bothers me both from a scientific and theological perspective. From the scientific perspective, it's taking a favorite idea and plugging it into every hole in order to avoid saying, "I don't know," as though that answer were a sign of weakness. But "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

From the theological perspective, it isn't the God of revelation that meets people where they are. If there's one way to characterize the way in which God interacts with people in the Bible, it's meeting them within their contexts. As Barth says, "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." But the god that sits _just_ beyond the edge of what is known, _just_ out of reach, the one that vanishes with every new discovery...

 

[bhsmte]

Even if they don't say we're inferior, I would encourage them to think differently. It bothers me both from a scientific and theological perspective. From the scientific perspective, it's taking a favorite idea and plugging it into every hole in order to avoid saying, "I don't know," as though that answer were a sign of weakness. But "I don't know" is a perfectly acceptable answer.

From the theological perspective, it isn't the God of revelation that meets people where they are. If there's one way to characterize the way in which God interacts with people in the Bible, it's meeting them within their contexts. As Barth says, "We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." But the god that sits _just_ beyond the edge of what is known, _just_ out of reach, the one that vanishes with every new discovery...

People need to get it on their own time frame. If someone has a strong need to place a God in the gaps, they will most likely push back with defense mechanisms if their position is critically challenged. If this site shows us anything, it is this.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, translation, "Creation Declares God's Glory" even when we have an explanation that explanation takes God to work.

Only because you start from the a priori premise that whatever is discovered, god-dun-it

And whenever such a religious view is corrected by science, god is simply pushed back to the next frontier of knowledge. And then suddenly the "new" scientific discovery "declares god's glory". Until another discovery explains that previous discovery. Then the new discovery "declares god's glory".

And so on and so on. Hence the "I'm right, even when I'm wrong" bit.

To quote Neil deGrasse Tyson: "if that is how you want to define your god, then your god is an ever receeding pocket of scientific ignorance..."

 

[DogmaHunter]

You start from the assumption that evolution did it

No. The data suggests evolution did it and I go with the data. I don't provide answers before asking the questions.

and with every discovery, you simply say "evolution did it".

No. Rather, every new discovery simply confirms that evolution did it. There's no "pushing back" here.

And if new data shows that a certain model is wrong, guess what happens?
The model is either changed or even discarded and replaced by a better model that does explain the data.

That's what you do when you don't provide the answers before asking the questions.

You don't understand that you do this all the time. I've been debating you for quite some time and you always claim evolution even when there is no evidence to support that evolution could produce it.

What you really mean, is that you don't accept the evidence and/or are frustrated that your supernatural beliefs aren't part of the answers provided by the evidence.

That is your opinion. Based on your opinion. Supported by your opinion and nothing more.

No. It's an objective fact. There is no objective evidence for anything supernatural. There never has been. Which is why religions require "faith".

This is so ironic. Science has consistently been wrong throughout the ages but you still claim if science can't show it, it is wrong. All the while knowing full well that science is wrong throughout history.

The difference is that science doesn't provide the answers before asking the questions. And if scientific models turn out to be wrong, they are DISCARDED or CORRECTED.

Religions don't have any self-correcting mechanism.
Science DEMANDS to be questions.
In religion, questioning is pretty much frowned upon - in some cases even forbidden.

Science is a methodology to help us find out what is actually true.
While religion is something that simply claims to hold the truth and tries to assert that truth from a context of unquestionable authority.

Not a single instance in history is known where the supernatural explanation turned out to be the correct explanation. That's what I meant. You know that that is what I meant. But you thought you had an opening to insert some anti-science drivel and you jumped on it.

I find this so ridiculous.

I agree. It is very ridiculous.

We have a narrative that has been given to a people that at the time had little understanding of the universe at all. For all they knew, the universe was eternal and so was mankind. We have a narrative that is 31 verses long describing the creation of the universe which amazingly fits very well with the evidence we find in our universe.

No, it doesn't fit at all. Not even by a long shot.
It literally has everything wrong. One literally needs to dig DEEP to find "alternate" meanings for words in order to even only remotely consider it somewhat correct.
And even then, there is no way around getting the order completely incorrect (plants and lights before stars/the sun for example).

31 verses that explains what it has taken us hundreds of thousands of years to discover. 31 verses that cover a mass amount of information that fills hundreds of thousands of books and you want to squabble over how long a day is?

31 verses that didn't get ANYTHING remotely right.

Suddenly is not used in the Bible to explain it.
https://cornell.app.box.com/clay

So, you are telling me that before Darwin, religious people assumed that god didn't fashion humans from scratch and that it was common knowledge that we share an ancestor with primates, mammals, etc?

Who are you kidding?

If we found man in the Cambrian. If we found a cow in the Cambrian.
If we didn't find life first swarming in the oceans but rather found land animals first.

How would that falsify your god doing anything at all?

Not who were involved in developing modern science.

That is simply false.
Do you think modern science was developed overnight?
Without the Golden Age of Islam, they wouldn't even have had algebra.

It really doesn't flatter you to simply ignore all the enormous and extremely impactfull contributions of other cultures.

It flatters you even less to pretend that one needs to be a christian to be able to do science. How ridiculous...

Pot, Kettle, Black.

I'm not the one with a priori beliefs.

The Bible claims that God put forth the laws and consistency.

I didn't ask you to repeat these claims. Please answer the question I actually asked:
What consistency and laws? When has there ever been a single observation that is directly linked to this cultural deity that you happen to believe in?

Reality exists in the way it should if God of the Christian faith exists.

This doesn't mean anything unless you can explain it.
How can it be falsified? How is reality exclusively consistent with the christian god in particular?

Now that Christian beliefs constructed the metaphysical background that modern science was developed from.

What metaphysical background? And how is it exclusive to christian a priori beliefs?

It was necessary for science in the first place.

How? Please stop just repeating your claims. Actually explain it. Stop waisting both your and my time please.

 

[Willtor]

People need to get it on their own time frame. If someone has a strong need to place a God in the gaps, they will most likely push back with defense mechanisms if their position is critically challenged. If this site shows us anything, it is this.

Point taken.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Bad example. Pi is irrational and infinite; it's like taking an infinite string of random characters. Sooner or later, you'll run into shakespeare, just by mathematical necessity. We'll find god's signature in Pi, because there's literally no way we wouldn't find god's signature in Pi, because every single possible string of numbers is represented somewhere within Pi.

Strictly speaking, this will only be true if Pi is a 'normal number', which is possible but not presently known. Determining normal numbers is an unresolved problem.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The Bible appearing at the beginning of Pi in our universe would be no stronger evidence for God than any apparently finely tuned parameters. The anthropic principle would adequately address Carl Sagan's argument, even if the preconditions were met.

If it were so, would you believe in God because of it, anyway?

This is an excellent point, and it would be possible to calculate the chance of the entire text of the Bible (or any other long work) appearing near the beginning of a common constant such as pi or e. Of course it would be astronomically unlikely. The choice would then be between being in such an unlikely universe in the multiverse, or that it had been set deliberately. But the latter option doesn't necessarily imply a supernatural deity - it would still leave open the possibility of the universe we experience being a matrix-like simulation, where such a 'fix' could be achieved in a variety of ways. The multiverse solution is so unlikely that I would favour the simulation option - perhaps an experiment to see what would happen if humanity were given the possibility of evidence of a deity.

In general, I would find the idea of the universe being a simulation more plausible than a supernatural deity, by a very large margin. I favour naturalistic explanations

 

[Willtor]

This is an excellent point, and it would be possible to calculate the chance of the entire text of the Bible (or any other long work) appearing near the beginning of a common constant such as pi or e. Of course it would be astronomically unlikely. The choice would then be between being in such an unlikely universe in the multiverse, or that it had been set deliberately. But the latter option doesn't necessarily imply a supernatural deity - it would still leave open the possibility of the universe we experience being a matrix-like simulation, where such a 'fix' could be achieved in a variety of ways. The multiverse solution is so unlikely that I would favour the simulation option - perhaps an experiment to see what would happen if humanity were given the possibility of evidence of a deity.

In general, I would find the idea of the universe being a simulation more plausible than a supernatural deity, by a very large margin. I favour naturalistic explanations

I don't know enough about the multiverse hypothesis to comment on its likelihood (or lack thereof). My point in mentioning it was that if the anthropic principle applies to finely tuned parameters, then it would apply just as easily to some text appearing in a common irrational number.

What you observe, too, is true. And that was what I meant to express in my first post about events -- God cannot be the most parsimonious explanation for anything observable because any explanation is more parsimonious than God. A matrix-like simulation doesn't require the maker of the matrix to be omnipotent, or personal, or any such thing; and it's likely just as good a predictor.

 

[The Cadet]

Strictly speaking, this will only be true if Pi is a 'normal number', which is possible but not presently known. Determining normal numbers is an unresolved problem.

Aaaaaand I don't know numbers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't know enough about the multiverse hypothesis to comment on its likelihood (or lack thereof). My point in mentioning it was that if the anthropic principle applies to finely tuned parameters, then it would apply just as easily to some text appearing in a common irrational number.

Yes; I didn't mean the multiverse as a concept is very unlikely - I think one or other version is a reasonable possibility - but I meant that it would be astronomically unlikely that we'd find ourselves in a particular universe with that kind of 'coincidence' (and the precise odds of which we could calculate).

The anthropic principle is unsatisfying as an explanation, but we don't yet know enough about the appearance of fine tuning in this universe to know for sure that it really is a problem, let alone calculate the odds. And some of the FT arguments are rather careless, e.g. it's been pointed out that 'remarkable precision' of the physical constants depends on the units used - so when John Jefferson Davies (theologian) says "If neutrino mass was 5x10^-34 kg instead of 5x10^-35 kg we'd have a contracting rather than expanding universe", which sounds like fine tuning to one part in 10^35, Neil Manson (philosopher) points out that he's saying the equivalent of, "If Michael Jordan had been one part in 10^16 of a light-year shorter, he wouldn't have been a great basketball player" (1 part in 10^16 of a light-year is 1 meter). And so-on.

... God cannot be the most parsimonious explanation for anything observable because any explanation is more parsimonious than God. A matrix-like simulation doesn't require the maker of the matrix to be omnipotent, or personal, or any such thing; and it's likely just as good a predictor.

Yes; and almost any explanation has more potential explanatory and predictive power than the God hypothesis when any question can be answered, 'God-did-it'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Aaaaaand I don't know numbers.

Me neither, but I've seen this one before...