The universe with no need of God

[Tree of Life]

Irrelevant. Appeal to consequences.

Also, your God committed and ordered numerous atrocities. He is promising to commit more. If you want to appeal to consequences, atheism is the way to go.

Well, this appeal aside... don't get distracted from the point that "random" cannot be applied to God for the reasons that I've laid out.

Correct.

There is some sense in which God can change his preferences. There's biblical evidence that he did this on a few occasions. I use "preferences" here in a pretty broad sense.

 

[cloudyday2]

I haven't read all posts, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something. When we use words like "cause", "assign", and "create" there is an assumption that time already exists - there is a state before the action and a state after. We can't ask "how did the universe or God start to exist?" without assuming that time existed first. This time might be a transcendental time. For example, the programmer who might have created the simulation that we believe to be reality would exist in a transcendental time. God the Programmer can set breakpoints, single-step through the source code, edit, recompile, try again, etc. But God the Programmer exists in his/her own time that transcends our time.

Does that make sense to anybody else, or am I missing something? Even asking "why?" assumes that time already exists. We can't answer a question about reality outside our universe if that question uses words that only have meaning inside our universe IMO.

 

[cloudyday2]

Another thought: Originally people believed that everything had to rest on something else otherwise it would fall downwards. So they wondered what the Earth itself rested on, and they imagined a tortoise. That didn't work, so they imagined a tortoise under that tortoise. ... They didn't answer the original question; they made that question go away by understanding that it arose from a bad model of reality. ... Neither theists nor atheists can answer this question about "t = 0". This should give us a clue that our model is all wrong. Maybe time and causes don't exist - anymore than the tortoises.

 

[Ana the Ist]

A. If the gravitational constant (G) or weak force constant (gw) varied from their values by an exceedingly small fraction (higher or lower) – one part in 1050 (.00000000000000000000 000000000000000000000000000001) then either the universe would have suffered a catastrophic collapse or would have exploded throughout its expansion, both of which options would have prevented the emergence and development of any life form. This cannot be reasonably explained by pure chance.

Can the gravitational constant and the weak force constant vary from their current values? If not...then this seems to be a moot point.

B. If the strong nuclear force constant were higher than its value (15) by only 2%, there would be no hydrogen in the universe (and therefore no nuclear fuel or water – this would have prohibited life). If, on the other hand, the strong nuclear force constant had been 2% lower than its value then no element heavier than hydrogen could have emerged in the universe (helium, carbon, etc). This would have been equally detrimental to the development of life. This anthropic coincidence also seems to lie beyond the boundaries of pure chance.

This is a similar question as above...

Can the strong nuclear force constant value change?

C. If the gravitational constant, electromagnetism, or the “proton mass relative to the electron mass” varied from their values by only a tiny fraction (higher or lower), then all stars would be either blue giants or red dwarfs. These kinds of stars would not emit the proper kind of heat and light for a long enough period to allow for the emergence, development, and complexification of life forms. Again, these anthropic coincidences are beyond pure chance occurrence.

See question number one only add "electromagnetism" and "proton mass relative to the electron mass".

D. If the weak force constant had been slightly smaller or larger than its value, then supernovae explosions would never have occurred. If these explosions had not occurred, there would be no carbon, iron, or earth-like planets.

Again, see question one.

E. Fred Hoyle and William Fowler discovered the exceedingly high improbability of oxygen, carbon, helium and beryllium having the precise resonance levels to allow for both carbon abundance and carbon bonding (necessary for life). This anthropic coincidence was so striking that it caused Hoyle to abandon his previous atheism and declare: “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”
For all five anthropic coincidences, refer to New Proofs Chapter Two, Section II by Robert Spitzer.

So this last one is just one guy's personal incredulity...which is a logical fallacy. His difficulty in believing something doesn't lend any validity to a different explanation.

Here's the problem that I see with these points you've brought up. In each case, it's considered "evidence" for an intelligent creator because if these values "changed" or were something else...then life as we know it wouldn't exist. That idea is built upon the possibility of those values being something different. If that possibility doesn't exist...then these points are nothing but fanciful imagination. What if everything fell up instead of down? It's that kind of idea...cute, but irrelevant until we can actually show that things could actually fall up.

As for a change in these variables being the end of all life as we know it....that's a rather weak statement. We simply don't have any idea about the extent or variety of life in this universe. We only have a tiny tiny view of an enormously gargantuan picture. If we knew of all life in the universe, and we can still make those statements...then maybe you would have a point worth considering.

 

[civilwarbuff]

I will certainly let others speak for themselves but I certainly don't admit to that. You may be willing to accept that something springs forth from nothing of its own accord but that most certainly violates the laws of conservation of energy and mass. In order to get a big bang you must have energy and mass; where did it come from according to the laws of the physical universe?

Still waiting.......

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, sorry you don't like it.

Are you saying that you take pleasure in reading about mass murder and rape?

I did read the post, but you excluded people who believe in the Creation and the Big Bang, which typically does not agree with a 6000 year old universe.

Wrong. Clearly you skimmed the OP. I find it offensive that you continue to say things about me while refusing to acknowledge how wrong you are.

Note that the OP was last edited long before you strolled in. Now also see that I am going to great lengths to include everyone by referring to the Big Bang as the t=0 event. Everyone believes in the t=0 event but not everyone believes in the Big Bang. So to be inclusive of everyone, I took the time to word it carefully. Yet you did not take the time to read carefully and in your hasty skimming your martyr complex filled in the gaps, leaving you to assume that you're being "persecuted."

I said that in my first comment.

You were wrong then and you're wrong now. I already explained that you jumped into a conversation and didn't bother to read the context. The "two camps" are atheists and theists. There is no third camp, not even if we go with the common understanding of what agnosticism is.

Since you like to rule out people, even a majority, that don't think the two are opposed, I'm trying to find out where you would categorize me.

You are doing a wonderful job of categorizing yourself.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Well, this appeal aside... don't get distracted from the point that "random" cannot be applied to God for the reasons that I've laid out.

There is some sense in which God can change his preferences. There's biblical evidence that he did this on a few occasions. I use "preferences" here in a pretty broad sense.

Why would God change his preferences if he was perfect to begin with? How can you change the "basic, brute fact"?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

I haven't read all posts, so I'm sorry if I'm repeating something. When we use words like "cause", "assign", and "create" there is an assumption that time already exists - there is a state before the action and a state after. We can't ask "how did the universe or God start to exist?" without assuming that time existed first. This time might be a transcendental time. For example, the programmer who might have created the simulation that we believe to be reality would exist in a transcendental time. God the Programmer can set breakpoints, single-step through the source code, edit, recompile, try again, etc. But God the Programmer exists in his/her own time that transcends our time.

Does that make sense to anybody else, or am I missing something? Even asking "why?" assumes that time already exists. We can't answer a question about reality outside our universe if that question uses words that only have meaning inside our universe IMO.

I get what you're saying, I agree, and I made similar remarks in debunking the first cause argument, but you won't get anywhere with Christians using that approach. They already believe in something that is unobserved and unnecessary, so we can only try to remark on the absurd conclusions that follow. Saying that belief in such a thing is nonsense, while correct, accomplishes nothing.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Still waiting.......

You'll be waiting for a long time.

 

[civilwarbuff]

You'll be waiting for a long time.

Can't answer, huh?

 

[Root of Jesse]

Can the gravitational constant and the weak force constant vary from their current values? If not...then this seems to be a moot point.




This is a similar question as above...

Can the strong nuclear force constant value change?





See question number one only add "electromagnetism" and "proton mass relative to the electron mass".



Again, see question one.

I'm not going to argue physics. What I posted was a summation of a book, and if you're interested, really interested, you might read it. The point is that they are constants, but they argue for intelligent design of a creator, because if they had been designed even a little bit differently, we would not exist today.

So this last one is just one guy's personal incredulity...which is a logical fallacy. His difficulty in believing something doesn't lend any validity to a different explanation.

Here's the problem that I see with these points you've brought up. In each case, it's considered "evidence" for an intelligent creator because if these values "changed" or were something else...then life as we know it wouldn't exist. That idea is built upon the possibility of those values being something different. If that possibility doesn't exist...then these points are nothing but fanciful imagination. What if everything fell up instead of down? It's that kind of idea...cute, but irrelevant until we can actually show that things could actually fall up.

As for a change in these variables being the end of all life as we know it....that's a rather weak statement. We simply don't have any idea about the extent or variety of life in this universe. We only have a tiny tiny view of an enormously gargantuan picture. If we knew of all life in the universe, and we can still make those statements...then maybe you would have a point worth considering.

I honestly doubt there is any other life as we know it in the universe. When we come to another position where I'm proven wrong, we'll deal with it. For me, the above is evidence of an intelligent designer.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Why would God change his preferences if he was perfect to begin with? How can you change the "basic, brute fact"?

If you're God, you'd know the answer. He did say "in some sense", which means not in the sense that man changes his mind. But you wouldn't know that, right?

 

[Moral Orel]

Can't answer, huh?

Well start by getting rid of the misconception that the Big Bang means that all the matter and energy came into existence at that point, and a lot of your questions are answered.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well start by getting rid of the misconception that the Big Bang means that all the matter and energy came into existence at that point, and a lot of your questions are answered.

OOOOOKKKKK. Then please explain when it did come into existence...

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm not going to argue physics. What I posted was a summation of a book, and if you're interested, really interested, you might read it. The point is that they are constants, but they argue for intelligent design of a creator, because if they had been designed even a little bit differently, we would not exist today.

I honestly doubt there is any other life as we know it in the universe. When we come to another position where I'm proven wrong, we'll deal with it. For me, the above is evidence of an intelligent designer.

No offense, but when you start talking about gravitational constants...you are arguing physics. If you're going to argue that it's remarkable that the gravitational constant is what it is...and not something else...then you need to show that it's possible it could've been something else. Since you can't do that, it isn't all that remarkable.

 

[Root of Jesse]

No offense, but when you start talking about gravitational constants...you are arguing physics. If you're going to argue that it's remarkable that the gravitational constant is what it is...and not something else...then you need to show that it's possible it could've been something else. Since you can't do that, it isn't all that remarkable.

I just presented the evidence, I didn't argue anything. I answered the question "Such as...?" Read the book I cited, if you want the complete picture.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Can't answer, huh?

You exhausted my patience in my thread "Is God above the law or not?" I have no interest in a dialogue with you and I thought I made that clear.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I just presented the evidence, I didn't argue anything. I answered the question "Such as...?" Read the book I cited, if you want the complete picture.

My mistake, I thought you were arguing that you believe that is evidence for an intelligent designer.

I've heard similar arguments before, that book isn't presenting anything new. It wants to present these constants as a unique set of possibilities that are extremely unlikely. Unfortunately, it doesn't show that any other possibilities actually exist...which makes it a rather weak argument.

For example, you pointed out that it's not worth considering other forms of life until we've actually encountered some. By that same token, it's not worth considering the possibility of some other gravitational constants until we've encountered some (which isn't too likely in this universe).

 

[civilwarbuff]

You exhausted my patience in my thread "Is God above the law or not?" I have no interest in a dialogue with you and I thought I made that clear.

It is a valid question for this thread which you started. Now you refuse to answer a perfectly reasonable, logical and topic related question. If you don't want to answer questions, don't engage in the threads.

 

[Davian]

I will certainly let others speak for themselves but I certainly don't admit to that. You may be willing to accept that something springs forth from nothing of its own accord

I am willing to accept that I do not know why there is something rather than nothing.

but that most certainly violates the laws of conservation of energy and mass.

Why do you say "most certainly"? On what do you base your opinion?

In order to get a big bang you must have energy and mass;

This would be a mischaracterization of inflation theory; big bang cosmology describes how we arrived at the energy and mass we observe in the universe today, in a manner that required little or no energy at its instantiation.

where did it come from according to the laws of the physical universe?

That is described by inflation theory.

Gravitational interactions, in this case, circumvent (but do not violate) the first law of thermodynamics (energy conservation) and the second law of thermodynamics (entropy and the arrow of time problem).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)