the origin of the universe - a short exercise

[Sif]

I say it was a "bad move".

 

[AV1611VET]

I say it was a "bad move".

That's probably what Stepan Levitsky first thought, when Frank J Marshall played his famous 23. ... Q-KN6 move.

 

[Niels]

I really wish that someone would present a rational argument for this claim.

It is rational to think that a sophisticated system like nature suggests a sufficiently sophisticated creator. Arguably more rational than what a deviation from the pattern would require. When we see masterful works of art we are impressed by the creativity, yet when we discover the laws of nature they are somehow exempt from requiring creativity? I'll go with the science regarding how nature works, and I'll go with what I consider to be the more philosophically rational explanation for why nature exists.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is rational to think that a sophisticated system like nature suggests a sufficiently sophisticated creator.

Rationality can lead one astray as well.

Rationality is what gave us geocentrism and Thalidomide as a prenatal wonder drug.

Arguably more rational than what a deviation from the pattern would require.

We call those deviations "miracles."

When we see masterful works of art we are impressed by the creativity,

Yup.

... yet when we discover the laws of nature they are somehow exempt from requiring creativity?

Nature indeed creates.

But only to a point.

I'll go with the science regarding how nature works,

So will I.

... and I'll go with what I consider to be the more philosophically rational explanation for why nature exists.

Whatever that is.

 

[partinobodycular]

It is rational to think that a sophisticated system like nature suggests a sufficiently sophisticated creator.

Okay, that's the claim. Now what's the argument that supports that claim?

All that you actually said there was, it's rational to think that nature requires a sophisticated creator... therefore it's rational to think that nature requires a sophisticated creator.

See the problem?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay, that's the claim. Now what's the argument that supports that claim?

The Anthropic Principle.

 

[Niels]

Okay, that's the claim. Now what's the argument that supports that claim?

All that you actually said there was, it's rational to think that nature requires a sophisticated creator... therefore it's rational to think that nature requires a sophisticated creator.

See the problem?

You imagine a problem where none exists, while also conveniently leaving out most of my words.

I said it is rational to think that nature suggests a creator. A point of view that happens to seem more rational to me than the position that it does not. Both can be arrived at rationally, but a sophisticated system generally requires a sufficiently sophisticated creator. Asserting that it does not would require a break from the general pattern. And that's how I'm thinking here. In terms of patterns, and that's what we have to work with when discussing the origin of the universe. Reason relies on pattern recognition, even if we arrive at different conclusions. It doesn't necessarily mean that we will agree on everything. Especially, when discussing something as speculative as the origin of the universe.

Note that I am not proposing a mechanism for natural function. Nor am I saying that other positions are irrational. Merely reasserting that it is rational to think that nature suggests a creator, and why I personally find it to be more rational than the alternative.

If I'm making a claim here, it's that nature is a sophisticated system.

 

[Niels]

Rationality can lead one astray as well.

Rationality can lead down many paths. Unfortunately, some make the mistake of assuming that rational individuals will necessarily share the same opinions.

 

[sjastro]

I gave the existence of mind as the argument.

I also have a question for you, if the universe was caused by a quantum field, then where did this quantum field come from.

Science is based on evidence not opinions, the existence of mind pertaining to Big Bang cosmology is not evidence based.
Asking where a quantum field came from is a frequent tactic used by creationists motivated by the infinite regression argument where the regression can only be finite if a creator exists.
From a science perspective the argument is irrelevant because it avoids the question if a creator was involved where is the evidence which supports this.
On the flip side of the coin, science cannot show a creator was not involved either because transcendent subjects or the lack of them are unfalsifiable.

The relevant question in science is whether quantum fields are fundamental or emergent which depends on the theory.
In quantum field theories which are based on the space-time of special relativity they are fundamental, in string theories vibrating strings generate the force carriers of the field in which case the quantum fields are emergent.

AdB said:

It's basically only theory, as I already stated, an attempt to find a way to explain the beginning of the universe without a Creator.

It still doesn't explain things like the mind.

Big Bang cosmology is not theory about excluding a creator nor the inclusion of one for the reasons given previously.
In fact it is not even a creation theory but a theory of the evolution of the universe.

 

[sjastro]

The creator question is philosophical and pertains to why nature exists rather than how nature functions. Humans are a part of nature. We can learn how nature works by making observations and figuring things out over time. None of which detracts from the idea that it is created. A bit like understanding how vocal chords work doesn't change the fact that meaning is communicated when we engage in conversation.

This reiterates my point that a creator is unfalsifiable in science.
Science is about explaining how things occur not why they occur or the purpose behind it.

My own role as a scientist in the private sector was orientated towards forensic automotive engineering of trying to make sense of the evidence presented of things that went wrong during production or in the field and coming up with countermeasures.
This is an application of the how aspect, the why or purpose is meaningless because it ultimately doesn’t explain anything.

New theories and models change our understanding of how nature works, but the fact that nature exists suggests that it has a creator. That it has an intelligent origin. Regardless, God is a term that refers to the creator of nature.

What would "having a hand in the process" even look like? There are people who would deny that it is created as soon as we begin to understand how it works, but these are two different questions. How nature works vs. whether nature is created.

Once again whether nature is created or not does not involve science but rather on the belief of the scientist.
It’s no coincidence that atheist and religious scientists can collaborate knowing their personal beliefs do not impact on the science.

When George Lemaitre the Jesuit priest/scientist proposed his cosmic or primaeval atom theory which was the first Big Bang theory, he was careful to separate his scientific work from his religious beliefs.
Lemaitre did not attribute his theory to a divine cause but focused on the empirical and theoretical aspects.

 

[partinobodycular]

I said it is rational to think that nature suggests a creator. A point of view that happens to seem more rational to me than the position that it does not.

Well that's all well and good. You think that it's rational to believe that nature suggests a creator. But this implies that there's something about reality that nature alone can't account for. So what is it that you think that nature can't account for. Trees? Planets? People? Complexity? What?

This all comes back to what I've been saying all along, you need to demonstrate why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious. If mindless quantum fields can explain the existence of absolutely everything around us, without the need for a conscious agent... then it's irrational to invoke the existence of something that isn't necessary.

I'm wide open to an argument for why that supreme conscious agent needs to exist. But absent such an argument, it's just not rational to assume that such an agent actually does exist.

So, what's your argument for why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious?

 

[Niels]

Well that's all well and good. You think that it's rational to believe that nature suggests a creator. But this implies that there's something about reality that nature alone can't account for. So what is it that you think that nature can't account for. Trees? Planets? People? Complexity? What?

This all comes back to what I've been saying all along, you need to demonstrate why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious. If mindless quantum fields can explain the existence of absolutely everything around us, without the need for a conscious agent... then it's irrational to invoke the existence of something that isn't necessary.

I'm wide open to an argument for why that supreme conscious agent needs to exist. But absent such an argument, it's just not rational to assume that such an agent actually does exist.

So, what's your argument for why the uncaused cause needs to be conscious?

Thanks for clarifying. I think of this terms of precedence and potentiality.

The potential for consciousness existed at the origin of the universe. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Some even argue that deterministically our consciousness was inevitable. That all of this was determined at the time of the big bang. My opinion on free will differs somewhat, but If that potential was there when time and space began, then it seems probable to me that the first cause was conscious of what they were doing.

Also, along the lines of what I mentioned earlier, a sophisticated system generally has a sufficiently sophisticated creator. The idea that we could be conscious while the first cause lacks consciousness is the opposite of what I would expect to find. I would expect the first cause to be more conscious than we are.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Thanks for clarifying. I think of this terms of precedence and potentiality.

The potential for consciousness existed at the origin of the universe. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Some even argue that deterministically our consciousness was inevitable. That all of this was determined at the time of the big bang. My opinion on free will differs somewhat, but If that potential was there when time and space began, then it seems probable to me that the first cause was conscious of what they were doing.

Any thing that arises from simpler processes have "potential" from the start. It does not make them fundamental or require the cause of the start of the Universe to have that derived property. The universe started with the potential to make hydrocarbons, that doesn't mean the universe was caused by hydrocarbons or made of them.

Also, along the lines of what I mentioned earlier, a sophisticated system generally has a sufficiently sophisticated creator. The idea that we could be conscious while the first cause lacks consciousness is the opposite of what I would expect to find. I would expect the first cause to be more conscious than we are.

This is quite far off topic from the orgin of the Universe.

 

[Niels]

This reiterates my point that a creator is unfalsifiable in science.
Science is about explaining how things occur not why they occur or the purpose behind it.

My own role as a scientist in the private sector was orientated towards forensic automotive engineering of trying to make sense of the evidence presented of things that went wrong during production or in the field and coming up with countermeasures.
This is an application of the how aspect, the why or purpose is meaningless because it ultimately doesn’t explain anything.

Once again whether nature is created or not does not involve science but rather on the belief of the scientist.
It’s no coincidence that atheist and religious scientists can collaborate knowing their personal beliefs do not impact on the science.

When George Lemaitre the Jesuit priest/scientist proposed his cosmic or primaeval atom theory which was the first Big Bang theory, he was careful to separate his scientific work from his religious beliefs.
Lemaitre did not attribute his theory to a divine cause but focused on the empirical and theoretical aspects.

Yes. We agree about science. If we were working together, you would probably assume that I'm agnostic. What's more, it seems to me that if we were to strictly limit ourselves to the scope of current scientific understanding, agnosticism would be the default. Atheism and theism are philosophical positions, yet both can be arrived at rationally and it's unlikely that both are true. That's what makes such discussions interesting.

Note that I didn't suggest altering scientific understanding to include anything other than what we can observe in nature. Such a position is not required when one thinks that nature suggests a creator. I object to the kind of "gravity exists, therefore God does not" atheist editorializing that appears from time to time, but I wouldn't insert theism either. However, I should hope that all of us have reasons for our views on topics like this thread.

As I mentioned previously, humans are part of nature. That is what we are immersed in and can observe. Where we can't apply the scientific method, however, we can still apply reason. Although we may not be able to observe the first cause, for instance, we can nevertheless speculate about it based on patterns. The notion that we cannot or should not discourages curiosity and free thinking.

 

[Niels]

Any thing that arises from simpler processes have "potential" from the start.

Correct.

It does not make them fundamental or require the cause of the start of the Universe to have that derived property.

Yet we have this property, the potential for it existed at the origin of the universe, and there is a fairly strong argument that what we experience today was predetermined. It seems to me that suggests a plan, and the plans that I've seen have a conscious creator. Or at least a conscious designer of the system that generated the plan.

The universe started with the potential to make hydrocarbons, that doesn't mean the universe was caused by hydrocarbons or made of them.

I would not suggest that the universe was caused by hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are material, and came into existence along with space and time. I would, however, agree that the universe started with the potential to make hydrocarbons.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Correct.


Yet we have this property, the potential for it existed at the origin of the universe, and there is a fairly strong argument that what we experience today was predetermined. It seems to me that suggests a plan, and the plans that I've seen have a conscious creator. Or at least a conscious designer of the system that generated the plan.

Derived properties are just that -- derived. No need for a plan.

I would not suggest that the universe was caused by hydrocarbons. Hydrocarbons are material, and came into existence along with space and time. I would, however, agree that the universe started with the potential to make hydrocarbons.

 

[Astrid]

You've just described a quantum field. Now all that you need to do is to demonstrate why that field has to be conscious, and voila you'll have yourself an argument for God. Until then you've simply demonstrated why we shouldn't expect theists to understand physics.

Kind of like how we can predict 100% that those who get their biology
and geology from a religious book will have no ability to intelligently discuss
either topic.

 

[Astrid]

The reason why the cause of the universe logically is expected to be conscious is clear.

The reason why we have something like quantum theory is because people try to find explanations, how marvelous and unlogical they may be, to deny the existence of a concious Creator

To me it would show self respect to,avoid making up things about
other people, their motives and character, and calling that an argument.


And for one’s audience, thinking they will buy it.

It would show respect for one’s fellow humans to not
assume their purpose in life Is base and ignoble.

For those who believe in God, research involves learning what God has done, and betimes,
how he did it. THAT is respect.

For those who don’t believe in any God, there’s no “denial” no more than
ypure motivated by a need to deny the role of Batboy.

And finally, there’s far more respect in actually studying and understanding the works
of such God as there may be, than there is in willful ignorance and
unjustifiable belief in one’s own understanding that somehow came to be
dessert despite no effort to learn anything..

 

[AV1611VET]

And finally, there’s far more respect in actually studying and understanding the works
of such God as there may be,

Is that why I'm put on IGNORE by academians?

That's their way of showing their respect for what I believe and what I don't believe?

So you put me on IGNORE for saying I believe [this and that], then you go and tell AdB "there's far more respect in actually studying and understanding the works of God"?

That's rich.

You want to study some of the works of God that are present on this earth now?

Works of God that you can actually go visit and see for yourself?

Study these:

1. the Bible
2. time divided into BC & AD
3. organizations such as the Red Cross and Salvation Army
4. hospitals built by Christian organizations
5. Christian artwork, edifices, statuary, and literature
6. IN GOD WE TRUST on our coins
7. UNDER GOD in our pledge of allegiance
8. the Ten Commandments and other literature displayed in public
9. Christmas & Easter
10. symbols on bumper stickers and flags
11. public debates in the name of Christianity
12. crosses and billboards erected to testify of Jesus Christ
13. two major nations founded on His existence
14. martyrs
15. Christians & Jews

 

[Astrid]

It is rational to think that a sophisticated system like nature suggests a sufficiently sophisticated creator. Arguably more rational than what a deviation from the pattern would require. When we see masterful works of art we are impressed by the creativity, yet when we discover the laws of nature they are somehow exempt from requiring creativity? I'll go with the science regarding how nature works, and I'll go with what I consider to be the more philosophically rational explanation for why nature exists.

Anything csn be argued.