Praying is useless aka Why won't God heal amputees?

[Havet]

Does God answer prayers? According to believers, the answer is certainly yes.

For example, at any Christian bookstore you can find hundreds of books (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-url/104-7317319-3967121?%5Fencoding=UTF8&search-type=ss&index=stripbooks%3Arelevance-above&field-keywords=prayer) about the power of prayer. On the Internet you can find thousands (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=god+prayer+healing) of testimonials to the many ways that God works in our lives today. Even large city newspapers and national magazines (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/need-a-miracle.htm) run stories about answered prayers. God seems to be interacting with our world and answering millions of prayers on planet Earth every day.
God's power often can be quite dramatic. Take, for example, this story from Marilyn Hickey Ministries:


Prayer is a communication system we have available to fellowship with our heavenly Father and which activates His promises in our lives. No one can beat this system. It's quick. It's efficient. And it's available to you right now! Prayer reaches our heavenly Father instantly. Years ago my mother's doctors found a tumor in her brain. When I heard the news, I was out of town so I could not lay my hands on her. That night as fear swept over me, the Lord quickened Psalms 107:20 to my spirit: "He sent his word and healed them, and delivered them from their destructions." I sent God's Word long distance to my mother's brain. When she was X-rayed again by her doctors, there was no evidence that any tumor had ever existed! Hallelujah! Our prayers are swifter than any medical technique. Only born again believers who have accepted Jesus Christ as Lord can have a relationship with the Father and prayer is the communication method you must use to develop that relationship. [ref (http://www.mhmin.org/prayercenter/answers.htm)]

Stories like these can be easily found all over the Web.

How Prayer Works

For believers, it is obvious why so many prayers are answered. In the Bible, Jesus promises many times that he will answer our prayers. For example, in Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:


Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!

Ask and you will receive. What could be simpler than that? In Matthew 17:20 Jesus reiterates that same message:


For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Since a mustard seed is a tiny inanimate object about the size of a grain of salt, it is easy to imagine that the faith of a mustard seed is fairly small. So, paraphrasing, what Jesus is saying is that if you have the tiniest bit of faith, you can move mountains. Jesus says something similar in Matthew 21:21:


I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer.

The message is reiterated Mark 11:24:

Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours.

In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be:

"Truly, truly, I say to you, he who believes in me will also do the works that I do; and greater works than these will he do, because I go to the Father. Whatever you ask in my name, I will do it, that the Father may be glorified in the Son; if you ask anything in my name, I will do it.

In Matthew 18:19 Jesus says it again:

Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Jesus is actually in our midst and God answers our prayers. The miracle of Jeanna Giese

There are so many examples of the power of prayer, but one in particular deserves special consideration because it is so well documented. In December of 2004 a girl named Jeanna Giese survived a bite from a rabid bat through prayer. Hundreds of newspapers (including the Raleigh News and Observer in my home town) ran stories about the miracle of her recovery with headlines such as "Rabies girl in miracle recovery." In Raleigh, the headline was "Web weaves global prayer circle - Petitions circle the world as girl beats rare case of rabies." [Source: by Sharon Roznik, Raleigh News and Observer, December 17, 2004]

The summary of the story goes like this. Jeanna was in a church service in Wisconsin when a brown bat fell into the aisle. She picked the bat up and carried it outside. No one gave it a second thought.

A month later it was obvious that something was wrong. Soon Jeanna had a full case of rabies. No human has ever survived this disease without being vaccinated. Up until 2004, full-blown rabies had been 100% fatal.

According to the article, a global prayer circle helped Jeanna survive. Once she got sick, Jeanna's father called friends and asked them to pray for Jeanna. People around the world heard about her story through the press and by word of mouth. They prayed. They sent emails. They passed the word along. Millions of people heard about Jeanna's plight and they said prayers for her.

And the prayer circle worked. Through the power of God, Jeanna recovered. Jeanna was the first human to survive rabies without the vaccine.

Dr. Charles Rupprecht of the CDC in Atlanta called Jeanna's case a miracle. The family and everyone in Jeanna's huge, global prayer circle know that God heard their prayers and answered them.

This is amazing stuff. The dictionary defines a miracle as "An event that appears inexplicable by the laws of nature and so is held to be supernatural in origin or an act of God." [ref (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=miracle)] So we must ask a fundamental question: Did an all-loving, all-powerful God hear the prayers from Jeanna's worldwide prayer circle and then reach down from heaven to help Jeanna? Did God actually interact with Jeanna's body, making the impossible happen and curing her case of rabies through a divine miracle?
Or did something else happen?

We can actually answer this question with a simple experiment....

A simple experiment

For this experiment, we need to find a deserving person who has had both of his legs amputated. For example, find a sincere, devout veteran of the Iraqi war, or a person who was involved in a tragic automobile accident.

Now create a prayer circle like the one created for Jeanna Giese. The job of this prayer circle is simple: pray to God to restore the amputated legs of this deserving person. I do not mean to pray for a team of renowned surgeons to somehow graft the legs of a cadaver onto the soldier, nor for a team of renowned scientists to craft mechanical legs for him. Pray that God spontaneously and miraculously restores the soldier's legs overnight, in the same way that God spontaneously and miraculously cured Jeanna Giese and Marilyn Hickey's mother.

If possible, get millions of people all over the planet to join the prayer circle and pray their most fervent prayers. Get millions of people praying in unison for a single miracle for this one deserving amputee. Then stand back and watch.

What is going to happen? Jesus clearly says that if you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. He does not say it once -- he says it many times in many ways in the Bible.

And yet, even with millions of people praying, nothing will happen.

No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing will happen. The legs will not regenerate. Prayer does not restore the severed limbs of amputees. You can electronically search through all the medical journals ever written -- there is no documented case of an amputated leg being restored spontaneously. And we know that God ignores the prayers of amputees through our own observations of the world around us. If God were answering the prayers of amputees to regenerate their lost limbs, we would be seeing amputated legs growing back every day.

Isn't that odd? The situation becomes even more peculiar when you look at who God is. According to the Standard Model of God (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god3.htm):


God is all-powerful. Therefore, God can do anything, and regenerating a leg is trivial.



God is perfect, and he created the Bible, which is his perfect book. In the Bible, Jesus makes very specific statements about the power of prayer. Since Jesus is God, and God and the Bible are perfect, those statements should be true and accurate.



God is all-knowing and all-loving. He certainly knows about the plight of the amputee, and he loves this amputee very much.



God is ready and willing to answer your prayers no matter how big or small. All that you have to do is believe. He says it in multiple places in the Bible. Surely, with millions of people in the prayer circle, at least one of them will believe and the prayer will be answered.



God has no reason to discriminate against amputees. If he is answering millions of other prayers like Jeanna's every day, God should be answering the prayers of amputees too.

Nonetheless, the amputated legs are not going to regenerate.

What are we seeing here? It is not that God sometimes answers the prayers of amputees, and sometimes does not. Instead, in this situation there is a very clear line. God never answers the prayers of amputees. It would appear, to an unbiased observer, that God is singling out amputees and purposefully ignoring them.

Understanding amputees

You can see that the amputee experiment reframes our conversation. No longer are we talking about "religion" or "faith". What we are talking about here is more fundamental.

At the beginning of the chapter we highlighted a number of promises that Jesus makes about prayer in the Bible. Summarizing, here is what Jesus promised:


If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
If you ask anything in my name, I will do it. [John 14:14]
Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]
Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. [Mark 11:24]

The question, therefore, is simple: Are Jesus' statements in the Bible true or false? For example, in John 3:16 Jesus says, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." People take that at face value: if you believe in Jesus, you will have eternal life. So when Jesus says, "Believe that you have received it, and it will be yours," isn't it the same thing?

Can't we take that statement at face value as well?

By looking at amputees, we can see that something is wrong. Jesus is not telling the truth. God never answers prayers to spontaneously restore lost limbs, despite Jesus' statements in the Bible. Accepting this piece of factual information, rather than denying it, is the first step in understanding something extremely important about how prayer really works.

Even if you take a liberal rather than literal stance on the Bible, this feels strange, doesn't it? You may not literally believe that "nothing will be impossible for you" nor that "faith can move mountains," but I think we can agree that there is something very odd about the way that God treats amputees. No matter how many people pray. No matter how sincere those people are. No matter how much they believe. No matter how devout and deserving the recipient. Nothing happens when we pray for amputated limbs. God never regenerates lost limbs through prayer, even though Christians believe that God is answering millions of other prayers on earth every day.

Does God answer prayers? If so, then how do we explain this disconnection between God and amputees? What should we do with the piece of empirical data that amputees represent? We need to somehow explain why God would answer millions of prayers on earth, yet completely ignore prayers for amputated limbs. Let's examine the possible explanations one by one.

It continues with several rationalizations. Check them out here (http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm)

[New Tet]

Of course, it's always possible that God makes a mistake when granting someone a misplaced prayer. As illustrated by this scene:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtLOQKeDs8&feature=fvsr
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtLOQKeDs8&feature=fvsr)

[Havet]

Of course, it's always possible that God makes a mistake when granting someone a misplaced prayer. As illustrated by this scene:
JmtLOQKeDs8
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JmtLOQKeDs8&feature=fvsr)

Haha that movie pwns

[spiltteeth]

But those prayers are canceled out by all the perverts praying for hot amputee sex.

[Muzk]

Why are people still arguing about religion? It's all fake, it doesn't exist because people believe it does

But maybe praying gives them the hope that someone is watching over them & guiding them?

[Manifesto]

Religion does not exist because people believe in it?:confused:

[willdw79]

Religion does not exist because people believe in it?:confused:
Yes. Just because people believe in it, it doesn't make it true.

[spiltteeth]

Yes. Just because people believe in it, it doesn't make it true.

But just because people don't believe in it, doesn't make it false.

Did I just blow your fucking mind!?

[GPDP]

Kinda hard for God to hear your prayers if, as an amputee, you have no hands to cusp together for prayer, don't you think?

[Havet]

Kinda hard for God to hear your prayers if, as an amputee, you have no hands to cusp together for prayer, don't you think?

My example specifically mentioned leg amputations :)

[GPDP]

My example specifically mentioned leg amputations :)

Then how can you kneel?

[spiltteeth]

Ironically ,Jesus says there are more important things than having limbs. In fact, He suggested that people amputate their limbs (or gouge out their eyes) if those parts helped them to sin:

"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:30)
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. (Matthew 18:8-9)

Although the main problem is that the experiment has never been done. So, in reality, nothing has been proven. Even if the experiment were to be run, there are some problems with its design. Plus its a wrong assumption that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do

[Havet]

Then how can you kneel?

Why must prayer be done in kneeling?

It depends on the size of the amputation really. If its extremely big, then of course one can't kneel.

[spiltteeth]

What if one's soul is amputated?

[Havet]

What if one's soul is amputated?

Is the concept of soul subject to scientific empirical evidence?

Can you prove it exists? Can you prove one can remove parts of one's soul (therefore, amputation)?

[spiltteeth]

what if ones 'ego' is amputated?

[Havet]

what if ones 'ego' is amputated?

OK, this is ego: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego#Ego

How can one amputate it? If you amputate that part of the brain, you die...

[spiltteeth]

OK, this is ego: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego#Ego

How can one amputate it? If you amputate that part of the brain, you die...

The ego is a psychic apparatus, it has no physical place in the brain.
Really, I believe the ego is an illusion, or more properly, a misunderstanding.

As for yr post, I'll repeat my above post :

Ironically ,Jesus says there are more important things than having limbs. In fact, He suggested that people amputate their limbs (or gouge out their eyes) if those parts helped them to sin:

"If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hell. (Matthew 5:30)
"If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. "If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye, than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell. (Matthew 18:8-9)

Although the main problem is that the experiment has never been done. So, in reality, nothing has been proven. Even if the experiment were to be run, there are some problems with its design. Plus its a wrong assumption that a large number of Christians are able to dictate to God what He should do

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Although the main problem is that the experiment has never been done. So, in reality, nothing has been proven.
This is really the crucial point here. The article is asking us to imagine that God won't heal an amputee even if millions of people pray for it. But, of course, nothing like that has ever actually happened.

Or, to answer the website directly:

No matter how many people pray, no matter how often they pray, no matter how sincere they are, no matter how much they believe, no matter how deserving the amputee, what we know is that prayers do not inspire God to regenerate amputated legs.
We do? Really? Good luck proving the statement "no amputated limbs have ever been regenerated".

[red cat]

And here's the true story of Jeanna.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milwaukee_protocol

[Havet]

We do? Really? Good luck proving the statement "no amputated limbs have ever been regenerated".

I believe the initial asserted statement was that: Praying helps one's amputated limbs MAGICALLY generate, to which I ask for the evidence. Just one case (with several eyewitnesses to confirm it and who has scientific credibility).

[spiltteeth]

Well, its a meaningless premise. Even if a persons limbs regenerated how do you suggest it can be related to prayer. Also, you've stipulated it must be magical.

Any scientific premise must be put forth in an operationalized framework.

In other words, IF you would like scientific proof, you must provide falsifiable empirical definitions for the actual contents of your position, a comprehensive declaration of the nature of prayer, magic etc, and a list of qualifications (all of which must be empirical) that would result in sufficient proof that "praying helps one's amputated limbs MAGICALLY generate."

A scientific answer is only valid to a scientific question.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I believe the initial asserted statement was that: Praying helps one's amputated limbs MAGICALLY generate, to which I ask for the evidence. Just one case (with several eyewitnesses to confirm it and who has scientific credibility).
No theist ever made such a statement, so I don't have any reason to defend it.

[willdw79]

But just because people don't believe in it, doesn't make it false.

Did I just blow your fucking mind!?
Not at all. The onus is on the person making the outrageous claim, not the other way around.

"Not believing in something" does not require you to do anything, i.e. I don't believe there is a monster under my bed, I don't have to support this with any evidence, I can simply stay here in the living room.

If I believed that there is a monster under under my bed, I have to do two things:

1. Find something under my bed.
2. Prove that it is a monster

The same goes for belief in so-called God.

1. You have to find something
2. Then prove that it is what you say it is

[mannetje]

Here's an example of a christian-extremist in the usa, that had a terminal ill daughter. And didn't brougt her to a doctor. he thought that he could pray her disease away, the girl died offcourse. And the last i heard about it was that both the parents face up a long prison sentence.

[spiltteeth]

Not at all. The onus is on the person making the outrageous claim, not the other way around.

"Not believing in something" does not require you to do anything, i.e. I don't believe there is a monster under my bed, I don't have to support this with any evidence, I can simply stay here in the living room.

If I believed that there is a monster under under my bed, I have to do two things:

1. Find something under my bed.
2. Prove that it is a monster

The same goes for belief in so-called God.

1. You have to find something
2. Then prove that it is what you say it is


Do atheists believe in a sense of humor?

[Havet]

Do atheists believe in a sense of humor?

oh yes

Catholics are against abortions.
Catholics are against homosexuals.
But, I can't think of anyone who has less abortions than homosexuals! -- George Carlin

----------------

Taoism
Shit happens.
Buddhism
If shit happens, it's not really shit.
Islam
If shit happens, it's the will of Allah.
Protestantism
Shit happens because you don't work hard enough.
Judaism
Why does this shit always happen to us?
Hinduism
This shit happened before.
Catholicism
Shit happens because you're bad.
Hare Krishna
Shit happens rama rama.
T.V. Evangelism
Send more shit.
Atheism
No shit.
Jehova's Witness
Knock knock, shit happens.
Hedonism
There's nothing like a good shit happening.
Christian Science
Shit happens in your mind.
Agnosticism
Maybe shit happens, maybe it doesn't.
Rastafarianism
Let's smoke this shit.
Existentialism
What is shit anyway?
Stoicism
This shit doesn't bother me.

------------------------------------

In Sunday school, Sister Mary asked the class: "What part of the body goes to heaven first?"

In the back of the class, nasty Billy waved his hand frantically, but Sister Mary, suspecting a wrong answer, turned to another child. "Yes, Susan?"

"The heart goes to heaven first because that's where God's love lives."

"Excellent," said Sister Mary, "and you, Charlotte?"

"The soul, Sister Mary, because that's the part that lives beyond death."

"Very good, Charlotte," said the Sister, as she noticed Billy's hand still waving in desperation."

"OK, Billy, what do you think?"

"It's the feet that go first, Sister, the feet."

"That's a strange answer Billy. Why the feet?"

Billy answered, "Because I saw my mom with her feet up in the air, shouting, 'God, I'm coming, I'm coming!'"

[spiltteeth]

I meant a good sense of humor...

[Luisrah]

Lol that is actually funny

[Atrus]

Thought I'd add that I believe in a God, so I'm a Diest, but for anyone to believe that prayer achieves anything requires one to absolutely ignore all evidence and logic.
Of course, religious nuts make endless excuses for why you don't get healed by God, but there's only one reason that actually fits: God, real or not, does NOT interfere with the world as it is.

I really wish that someone would do a study in to, for example, patients with terminal cancer. Obviously in the most sensitive and distant way possible, take a group of Athiest families where there is no chance that the person with terminal cancer is being prayed for, and take a group of Christian families, praying for their relative.
I am absolutely certain that the rate of "miraculous recovery" would be the same for each group. Minimal, maybe 1 in 1000 or something, so there's some, but very little.

[spiltteeth]

Thought I'd add that I believe in a God, so I'm a Diest, but for anyone to believe that prayer achieves anything requires one to absolutely ignore all evidence and logic.
Of course, religious nuts make endless excuses for why you don't get healed by God, but there's only one reason that actually fits: God, real or not, does NOT interfere with the world as it is.

I really wish that someone would do a study in to, for example, patients with terminal cancer. Obviously in the most sensitive and distant way possible, take a group of Athiest families where there is no chance that the person with terminal cancer is being prayed for, and take a group of Christian families, praying for their relative.
I am absolutely certain that the rate of "miraculous recovery" would be the same for each group. Minimal, maybe 1 in 1000 or something, so there's some, but very little.

Or, God can help turn suffering into a sacrament, a grace. An evil into a good. etc In the Orthodox Church, healing of the soul ranks higher than the healing of the body.

The Church Fathers give us insight into how we can use illness and the acceptance of mortality (death) to grow in Christ. St Ilias the Presbyter wrote: "Suffering deliberately embraced cannot free the soul totally from sin unless the soul is also tried in the fire of suffering that comes unchosen. For the soul is like a sword: if it does not go 'through fire and water' (Psalm 66:12, LXX) -- that is, by suffering deliberately embraced and suffering that comes unchosen -- it cannot but be shattered by the blows of fortune" (Ilias the Presbyter, Philokalia III). We have to acquire an attitude of embracing both illness and the inevitable death of earthly life as part of God's divine will for us. This is true not only for the sick, but also their loved ones who share in the suffering. In those cases where a healing does occur, it happens so that we may love God even more.

Sometimes physical sickness is necessary to heal the soul. St. Maximus the Confessor wrote, "Suffering cleanses the soul infected with the filth of sensual pleasure and detaches it completely from material things by showing it the penalty incurred as a result of its affection for them. This is why God in His justice allows the devil to afflict men with torments." The acceptance of our illness and death as God's will is one means by which we embrace the saving grace of Christ. This is a hard saying to accept, but those who have suffered in Christ testify to its truth. Could we not allow that sometimes God understands what we do not understand?

[Havet]

Or, God can help turn suffering into a sacrament, a grace. An evil into a good. etc In the Orthodox Church, healing of the soul ranks higher than the healing of the body.

Of course, it helps if there is actually any soul...

Can you prove the scientific existence of a "soul"?

Or do you just use soul as a weasel word for mind, brain or consciousness?

[spiltteeth]

Of course, it helps if there is actually any soul...

Can you prove the scientific existence of a "soul"?

Or do you just use soul as a weasel word for mind, brain or consciousness?

No, I cannot prove the scientific existence of the soul.
Does that mean it is not reasonable that I believe in it?
Can you scientifically prove there is an external world? Or that other minds exist? Or that other persons exist? Or that the world existed 10 minutes ago? None of these beliefs meet the evidential criteria of being 1)self-evident, 2)evident to the immediate senses, 3) properly incorrigible. Philosophers for hundreds of years have been trying to prove the above, with no success. There are no successfully reasonable compelling arguments for the above.
Yet I believe them all. I am irrational for doing so? And I suppose all your beliefs rest upon scientific evidence? You do not believe in free-will etc?

[Havet]

No, I cannot prove the scientific existence of the soul.

You're not the only one...


Does that mean it is not reasonable that I believe in it?

Yes it is not reasonable, that is, until further evidence appears.


Can you scientifically prove there is an external world?

Yes, but first, let me introduce you to the basics, because it seems you skipped them: Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-Newton.2C1999-0) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-Merriam-Webster-1)

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) to reduce biased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias) interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving) and share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing_%28Science%29) all data and methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29) of these data to be established.


The scientific method is the ONLY method (and it is a changing group of methods) for discerning reliable facts about reality.


Now, back to the "external" world:


Yes there is an external world. How can I prove this? By using the scientific method, which men before me have used, and successfully concluded there is a universe which surrounds the Earth ("our world").


The Universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume; the observable matter is spread over a space at least 93 billion light years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_years) across.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-12) For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-years).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-13) As an example, our Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-14) and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy), is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-15) There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) in the observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-16) Typical galaxies range from dwarfs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy) with as few as ten million[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-17) (107) stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) up to giants with one trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-M101-18) (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass.


All of these information, the existence of vacuum, stars, planets, asteroids, galaxies, black holes, etc have been proved through direct observable, empirical and measurable evidence.




Or that other minds exist? Or that other persons exist? Or that the world existed 10 minutes ago?

Please read before making those assertions next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#Aspects_of_mind

Thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought) is a mental process which allows an individual to model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) the world, and so to deal with it effectively according to their goals, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition), idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea), and imagination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination). Thinking involves the cerebral manipulation of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information), as when we form concepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts), engage in problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving), reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning) and making decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice). Thinking is a higher cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive) function and the analysis of thinking processes is part of cognitive psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology).


Memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory) is an organism's ability to store, retain, and subsequently recall information. Although traditional studies of memory began in the realms of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), the late nineteenth and early twentieth century put memory within the paradigms of cognitive psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology). In recent decades, it has become one of the principal pillars of a new branch of science called cognitive neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience), a marriage between cognitive psychology and neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience).


Imagination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination) is accepted as the innate ability and process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_%28philosophy%29) to invent partial or complete personal realms the mind derives from sense perceptions of the shared world. The term is technically used in psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) for the process of reviving in the mind percepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with that of ordinary language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as "imaging (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Imaging)" or "imagery (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Imagery)" or to speak of it as "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" or "constructive" imagination. Imagined images are seen with the "mind's eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%27s_eye)". One hypothesis for the evolution of human imagination is that it allowed conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) beings to solve problems (and hence increase an individual's fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29)) by use of mental simulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation).


Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) in mammals (this includes humans) is an aspect of the mind generally thought to comprise qualities such as subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity), sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience), and the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) the relationship between oneself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29) and one's environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_%28biophysical%29). It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind), psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience), and cognitive science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science). Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena) consciousness, which is subjective experience itself, and access consciousness, which refers to the global availability of information to processing systems in the brain.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#cite_note-Bl-0) Phenomenal consciousness has many different experienced qualities, often referred to as qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). Phenomenal consciousness is usually consciousness of something or about something, a property known as intentionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality) in philosophy of mind.


"We know that others exist. Unless you're living alone on an island or in a desert, you probably interact with at least one other person every single day; now, those people acknowledge and know you, so that's further evidence that you exist. When you walk into a classroom, does everyone seem to not notice you all the time? Even if you aren't greeted with bows and applause, at least one person is likely to turn his head to at least see whose footsteps were to be heard in the doorway."



None of these beliefs meet the evidential criteria of being 1)self-evident, 2)evident to the immediate senses, 3) properly incorrigible.

Of course, but science was never meant to be self-evident, evident to immediate senses or properly incorrigible, unlike Religion which claims to be all those 3.

There is a difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

"Science says" - The sun is around 74% Hydrogen, 24% helium, and trace elements of iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium.

Egyptian pantheon says - The sun is horus' left eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Sun_god).

Which one is correct? DAMN! if only there was a reliable way to distinguish which of these explanations is more valid.

Oh wait, thats what science is.

"Science" doesn't ask any blind obedience to authority. In fact science doesn't ask or say anything because its a method, not a belief set, although im sure idiots will continue to try call Science "another religion". Calling science a religion might appeal to some notion that sitting the fence makes you superior to all these close minded religionists, but religion is such an ill fitting term for the scientific method that essentially you're just crippling your own ability to describe and understand things.

If you think being passionate about the fundamental process behind human progress and understanding of the universe is in any way an ignorant vice, then I feel sorry for you.

If you want to prove to yourself the commonly accepted scientific explanation for what the sun is made of, you can do it yourself. If you want to test whether the sun is really made from hydrogen and helium, you can check the emission spectra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectra) yourself, you can test its falsifiability to see if there are any other explanations that might make it look like the sun is made from hydrogen and helium, but is actually something that just looks like hydrogen and helium.

And if you find out there is a flaw in a current explanation, you help better the understanding of how things work. For this reason (intelligent) challenges to current understandings are welcomed in the scientific community, as a way to test the current understanding and to explore alternatives, as apposed to actual religion, where blind obedience to the dogma is considered a virtue (i.e. faith)

Challenging currently accepted knowledge raises skepticism. It should. Einstein struggled to get his ideas accepted for years, and now they're fundamental to what we know about the universe. The reason they got accepted is because they were right, and they explained things other theories couldn't.


Yet I believe them all. I am irrational for doing so? And I suppose all your beliefs rest upon scientific evidence? You do not believe in free-will etc?

I have a personal non-scientific view regarding free will, because it is a matter where there hasn't appeared any scientific explanation to better explain this subject so far.

If you are interested in these philosophical questions, i'd reccomend reading the (hated) Ayn Rand regarding those matters here (http://home.sprynet.com/%7Eowl1/rand2.htm):


When Ayn Rand distinguishes 'existence' from 'consciousness', she mainly means by "existence" what other philosophers call "the external world" -- thus, the distinction is between states of one's own mind and external phenomena.(1) (http://home.sprynet.com/%7Eowl1/rand2.htm#N_1_) According to Objectivism, existence has primacy over consciousness in two senses. First, epistemologically: human knowledge begins with (sensory) awareness of the external world. It does not begin with awareness of one's own ideas. The reason is that ideas or states of consciousness are necessarily ideas about something, and that something is what one is aware of. One could not become aware of one's own consciousness, unless one first had some states of consciousness to be aware of; and one could not have states of consciousness, unless one first had something else that one was conscious of.(2) (http://home.sprynet.com/%7Eowl1/rand2.htm#N_2_)


Second, existence has a metaphysical primacy over consciousness: that is, the external world exists prior to, and is not dependent on, our minds. This also implies that the external world has its specific characteristics (identity) prior to, and independent of, the states of our minds. And this is for the same reason: in order to have states of consciousness, there must first be things for us to become conscious of (whereas the converse is not the case), because consciousness is consciousness of things. Consciousness, again, is a faculty of becoming aware of things, not of creating or altering them.


In any case, something does not need to exist in order for us to be aware of it, nor do we need to be aware of something in order for it to exist.

Eg: Einstein theorised that time travel is possible (therefore we are aware of it), but as it is today, we do not travel through time (therefore it does not exist).

Eg: People theorised that the Earth was round, when the general acceptance was that the Earth was flat. The Earth did not just become round, once everyone became aware of this fact. It just is.


The universe will still exist up until the day it is physically no longer, regardless if anyone or anything is aware of it.

Eg: A tree that grows in deep forest will still exist and grow regardless of whether or not someone has ever laid eyes on it or not.

I think you're confusing physical existence with mental perception - one does not exclude the other.

Hope this makes sense.

[Nwoye]

i'll ask this again on splitteeth's behalf: can you prove the existence of an external world without relying on the assumption that other physical beings are undergoing the same conscious process that you are? in other words, can you prove that the material world isn't a dream or an illusion?

and just for future reference, i'm not a christian.

[spiltteeth]

You're not the only one...



Yes it is not reasonable, that is, until further evidence appears.



Yes, but first, let me introduce you to the basics, because it seems you skipped them: Scientific Method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method)

To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquiry) must be based on gathering observable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable), empirical (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical) and measurable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measure) evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence) subject to specific principles of reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-Newton.2C1999-0) A scientific method consists of the collection of data (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data) through observation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation) and experimentation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment), and the formulation and testing of hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypotheses).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method#cite_note-Merriam-Webster-1)

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothesis) as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Research) to test these hypotheses. These steps must be repeatable in order to dependably predict any future results. Theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#Science) that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many hypotheses together in a coherent structure. This in turn may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context. Among other facets shared by the various fields of inquiry is the conviction that the process be objective (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_%28science%29) to reduce biased (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bias) interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_data_archiving) and share (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_sharing_%28Science%29) all data and methodology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methodology) so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) them. This practice, called full disclosure, also allows statistical measures of the reliability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_%28statistics%29) of these data to be established.


The scientific method is the ONLY method (and it is a changing group of methods) for discerning reliable facts about reality.


Now, back to the "external" world:


Yes there is an external world. How can I prove this? By using the scientific method, which men before me have used, and successfully concluded there is a universe which surrounds the Earth ("our world").


The Universe is very large and possibly infinite in volume; the observable matter is spread over a space at least 93 billion light years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_years) across.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-12) For comparison, the diameter of a typical galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) is only 30,000 light-years, and the typical distance between two neighboring galaxies is only 3 million light-years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light-years).[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-13) As an example, our Milky Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way) galaxy is roughly 100,000 light years in diameter,[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-14) and our nearest sister galaxy, the Andromeda Galaxy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy), is located roughly 2.5 million light years away.[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-15) There are probably more than 100 billion (1011) galaxies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy) in the observable universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe).[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-16) Typical galaxies range from dwarfs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dwarf_galaxy) with as few as ten million[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-17) (107) stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star) up to giants with one trillion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trillion)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-M101-18) (1012) stars, all orbiting the galaxy's center of mass.


All of these information, the existence of vacuum, stars, planets, asteroids, galaxies, black holes, etc have been proved through direct observable, empirical and measurable evidence.





Please read before making those assertions next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#Aspects_of_mind

Thought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought) is a mental process which allows an individual to model (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_%28abstract%29) the world, and so to deal with it effectively according to their goals, plans, ends and desires. Words referring to similar concepts and processes include cognition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognition), idea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idea), and imagination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination). Thinking involves the cerebral manipulation of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information), as when we form concepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concepts), engage in problem solving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_solving), reasoning (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasoning) and making decisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice). Thinking is a higher cognitive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive) function and the analysis of thinking processes is part of cognitive psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology).


Memory (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory) is an organism's ability to store, retain, and subsequently recall information. Although traditional studies of memory began in the realms of philosophy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy), the late nineteenth and early twentieth century put memory within the paradigms of cognitive psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_psychology). In recent decades, it has become one of the principal pillars of a new branch of science called cognitive neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_neuroscience), a marriage between cognitive psychology and neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience).


Imagination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagination) is accepted as the innate ability and process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_%28philosophy%29) to invent partial or complete personal realms the mind derives from sense perceptions of the shared world. The term is technically used in psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology) for the process of reviving in the mind percepts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) of objects formerly given in sense perception. Since this use of the term conflicts with that of ordinary language (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language), some psychologists have preferred to describe this process as "imaging (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Imaging)" or "imagery (http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Imagery)" or to speak of it as "reproductive" as opposed to "productive" or "constructive" imagination. Imagined images are seen with the "mind's eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind%27s_eye)". One hypothesis for the evolution of human imagination is that it allowed conscious (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) beings to solve problems (and hence increase an individual's fitness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fitness_%28biology%29)) by use of mental simulation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulation).


Consciousness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness) in mammals (this includes humans) is an aspect of the mind generally thought to comprise qualities such as subjectivity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity), sentience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience), and the ability to perceive (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perception) the relationship between oneself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_identity_%28philosophy%29) and one's environment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environment_%28biophysical%29). It is a subject of much research in philosophy of mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind), psychology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychology), neuroscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience), and cognitive science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_science). Some philosophers divide consciousness into phenomenal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenomena) consciousness, which is subjective experience itself, and access consciousness, which refers to the global availability of information to processing systems in the brain.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind#cite_note-Bl-0) Phenomenal consciousness has many different experienced qualities, often referred to as qualia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualia). Phenomenal consciousness is usually consciousness of something or about something, a property known as intentionality (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentionality) in philosophy of mind.


"We know that others exist. Unless you're living alone on an island or in a desert, you probably interact with at least one other person every single day; now, those people acknowledge and know you, so that's further evidence that you exist. When you walk into a classroom, does everyone seem to not notice you all the time? Even if you aren't greeted with bows and applause, at least one person is likely to turn his head to at least see whose footsteps were to be heard in the doorway."




Of course, but science was never meant to be self-evident, evident to immediate senses or properly incorrigible, unlike Religion which claims to be all those 3.

There is a difference between a highly sophisticated learning heuristic, and a dogmatic set of non sequitir fantasies.

"Science says" - The sun is around 74% Hydrogen, 24% helium, and trace elements of iron, nickel, oxygen, silicon, sulfur, magnesium, carbon, neon, calcium, and chromium.

Egyptian pantheon says - The sun is horus' left eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Sun_god).

Which one is correct? DAMN! if only there was a reliable way to distinguish which of these explanations is more valid.

Oh wait, thats what science is.

"Science" doesn't ask any blind obedience to authority. In fact science doesn't ask or say anything because its a method, not a belief set, although im sure idiots will continue to try call Science "another religion". Calling science a religion might appeal to some notion that sitting the fence makes you superior to all these close minded religionists, but religion is such an ill fitting term for the scientific method that essentially you're just crippling your own ability to describe and understand things.

If you think being passionate about the fundamental process behind human progress and understanding of the universe is in any way an ignorant vice, then I feel sorry for you.

If you want to prove to yourself the commonly accepted scientific explanation for what the sun is made of, you can do it yourself. If you want to test whether the sun is really made from hydrogen and helium, you can check the emission spectra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectra) yourself, you can test its falsifiability to see if there are any other explanations that might make it look like the sun is made from hydrogen and helium, but is actually something that just looks like hydrogen and helium.

And if you find out there is a flaw in a current explanation, you help better the understanding of how things work. For this reason (intelligent) challenges to current understandings are welcomed in the scientific community, as a way to test the current understanding and to explore alternatives, as apposed to actual religion, where blind obedience to the dogma is considered a virtue (i.e. faith)

Challenging currently accepted knowledge raises skepticism. It should. Einstein struggled to get his ideas accepted for years, and now they're fundamental to what we know about the universe. The reason they got accepted is because they were right, and they explained things other theories couldn't.



I have a personal non-scientific view regarding free will, because it is a matter where there hasn't appeared any scientific explanation to better explain this subject so far.

If you are interested in these philosophical questions, i'd reccomend reading the (hated) Ayn Rand regarding those matters here (http://home.sprynet.com/%7Eowl1/rand2.htm):




In any case, something does not need to exist in order for us to be aware of it, nor do we need to be aware of something in order for it to exist.

Eg: Einstein theorised that time travel is possible (therefore we are aware of it), but as it is today, we do not travel through time (therefore it does not exist).

Eg: People theorised that the Earth was round, when the general acceptance was that the Earth was flat. The Earth did not just become round, once everyone became aware of this fact. It just is.


The universe will still exist up until the day it is physically no longer, regardless if anyone or anything is aware of it.

Eg: A tree that grows in deep forest will still exist and grow regardless of whether or not someone has ever laid eyes on it or not.

I think you're confusing physical existence with mental perception - one does not exclude the other.

Hope this makes sense.

First, you can believe in things for which scientific evidence has not proven - Free will, and why is this justified and not belief in God/soul?

2) That the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces intact is also a hypothesis that explains world phenomena equally well as the scientific hypothesis, thus far no one has ben able to prove it wrong.

3) How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?

4) How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)

5) Memory. I believe it is reasonable to believe that I had oatmeal for breakfast yesterday (I did) however I cannot scientifically validate this claim (no witnesses, receipts, empty boxes etc) therefore is this an unreasonable belief?

So, scientific evidence is NOT the only criteria for judging weather or not a belief is justified or not, there are others. See reformed epistemology.

[red cat]

First, you can believe in things for which scientific evidence has not proven - Free will, and why is this justified and not belief in God/soul?

2) That the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces intact is also a hypothesis that explains world phenomena equally well as the scientific hypothesis, thus far no one has ben able to prove it wrong.

3) How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?

4) How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)

5) Memory. I believe it is reasonable to believe that I had oatmeal for breakfast yesterday (I did) however I cannot scientifically validate this claim (no witnesses, receipts, empty boxes etc) therefore is this an unreasonable belief?

So, scientific evidence is NOT the only criteria for judging weather or not a belief is justified or not, there are others. See reformed epistemology.

There can be countless models of the sort you mentioned. Can you justify your belief in a specific one? Can you negate even one of them?

For example, may be god exists and he has created the world in such a way that we disbelieve creation theory. I mean, even the fossils could have been created by god as they are, right? Whatever models you are providing are unfalsifiable.

Welcome to the Matrix, anyway.

[Havet]

2) That the universe popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces intact is also a hypothesis that explains world phenomena equally well as the scientific hypothesis, thus far no one has ben able to prove it wrong.

it doesn't because of ocams razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor)


3) How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?

4) How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)

you don't but the only reasonable course of action is to accept that your senses are accurate


5) Memory. I believe it is reasonable to believe that I had oatmeal for breakfast yesterday (I did) however I cannot scientifically validate this claim (no witnesses, receipts, empty boxes etc) therefore is this an unreasonable belief?You're confusing standards of evidence

if you were for example to try and prove to other people that you ate oatmeal, you wouldn't need any evidence because you were there to see it, just like a scientist doesn't need a witness in order to look at a thermometer and note that the temperature is 24 C

---

there are always ways to check if your senses are reliable. Independent verification for example. Also, by cross-referencing your senses, if you can see something but can't touch it, chances are its an allucination, unless it's something you KNOW doesn't trigger a touch sense.

Also, there's logical consistency. The same way that sometimes you can tell you're dreaming, because logically inconsistent stuff happens.

Of course theres no 100% way to know if your senses are accurate. One of the typifying characteristics of insanity is that they don't realise they are having delusions/hallucinations, but the only alternative is completely useless.

if you're crossing the street, its perfectly possible that the car coming towards you is a hallucination, but the dangers of trusting your senses are far lower than the dangers of not trusting them

the benefit of objective reality is that there are often clues for when our senses are malfunctioning

Back to independent verification: If i see something, I can ask you if you see something too. If you can see it and I can see it, Then there's more probability that our senses are working than there is that they are not working, since we evolved to have accurate senses.

Anyway, i suspect we might get nowhere, because you seem to believe very deeply the nonsense you are spouting. If you're saying there's no way to verify your senses, then how do you know what you believe is right? How do you know everything you've seen is not just one trick from the devil or whatever?

In any case, my argument is kind of pointless, because we both already fundamentally agree that there's no way to be 100% sure of anything.

[spiltteeth]

[SIZE=2]it doesn't because of ocams razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor)



you don't but the only reasonable course of action is to accept that your senses are accurate

You're confusing standards of evidence

if you were for example to try and prove to other people that you ate oatmeal, you wouldn't need any evidence because you were there to see it, just like a scientist doesn't need a witness in order to look at a thermometer and note that the temperature is 24 C

---

there are always ways to check if your senses are reliable. Independent verification for example. Also, by cross-referencing your senses, if you can see something but can't touch it, chances are its an allucination, unless it's something you KNOW doesn't trigger a touch sense.

Also, there's logical consistency. The same way that sometimes you can tell you're dreaming, because logically inconsistent stuff happens.

Of course theres no 100% way to know if your senses are accurate. One of the typifying characteristics of insanity is that they don't realise they are having delusions/hallucinations, but the only alternative is completely useless.

if you're crossing the street, its perfectly possible that the car coming towards you is a hallucination, but the dangers of trusting your senses are far lower than the dangers of not trusting them

the benefit of objective reality is that there are often clues for when our senses are malfunctioning

Back to independent verification: If i see something, I can ask you if you see something too. If you can see it and I can see it, Then there's more probability that our senses are working than there is that they are not working, since we evolved to have accurate senses.

Anyway, i suspect we might get nowhere, because you seem to believe very deeply the nonsense you are spouting. If you're saying there's no way to verify your senses, then how do you know what you believe is right? How do you know everything you've seen is not just one trick from the devil or whatever?

In any case, my argument is kind of pointless, because we both already fundamentally agree that there's no way to be 100% sure of anything.

Well, I agree with you about Okam's razor, this is certainly a reasonable response, but it is not the scientific one.

I'm absolutely NOT "saying there's no way to verify your senses."

I'm saying your criteria for evaluating whether or not a belief is justified is flawed because it is incomplete.

The theist has a right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in his philosophical work- just as others take for granted the existence of the past, say, or of other persons, or the basic claims of contemporary physics.
God, said Calvin, has implanted in humankind a tendency or nisus or disposition to believe in him:
"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity." This we take to beyond controversy. To prevent anyone from taking refuge in the pretense of ignorance, God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty . . . Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.
Calvin's claim, then, is that God has so created us that we have by nature a strong tendency or inclination or disposition towards belief in him.
Although this disposition to believe in God has been in part smothered or suppressed by sin, it is nevertheless universally present. And it is triggered or actuated by widely realized conditions

Calvin says suggests that one who accedes to this tendency and in these circumstances accepts the belief that God has created the world-perhaps upon beholding the starry heavens, or the splendid majesty of the mountains, or the intricate, articulate beauty of a tiny flower-is quite as rational and quite as justified as one who believes that he sees a tree upon having that characteristic being-appeared-to-treely kind of experience.

a true belief constitutes knowledge if it is produced by a reliable belief producing mechanism.
If the theist thinks God has created us with the sensus divinitatis Calvin speaks of, he will hold that indeed there is a reliable belief producing mechanism that produces theistic belief; he will thus hold that we know that God exists. One who follows Calvin here will also hold that a capacity to apprehend God's existence is as much part of our natural noetic or intellectual equipment as is the capacity to apprehend truths of logic, perceptual truths, truths about the past, and truths about other minds. Belief in the existence of God is then in the same boat as belief in truths of logic, other minds, the past, and perceptual objects; in each case God has so constructed us that in the right circumstances we acquire the belief in question. But then the belief that there is such a person as God is as much among the deliverances of our natural noetic faculties as are those other beliefs. Hence we know that there is such a person as God, and don't merely believe it; and it isn't by faith that we apprehend the existence of God, but by reason; and this whether or not any of the classical theistic arguments is successful.

[Nwoye]

hayenmill and splitteeth i hope you don't mind me jumping in on the discussion but i feel like i have stuff to add.


it doesn't because of ocams razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor)
which is hardly scientific.


there are always ways to check if your senses are reliable. Independent verification for example. Also, by cross-referencing your senses, if you can see something but can't touch it, chances are its an allucination, unless it's something you KNOW doesn't trigger a touch sense.

Also, there's logical consistency. The same way that sometimes you can tell you're dreaming, because logically inconsistent stuff happens.
but logical processes rely on materially true statements just as much as anything else.


Of course theres no 100% way to know if your senses are accurate. One of the typifying characteristics of insanity is that they don't realise they are having delusions/hallucinations, but the only alternative is completely useless.

if you're crossing the street, its perfectly possible that the car coming towards you is a hallucination, but the dangers of trusting your senses are far lower than the dangers of not trusting them

the benefit of objective reality is that there are often clues for when our senses are malfunctioningbut we're not supposed to make epistemological decisions based on what is convenient or beneficial to us - we're supposed to do it based on what we think is actually true. besides if we just base our beliefs around what is least dangerous our what is most beneficial then that just leads to us accepting pascals wager and becoming theists anyway.


Back to independent verification: If i see something, I can ask you if you see something too. If you can see it and I can see it, Then there's more probability that our senses are working than there is that they are not working, since we evolved to have accurate senses. yes but this presupposes that the beings we interact with on an everyday basis are undergoing the same conscious processes that we are. ie that they're not robots created by an evil genius who's trying to trick us (if i may channel Descartes here).


Anyway, i suspect we might get nowhere, because you seem to believe very deeply the nonsense you are spouting. If you're saying there's no way to verify your senses, then how do you know what you believe is right? How do you know everything you've seen is not just one trick from the devil or whatever?

In any case, my argument is kind of pointless, because we both already fundamentally agree that there's no way to be 100% sure of anything.your last point is important. we can in no way be 100% sure of anything. At the end of the day, it comes down to at least some level of trust - trust in our senses, trust in our logical processes and consciousness, trust in reality really. Hell if you look at it from an etymological standpoint the Hebrew word for knowledge literally means "i trust that it is so". and what is trust but another word for faith? the point is, any statement of knowledge - that there is a computer in front of me or there is a god - is based on trust and faith.

now does that mean we should just automatically believe in what the bible tells us - that there's a great big bearded old guy in the sky condemning people who have gay sex to hell? no. but it means we should stop confining our thinking to silly little boxes of what can and cannot be proven by the almighty. scientific method.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill and splitteeth i hope you don't mind me jumping in on the discussion but i feel like i have stuff to add.


which is hardly scientific.


but logical processes rely on materially true statements just as much as anything else.

but we're not supposed to make epistemological decisions based on what is convenient or beneficial to us - we're supposed to do it based on what we think is actually true. besides if we just base our beliefs around what is least dangerous our what is most beneficial then that just leads to us accepting pascals wager and becoming theists anyway.

yes but this presupposes that the beings we interact with on an everyday basis are undergoing the same conscious processes that we are. ie that they're not robots created by an evil genius who's trying to trick us (if i may channel Descartes here).

your last point is important. we can in no way be 100% sure of anything. At the end of the day, it comes down to at least some level of trust - trust in our senses, trust in our logical processes and consciousness, trust in reality really. Hell if you look at it from an etymological standpoint the Hebrew word for knowledge literally means "i trust that it is so". and what is trust but another word for faith? the point is, any statement of knowledge - that there is a computer in front of me or there is a god - is based on trust and faith.

now does that mean we should just automatically believe in what the bible tells us - that there's a great big bearded old guy in the sky condemning people who have gay sex to hell? no. but it means we should stop confining our thinking to silly little boxes of what can and cannot be proven by the almighty. scientific method.

I agree with 90% of yr post, but did you have time to read mine above? I think there are basic beliefs from which all inferential beliefs must reasonable come from. Basic beliefs, I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you'd be describing a computer, not an actual human.

[Nwoye]

I agree with 90% of yr post, but did you have time to read mine above? I think there are basic beliefs from which all inferential beliefs must reasonable come from. Basic beliefs, I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you'd be describing a computer, not an actual human.
i've basically agreed with every post of yours in this thread but i'm a bit confused about this one. I still think you're using circular reasoning in the same way the hayenmill is. Okay so my cognitive process has led me to believe there is a tree in front of me. I touch/smell/taste/hear/see the tree. therefore it exists. but what makes these senses reliable? and what makes them the end-all-be-all (i just learned the other day that that phrase is from Othello) of perception, to the point where anything not verifiable by those senses does not exist? And i don't think a-priorism (2+2=4) is helpful in any way here.

[spiltteeth]

i've basically agreed with every post of yours in this thread but i'm a bit confused about this one. I still think you're using circular reasoning in the same way the hayenmill is. Okay so my cognitive process has led me to believe there is a tree in front of me. I touch/smell/taste/hear/see the tree. therefore it exists. but what makes these senses reliable? and what makes them the end-all-be-all (i just learned the other day that that phrase is from Othello) of perception, to the point where anything not verifiable by those senses does not exist? And i don't think a-priorism (2+2=4) is helpful in any way here.

2+2=4 is taken for granted to be true. It is self-evidently true. It is a basic (foundational) belief on which inferred beliefs can rationally be built upon. It can never be proven, however since it does not conflict with other basic or inferred beliefs, and it is true in the appropriate circumstances, it can be taken for granted - i.e. it can rationally be accepted as a basic belief. This is the only criteria for basic beliefs. So a belief in God would be unwarranted if it conflicted with other basic or inferred beliefs, or if it was accepted in an inappropriate circumstance (guy offers you $5 to believe in God etc)

However, it really can never be the end-all-be-all; so the above criteria is simply a rationally justified way of judging if a belief is reasonable or not.
Basically, it is a philosophy of common sense, which has its roots in the anti-Hume philosopher Thomas Reid, and has flowered in today's reformed epistemology of Plantinga and others.
This whole conversation reminds me of a quote :

Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
— G.K. Chesterton (Orthodoxy)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

it doesn't because of ocams razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor)
Ocam's razor is a principle with absolutely no good justification. It's a statement of preference more than anything else. It basically says: "between multiple competing theories that seem equally good in light of our observations, I prefer the one with the fewest assumptions."

Besides the fact that there is no particular reason why we should have that preference, there is another problem. In order to pick the theory with the fewest assumptions you must go about counting the assumptions of each theory. How exactly do you do that?

For example: is the existence of God one assumption, or several? What is the precise number of assumptions underlying the modern understanding of chemistry? etc.

[Nwoye]

i think i see your point with apriorism.


Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.
— G.K. Chesterton (Orthodoxy)
this is exactly the point i was trying to make to hayenmill.

[Dr Mindbender]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U74s8nFE7No

[Havet]

The theist has a right to take the existence of God for granted and go on from there in his philosophical work- just as others take for granted the existence of the past, say, or of other persons, or the basic claims of contemporary physics.

There's a difference. One can confirm his hypothesis was correct through empirical evidence and the scientific method, unlike God.


God, said Calvin, has implanted in humankind a tendency or nisus or disposition to believe in him

If there was actually a God, that is...


"There is within the human mind, and indeed by natural instinct, an awareness of divinity."

There is an instinct to form quick judgments based on insufficient data, which has helped our ancestors survive immediate danger. I have never felt any awareness of divinity anymore than I felt an awareness of Santa Claus or the ToothFairy, which they were told to me they existed by my parents.


God himself has implanted in all men a certain understanding of his divine majesty . . .

I would like to see the proof of that. Too bad you don't have it.


Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without religion, there lies in this a tacit confession of a sense of deity inscribed in the hearts of all.

There lies a tacit confession that people were too stupid too believe what the religious people told them.

Let me reapply your argument.

"Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without feudalism, there lies in this a tacit confession of the sense of submission inscribed in the hearts of all".

Still think your argument is convincing?


Belief in the existence of God is then in the same boat as belief in truths of logic, other minds, the past, and perceptual objects; in each case God has so constructed us that in the right circumstances we acquire the belief in question. But then the belief that there is such a person as God is as much among the deliverances of our natural noetic faculties as are those other beliefs. Hence we know that there is such a person as God, and don't merely believe it; and it isn't by faith that we apprehend the existence of God, but by reason; and this whether or not any of the classical theistic arguments is successful.

Sorry but that's idiocy

Is it a matter of faith to assume that light comes from the sun?

Its an observation, and reason comes from observation.

Even the fact you use the word "hence" with no explanatory passages beforehand means you aren't interested in reason.

You need to actually have explained something to use the word hence.

i.e.:

kerosene is poisonous to humans, hence you shouldn't inhale it if you want to live.


But then the belief that there is such a person as God is as much among the deliverances of our natural noetic faculties as are those other beliefs.

[Missing points]

Hence we know that there is such a person as God, and don't merely believe it

there should be something in between those to sentences, but there's not.

Essentially you're just saying: "we know because we know", which clearly states how you are not interested in pursuing truth.

[Havet]

Ocam's razor is a principle with absolutely no good justification. It's a statement of preference more than anything else. It basically says: "between multiple competing theories that seem equally good in light of our observations, I prefer the one with the fewest assumptions."

Besides the fact that there is no particular reason why we should have that preference, there is another problem. In order to pick the theory with the fewest assumptions you must go about counting the assumptions of each theory. How exactly do you do that?

For example: is the existence of God one assumption, or several? What is the precise number of assumptions underlying the modern understanding of chemistry? etc.

Occam's razor is not about preference. It's about explanatory power.

Well, originally occam's razor was a mathematical thing, but it can be extended to a belief.

Occam's razor is about saying the same thing more concisely.

In science, Occam’s razor is used as a heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) (rule of thumb) to guide scientists in the development of theoretical models rather than as an arbiter between published models.[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28100.29-7)[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28101.29-8) In physics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics), parsimony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony) was an important heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) in the formulation of special relativity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity) by Albert Einstein (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein)[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28102.29-9)[11] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28103.29-10), the development and application of the principle of least action (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_action) by Pierre Louis Maupertuis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Louis_Maupertuis) and Leonhard Euler (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_Euler),[12] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28104.29-11) and the development of quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics) by Louis de Broglie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_de_Broglie), Richard Feynman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman), and Julian Schwinger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Schwinger).[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28101.29-8)[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28105.29-12)[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28106.29-13) In chemistry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemistry), Occam’s razor is often an important heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic) when developing a model of a reaction mechanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaction_mechanism).[15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28107.29-14)[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28108.29-15) However, while it is useful as a heuristic in developing models of reaction mechanisms, it has been shown to fail as a criterion for selecting among published models.[9] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocam%27s_razor#cite_note-fn_.28101.29-8)

Here's an example of how it works. Say you have one person who thinks the universe was made 5 mins ago and everything was just made to look like it existed billions of years ago.

That is faulty due to parsimony. It doesn't explain anything.

the theory of a 13 billion year old universe does and it requires more explanation because you would have to prove that it was made 5 minutes ago and made to look like its billions of years old.

We have evidence that the universe is billions of years old, so if one is going to claim that it was just made to look that old, he would have to prove it.

[Havet]

yes but this presupposes that the beings we interact with on an everyday basis are undergoing the same conscious processes that we are. ie that they're not robots created by an evil genius who's trying to trick us (if i may channel Descartes here).


At the end of the day, it comes down to at least some level of trust - trust in our senses, trust in our logical processes and consciousness, trust in reality really. Hell if you look at it from an etymological standpoint the Hebrew word for knowledge literally means "i trust that it is so". and what is trust but another word for faith? the point is, any statement of knowledge - that there is a computer in front of me or there is a god - is based on trust and faith.

trust in our senses is completely different than faith in god

faith in god by believers own admition requires nothing . They never have to see god, they don't need any evidence or proof, thereby senses are irrelevant.

It doesn't matter if you trust your senses or not, because you don't need them to have faith in god.

Except, of course you need senses for everything else. Trusting your senses is the only rational option because you can't survive without them.

[spiltteeth]

I guess you didn't read my post Hayenmill, Belief in God can be considered a basic belief. There's no proof 2+2=4, it's a basic belief.
I know 2+2=4 is true because I clearly see 2+2=4 is true, the mind is so constructed that upon seeing 2+2=4, you know it to be true, this is taken for granted to be true. It is self-evidently true. It is a basic (foundational) belief on which inferred beliefs can rationally be built upon. It can never be proven, however since it does not conflict with other basic or inferred beliefs, and it is true in the appropriate circumstances, it can be taken for granted - i.e. it can rationally be accepted as a basic belief. This is the only criteria for basic beliefs. So a belief in God would be unwarranted if it conflicted with other basic or inferred beliefs, or if it was accepted in an inappropriate circumstance (guy offers you $5 to believe in God etc)

By your reasoning, none of these can be considered reasonable beliefs, forget the others for the moment, just :


1) How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?

2) How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)

Which is why I said:


Basic beliefs, I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you'd be describing a computer, not an actual human.3) Memory. I believe it is reasonable to believe that I had oatmeal for breakfast yesterday (I did) however I cannot scientifically validate this claim (no witnesses, receipts, empty boxes etc) therefore is this an unreasonable belief?

Like William Lane Craig I maintains that one knows that Christianity is true "by the self-authenticating witness of God's Holy Spirit." By a self-authenticating experience of the Holy Spirit, Craig means an experience that is veridical and unmistakable for "him who has it" although it is "not necessarily irresistible or indubitable " Such an experience does not function, he says, as a premise in an argument from religious experience to the existence of God. Although arguments and evidence may be used to support a believer's faith, they are never the basis of that faith. Rather, the basis is the immediate experience of God himself. Craig maintains, however, that "in certain contexts" this experience of the Holy Spirit will imply the apprehension of basic truths of the Christian religion such as "Christ lives in me" and "I am condemned by God."

[Havet]

Belief in God can be considered a basic belief.

Why?


There's no proof 2+2=4, it's a basic belief.

Here's the long proof (http://digg.com/d3ZJT).

Here's the simple proof:

A number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number) is a concept used to describe and assess quantity.

Summation is the addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition) of a set of numbers; the result is their sum or total.

Since the concept used to describe and asses quantity, numbers, begins at 0 until infinite (in natural numbers, we follow the path of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc) and can be used for counting, when you put 2 entities together and another 2 entities together, the sum, which comes from counting the total quantity after placing the entities together, will result in 4.


the mind is so constructed that upon seeing 2+2=4, you know it to be true, this is taken for granted to be true.

If that were true, babies could recognize this truth upon seeing it. But they can't. They have to learn first. It is not self-evident if one hasn't been introduced to reason and logic.


By your reasoning, none of these can be considered reasonable beliefs, forget the others for the moment, just :

1) How do you know other people are not figments of yr mind?

2) How do you know those other people are persons? - that they have a mind? - A mental construct/inner life similar to yr own (instead of simply giving automatic responses that give the appearance of mind)

I already spoken of this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558036&postcount=34).

Then you mentioned other similar questions, which I answered here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558113&postcount=38).

Then you went about taking God for granted as it being a necessarily built-in belief in all humans, simply because you see that past generations also believed in invisible men living in the sky.

I answered it here:


There lies a tacit confession that people were too stupid too believe what the religious people told them.

Let me reapply your argument.

"Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without feudalism, there lies in this a tacit confession of the sense of submission inscribed in the hearts of all".

Still think your argument is convincing?



Craig means an experience that is veridical and unmistakable for "him who has it" although it is "not necessarily irresistible or indubitable "

So he "knows" God exists because he has had an experience which he simply assumes to be a product of God because he cannot explain it? Brilliant.

Under that logic, it would have been equally correct for an ancestor of us to say that The sun is horus' left eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Sun_god) simply because he couldn't explain the Sun at the time.


Although arguments and evidence may be used to support a believer's faith, they are never the basis of that faith.

Of course not. Do you think faith would still exist if all people demanded arguments and evidence?

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1559615]Why?



Here's the long proof (http://digg.com/d3ZJT).

Here's the simple proof:

A number (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number) is a concept used to describe and assess quantity.

How do you know a number is a concept?


Summation is the addition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addition) of a set of numbers; the result is their sum or total.

How do you know the result is their sum and total?


Since the concept used to describe and asses quantity, numbers, begins at 0 until infinite (in natural numbers, we follow the path of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc) and can be used for counting, when you put 2 entities together and another 2 entities together, the sum, which comes from counting the total quantity after placing the entities together, will result in 4.

How do you know the concept is true? That is describes and assess quantity accurately? That it begins at 0? Why follow the path 1, 2, 3, etc - how do you know thus is the correct path?


If that were true, babies could recognize this truth upon seeing it. But they can't. They have to learn first. It is not self-evident if one hasn't been introduced to reason and logic.

Like all basic beliefs, as I;ve said,
It is a basic (foundational) belief on which inferred beliefs can rationally be built upon. It can never be proven, however since it does not conflict with other basic or inferred beliefs, and it is true in the appropriate circumstances
The appropriate circumstances would be having the noetic structure to understand numbers, which a baby doesn't have.



I already spoken of this here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558036&postcount=34).

Then you mentioned other similar questions, which I answered here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558113&postcount=38).

Fine, I'll address that separately.



Then you went about taking God for granted as it being a necessarily built-in belief in all humans, simply because you see that past generations also believed in invisible men living in the sky.

I nowhere said belief in God is necessary, nor that it was because
I see that past generations also believed in invisible men living in the sky


I answered it here:
There lies a tacit confession that people were too stupid too believe what the religious people told them.

Let me reapply your argument.

"Therefore, since from the beginning of the world there has been no region, no city, in short, no household, that could do without feudalism, there lies in this a tacit confession of the sense of submission inscribed in the hearts of all".

Still think your argument is convincing?

So if a person says, the sky looks blue to me, there lies the tacit confession that people are too stupid to rationally deduct that the sky looks blue to them?
The thing about feudalism is false, there has been many regions that could do without feudalism.
Why would I believe a clearly false statement?


So he "knows" God exists because he has had an experience which he simply assumes to be a product of God because he cannot explain it? Brilliant.

Under that logic, it would have been equally correct for an ancestor of us to say that The sun is horus' left eye (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus#Sun_god) simply because he couldn't explain the Sun at the time.

It is not an assumption, since it is known. The sun being Horus's eye is a belief - however it would be a true statement for him to say 'I believe that horus's eye is etc'



Of course not. Do you think faith would still exist if all people demanded arguments and evidence?

Everyone I've ever met demanded evidence and arguments, or else we'd all still believe in Santa.

[spiltteeth]

=hayenmill;1559374]There's a difference. One can confirm his hypothesis was correct through empirical evidence and the scientific method, unlike God.

Right, and you could never prove that other minds exist, so it is unreasonable to believe that other people have minds?
What IS yr criteria for truth?


If there was actually a God, that is...
This is a properly basic belief.



There is an instinct to form quick judgments based on insufficient data, which has helped our ancestors survive immediate danger. I have never felt any awareness of divinity anymore than I felt an awareness of Santa Claus or the ToothFairy, which they were told to me they existed by my parents.
uh, belief in the tooth fairy does not fall under the instinct of 'quick judgement' unless yr parents were super cruel and said "quick! either you affirm the existence in the toothfairy or I'm gonna eat you right now!"



I would like to see the proof of that. Too bad you don't have it.

It's a reasonable belief that is logically consistent with reality.


Sorry but that's idiocy

Is it a matter of faith to assume that light comes from the sun?

Its an observation, and reason comes from observation.

No, it's a matter of faith that Okams razor is true, or that reason can truthfully explain observations, or your observations or true etc


Even the fact you use the word "hence" with no explanatory passages beforehand means you aren't interested in reason.

You need to actually have explained something to use the word hence.

i.e.:

kerosene is poisonous to humans, hence you shouldn't inhale it if you want to live.



there should be something in between those to sentences, but there's not.

Essentially you're just saying: "we know because we know", which clearly states how you are not interested in pursuing truth.

Are you saying there is no basis for knowledge, that basic beliefs don't exist?
So what I say here is false ? :

I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you'd be describing a computer, not an actual human.

So a guy walks outside, looks up, see's the sky, and says the sky is blue.
How does he know?
He says, its clearly evedent to my senses. Furthermore, it doesn't conflict with what else I know (other basic beliefs), also it is the appropriate circumstances - its sunny mid day and clear, not night time etc
You would say,

Essentially you're just saying: "we know because we know", which clearly states how you are not interested in pursuing truth.
and also, you say, if everyone else said "no, the sky is yellow" then that guy would have to change his beliefs, but thats not possible, since it appears to HIS senses that the sky is blue.

Odd girl, you.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Occam's razor is not about preference. It's about explanatory power.
And it is a matter of preference that you wish to choose the theory with the most explanatory power.

This preference is, of course, perfectly natural and almost self-evident in the field of science. The whole purpose of science is to explain how the universe works. Therefore, we want our scientific theories to have as much explanatory power as possible. It makes sense.

But the purpose of religion is NOT to explain how the universe works. That is why there is no particular reason to have a preference for explanatory power in religious matters.

[spiltteeth]

I forgot to mention that as a kid I didn't need any math theory or 'proofs' or logic lessons, someone told me 2+2=4, and it seemed self evident to me.

Also, thats a valid interesting point you make Kwisatz.

Occam's razor "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" : "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."

Well, the theory that everything popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces is alot simpler. You can;t prefer the scientific view that the universe just popped into existence with tons of matter and energy just already there. Both equally explain phenomena.

Lets put Occam's razor to the test of Occam's razor....hmmmm etc

[Havet]

How do you know a number is a concept?

How do you know the result is their sum and total?

How do you know the concept is true? That is describes and assess quantity accurately? That it begins at 0? Why follow the path 1, 2, 3, etc - how do you know thus is the correct path?

Like all basic beliefs, as I;ve said,
The appropriate circumstances would be having the noetic structure to understand numbers, which a baby doesn't have.

Fine, I'll address that separately.

I nowhere said belief in God is necessary, nor that it was because

So if a person says, the sky looks blue to me, there lies the tacit confession that people are too stupid to rationally deduct that the sky looks blue to them?
The thing about feudalism is false, there has been many regions that could do without feudalism.
Why would I believe a clearly false statement?

It is not an assumption, since it is known. The sun being Horus's eye is a belief - however it would be a true statement for him to say 'I believe that horus's eye is etc'

Everyone I've ever met demanded evidence and arguments, or else we'd all still believe in Santa.

"How do you know a number is a concept?"

jesus, talk about reductio ad absurdum.

Your lucky you can't grasp what an axiom is or it would blow your mind.

"Everyone I've ever met demanded evidence and arguments, or else we'd all still believe in Santa."

You've got to love it when religious types destroy their own arguments without noticing.

If i apparently "forgot" to address some of your points, its because they are TOO ridiculous.

Eg: the whole "the guy walks up and sees the sky as blue, how does he know?"

Obviously, as I mentioned before, there have to be other ways to make sure he knows what he is seeing, because senses can be deceiving. These other ways are, for eg, cross reference of information with other people.

[Havet]

And it is a matter of preference that you wish to choose the theory with the most explanatory power.

This preference is, of course, perfectly natural and almost self-evident in the field of science. The whole purpose of science is to explain how the universe works. Therefore, we want our scientific theories to have as much explanatory power as possible. It makes sense.

But the purpose of religion is NOT to explain how the universe works. That is why there is no particular reason to have a preference for explanatory power in religious matters.

"But the purpose of religion is NOT to explain how the universe works. That is why there is no particular reason to have a preference for explanatory power in religious matters."

Yeah cause its not like any religions claim statements of fact about reality.

[Havet]

Well, the theory that everything popped into existence 5 minutes ago with memory traces is alot simpler. You can;t prefer the scientific view that the universe just popped into existence with tons of matter and energy just already there. Both equally explain phenomena.

Lets put Occam's razor to the test of Occam's razor....hmmmm etc

Fail. The theory that everything popped into existence 5 minutes ago needs evidence to back it up, of which there is non.

There is volumes of evidence to show that the universe is billions of years old. Light travelling from distant stars, radiometric dating etc.

The only thing you could say about the 5 minute theory is that everything was made to just look like it was billions of years ago, in which case you need extra evidence to prove it.

Just like you'd need evidence to prove the existences of other universes or such.

EDIT: just to clear up,

the 5 minute theory is not simpler because it requires extra evidence that is not provided.

I.e. we know theres evidence that proves memories can be formed by events, we don't have any evidence that memories have been magically created somehow without any events needing to happen.

If they have evidence this has happened make them lay it out, if they don't then its a useless hypothesis, since it explains nothing extra and has no evidence.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1565511]"How do you know a number is a concept?"

jesus, talk about reductio ad absurdum.

Your lucky you can't grasp what an axiom is or it would blow your mind.

Kinda my point, 2 +2=4, is a basic belief. Einstein wrote a book length paper trying to prove it, Bertrund Russell said his quest was for mathematical certainty, to prove 1+1= 2. An axiom can be a basic belief, so can belief in God, as I've explained generously.


"Everyone I've ever met demanded evidence and arguments, or else we'd all still believe in Santa."

You've got to love it when religious types destroy their own arguments without noticing.

Belief in Santa is logically impossible, it doesn't meet the criteria to be a basic belief, as I've explained, so how does this destroy my argument? No one, to my knowledge, has started a religion on Santa, despite it being a comfy belief, no one has claimed a compelling argument exists for Santa, nor can I imagine an argument to support the claim Santa is real.

I
f i apparently "forgot" to address some of your points, its because they are TOO ridiculous.

Eg: the whole "the guy walks up and sees the sky as blue, how does he know?"

Obviously, as I mentioned before, there have to be other ways to make sure he knows what he is seeing, because senses can be deceiving. These other ways are, for eg, cross reference of information with other people.

There are none. It is a basic belief. I already addressed this, but what are you to say? "Hey everyone, does the sky look blue to me?" How would they possibly know?
I addressed it here:

and also, you say, if everyone else said "no, the sky is yellow" then that guy would have to change his beliefs, but thats not possible, since it appears to HIS senses that the sky is blue.

I'll give you YET another example. A guy is in court, he knows he's innocent, but the evidence against him is overwhelming, therefore, according to you, the guy would have to believe he is indeed guilty.

Very logically inconsistent, then again I've never met or heard of a logically consistent atheists.

So far, you have not addressed a single question I've put to you. Why is my Belief in the soul less reasonable than yr belief in free-will, what is yr criteria for truth, the existence of other minds, and so on etc.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1565514]Fail. The theory that everything popped into existence 5 minutes ago needs evidence to back it up, of which there is non.

There is volumes of evidence to show that the universe is billions of years old. Light travelling from distant stars, radiometric dating etc.

The only thing you could say about the 5 minute theory is that everything was made to just look like it was billions of years ago, in which case you need extra evidence to prove it.

Just like you'd need evidence to prove the existences of other universes or such.

EDIT: just to clear up,

the 5 minute theory is not simpler because it requires extra evidence that is not provided.

The 5 min theory was created by Bertaund Russell, thus far no-one has answered it, Richard Dawkins has even acknowledged this. What evidence does it need?
Everything is five minutes old. That's it. It's a simple theory with huge implications. The big bang, the advent of life, your first kiss never happened. What did happen all those years and centuries ago? Nothing. Time itself began five minutes ago. The universe popped into existence, complete with you and me, and its clockwork started ticking.

You may remember your first kiss all those years ago in vivid detail, but that only shows that images and feelings are contained somewhere in your neural circuitry. According to the theory, those memories are just five minutes old, too. Try as you may, no fact or memory or circumstance logically requires a believer to abandon this theory. For whatever you point to, the believer can reply that it came to be five minutes ago. The logic is unbeatable.
The five minute hypothesis presents its special difficulties. Because the entropy of the universe five minutes ago is higher than the initial entropy of the universe, there is an intuitive argument that if the universe came into existence by chance, it is more likely to have come into existence much as it was five minutes ago than much as it was at the Big Bang.
Are you familiar with Boltzmann’s Brains?
Here’s how it goes. Forget that we are “typical” or any such thing. Take for granted that we are exactly who we are — in other words, that the macrostate of the universe is exactly what it appears to be, with all the stars and galaxies etc. By the “macrostate of the universe,” we mean everything we can observe about it, but not the precise position and momentum of every atom and photon. Now, you might be tempted to think that you reliably know something about the past history of our local universe — your first kiss, the French Revolution, the formation of the cosmic microwave background, etc. But you don’t really know those things — you reconstruct them from your records and memories right here and now, using some basic rules of thumb and your belief in certain laws of physics.
The point is that, within this hypothetical thermal equilibrium universe from which we are purportedly a fluctuation, there are many fluctuations that reach exactly this macrostate — one with a hundred billion galaxies, a Solar System just like ours, and a person just like you with exactly the memories you have. And in the hugely overwhelming majority of them, all of your memories and reconstructions of the past are false. In almost every fluctuation that creates universes like the ones we see, both the past and the future have a higher entropy than the present — downward fluctuations in entropy are unlikely, and the larger the fluctuation the more unlikely it is, so the vast majority of fluctuations to any particular low-entropy configuration never go lower than that.
Therefore, this hypothesis — that our universe, complete with all of our records and memories, is a thermal fluctuation around a thermal equilibrium state — makes a very strong prediction: that our past is nothing like what we reconstruct it to be, but rather that all of our memories and records are simply statistical flukes created by an unlikely conspiracy of random motions. In this view, the photograph you see before you used to be yellow and wrinkled, and before that was just a dispersed collection of dust, before miraculously forming itself out of the chaos.
Note that this scenario makes no assumptions about our typicality — it assumes, to the contrary, that we are exactly who we (presently) perceive ourselves to be, no more and no less. But in this scenario, we have absolutely no right to trust any of our memories or reconstructions of the past; they are all just a mirage. And the assumptions that we make to derive that conclusion are exactly the assumptions we really do make to do conventional statistical mechanics! Boltzmann taught us long ago that it’s possible for heat to flow from cold objects to hot ones, or for cream to spontaneously segregate itself away from a surrounding cup of coffee — it’s just very unlikely. But when we say “unlikely” we have in mind some measure on the space of possibilities. And it’s exactly that assumed measure that would lead us to conclude, in this crazy fluctuation-world, that all of our notions of the past are chimeric.
Now, just like Boltzmann’s Brain, nobody believes this is true. In fact, you can’t believe it’s true, by any right. All of the logic you used to tell that story, and all of your ideas about the laws of physics, depend on your ability to reliably reconstruct the past. This scenario, in other words, is cognitively unstable; useful as a rebuke to the original hypothesis, but not something that can stand on its own.


I.e. we know theres evidence that proves memories can be formed by events, we don't have any evidence that memories have been magically created somehow without any events needing to happen.

If they have evidence this has happened make them lay it out, if they don't then its a useless hypothesis, since it explains nothing extra and has no evidence.

There's no evidence of memories being false? Do you really want me to take that seriously?

[spiltteeth]

I ought to mention Aldous Huxley wrote a good book on what we're talking about called 'Eyeless in Gaza.' A man gets stuck with an entire people who are blind, he tries to tell them about all the things he see's, but everyone say's he's insane, hallucinating. He begins to doubt himself. In the end, after years and years of suffering, he gouges out his eyes.

[Nwoye]

I ought to mention Aldous Huxley wrote a good book on what we're talking about called 'Eyeless in Gaza.' A man gets stuck with an entire people who are blind, he tries to tell them about all the things he see's, but everyone say's he's insane, hallucinating. He begins to doubt himself. In the end, after years and years of suffering, he gouges out his eyes.
i'm gonna look that up thanks

[spiltteeth]

Yea, its an interesting book, one of the characters becomes a Marxist and take up arms with Mexican revolutionaries.
It's about a bunch of lost upper class people looking for meaning in life.

[Havet]

There's no evidence of memories being false? Do you really want me to take that seriously?

Sigh. I guess I shouldn't be dissapointed, since I know the only reason your acting like that is because you have no evidence, and acknowledging that fact would make your whole idiotic house of cards fall down.

Its shocking how many people pretend they don't get burden of proof, and don't get that they instinctively know it.

I imagine going up to one of you people in real life.

You: Hey idiot! I planted an invisible bomb into your brain last night, you can't detect it in any way, and if you try it'll detonate and kill you, if you don't give me all your money I'll set it off!

Idiot: Of course, theres no way I can prove theres not a bomb in my brain, so I better do what you say.

Or maybe I can tell the hot female idiots that they have an incurable disease that can't be detected by "science", and that the only cure is in their pants.

Yeah right...:rolleyes:

(actually that was a very mean thought)

Too bad you don't actually apply your philosophy consistently or I could have alot of fun with you.

[Havet]

Kinda my point, 2 +2=4, is a basic belief. Einstein wrote a book length paper trying to prove it, Bertrund Russell said his quest was for mathematical certainty, to prove 1+1= 2. An axiom can be a basic belief, so can belief in God, as I've explained generously.

In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision). Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.


An example would be the action axiom. This axiom states simply that humans act. This is irrefutable because a simple attempt to refute it would in fact be a human action, thus implicitly accepting the statement as true and nullifying the argument. Thus, the action axiom is an example of what is referred to as a synthetic a priori statement, which is beyond empirical verification or refutation.


Belief in Santa is logically impossible, it doesn't meet the criteria to be a basic belief, as I've explained, so how does this destroy my argument? No one, to my knowledge, has started a religion on Santa, despite it being a comfy belief, no one has claimed a compelling argument exists for Santa, nor can I imagine an argument to support the claim Santa is real.

Belief in God is logically impossible.

It doesn't matter whether one has started a religion on Santa or not. What matters is that God is a comfortable belief, though no compelling arguments exists, nor can one imagine an argument to support the claim that God is real, just like you said to Santa.

This destroys your argument because you were taking two different mythical characters, which cannot be logically proven, and claim one is somehow true over the other.


I'll give you YET another example. A guy is in court, he knows he's innocent, but the evidence against him is overwhelming, therefore, according to you, the guy would have to believe he is indeed guilty.

you're (deliberately) confusing the two different definitions of "evidence". One in the usage of a courtroom and the other in science. Also you're wording the situation to deliberately enforce solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism).

Say there is a man in court. His DNA was found all over the crime scene. His finger prints where found on the murder weapon which was covered in the victims blood.

All the "evidence" is against him. He say's he "knows" he's innocent. What do you believe?

Obviously the only reasonable evaluation is to trust the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE over the mans word .

Many times religions use the notion of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY to try and "defeat" science.

Since your belief is based on faith, you are "ALWAYS right". Scientific knowledge is, and relies upon being proved wrong. Every time "science" is proved wrong, it means we have a new theory or new evidence that explains things in the way we couldn't before.

If scientific theories where never proved wrong, we'd never have learnt anything. The evolution of the scientific model of the atom is a perfect example of this, but it is too long to get into here, though I'm unsure you know it.

However, people like you are emotionally tied into the idea of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Its comfortable, not knowing isn't. There are big questions we don't have answers to (whats the origin of the universe being the main one). Some people can't handle that.

Therefore you don't even want to try and understand science. You say dumb things like "science can't prove everything", or "science is proven wrong all the time" (Notice I am using "You" in a more general form to describe other religious people).

-----

To sumarize:

This is the point, as a Christian, you are putting yourself in the position of the solipsist, i.e. "I KNOW god exists", i.e. the man in court. As a scientist I would be in the jury.

Its possible that this man is innocent, and that all the evidence is false, but as an outside observer, which is man's position in the universe, there is no reason to believe "faith" (i.e. I KNOW!) above evidence.

Having evidence doesn't mean something is true. Evidence is something that CAN be used to prove a hypothesis.

There is evidence that cell phone use causes cancer, this does not mean that they in fact do.

What is or is not is a matter of fact. Evidence is one part of the scientific method (observation) that we use to try and work out what the fact is.

Scientific theories can and are often wrong. however "right" and "wrong" aren't scientifically useful terms, only what has more explanatory power than not.

Religion therefore is one of the weakest explanatory theories in existence. Because not only does it make no claims of observable reality (try asking someone where heaven or god is, the answer is invaraible EVERYWHERE or ANOTHER DIMENSION), but it actively shuts down any further exploration of the truth.

"This is what god did and theres no reason to explore it anymore, because God is love, and maths, and everything. God can't be wrong, and science can't explain XYZ."

The plum pudding model of the atom explained more than the previous model, it explained the phenomenon of electricity. The Quark model of the atom then explains quantum randomness. And whenever the CERN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cern)experiments go underway, there'll be an even more detailed model of the atom that proves our current one incomplete.

The point is it is very rare in science that a theory is COMPLETELY proved wrong, usually it is just adapted when new information comes to light. Even when a theory is completely wrong, it was not completely wrong if it served a useful purpose.

For example, ancient men used to believe wood contained fire, and that by rubbing it together you released the fire. While a very rudimentary and flawed theory, it still has explanatory power (i.e. you can make fire with wood), and eventually over improving science, we got to a point where we learnt fire is caused by combustion of chemical compounds.

Its simply not possible to go from no knowledge to full knowledge, so even flawed theories have their place and use. Religion, however, does not allow for the exploration of further truth.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1565765]In traditional logic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic), an axiom or postulate is a proposition that is not proved or demonstrated but considered to be either self-evident (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-evidence), or subject to necessary decision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decision). Therefore, its truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths.


An example would be the action axiom. This axiom states simply that humans act. This is irrefutable because a simple attempt to refute it would in fact be a human action, thus implicitly accepting the statement as true and nullifying the argument. Thus, the action axiom is an example of what is referred to as a synthetic a priori statement, which is beyond empirical verification or refutation.

Again, that is my point. It's silly to ask for evidence for an axiom. It is a foundational belief. It's basic, like God. I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR GOD. My whole argument is that it is non-sensical to ask for proof, as nonsensical as asking for proof that 2+2=4. And besides being a basic belief, there are arguments for God that are not proof, but are reasonably compelling for some people.


Belief in God is logically impossible.

Any reason for this? Or....


It doesn't matter whether one has started a religion on Santa or not. What matters is that God is a comfortable belief, though no compelling arguments exists, nor can one imagine an argument to support the claim that God is real, just like you said to Santa.

This destroys your argument because you were taking two different mythical characters, which cannot be logically proven, and claim one is somehow true over the other.

First, belief in God need not be logically proven to be rational, as I've explained ad nauseum, Other minds can't be logically proven! Or many memories! Do you say anyone who believes other people exist is irrational?

There are reasonably compelling argument, individually they not mean much, but taken together they can, for some people, constitute a reasonable belief.
I know of none foe Santa Claus, here are ontological, moral, and epistemological arguments, that, when taken together, can for some people constitute a compelling argument :


Half a Dozen (or so) ontological (or metaphysical) arguments

(A) The Argument from Intentionality (or Aboutness)

Consider propositions: the things that are true or false, that are capable of being believed, and that stand in logical relations to one another. They also have another property: aboutness or intentionality. (not intensionality, and not thinking of contexts in which coreferential terms are not substitutable salva veritate) Represent reality or some part of it as being thus and so. This crucially connected with their being true or false. Diff from, e.g., sets, (which is the real reason a proposition would not be a set of possible worlds, or of any other objects.)

Many have thought it incredible that propositions should exist apart from the activity of minds. How could they just be there, if never thought of? (Sellars, Rescher, Husserl, many others; probably no real Platonists besides Plato before Frege, if indeed Plato and Frege were Platonists.) (and Frege, that alleged arch-Platonist, referred to propositions as gedanken.) Connected with intentionality. Representing things as being thus and so, being about something or other--this seems to be a property or activity of minds or perhaps thoughts . So extremely tempting to think of propositions as ontologically dependent upon mental or intellectual activity in such a way that either they just are thoughts, or else at any rate couldn't exist if not thought of. (According to the idealistic tradition beginning with Kant, propositions are essentially judgments.) But if we are thinking of human thinkers, then there are far to many propositions: at least, for example, one for every real number that is distinct from the Taj Mahal. On the other hand, if they were divine thoughts, no problem here. So perhaps we should think of propositions as divine thoughts. Then in our thinking we would literally be thinking God's thoughts after him.

(Aquinas, De Veritate "Even if there were no human intellects, there could be truths because of their relation to the divine intellect. But if, per impossibile, there were no intellects at all, but things continued to exist, then there would be no such reality as truth.")

This argument will appeal to those who think that intentionality is a characteristic of propositions, that there are a lot of propositions, and that intentionality or aboutness is dependent upon mind in such a way that there couldn't be something p about something where p had never been thought of.

(B) The argument from collections.

Many think of sets as displaying the following characteristics (among others): (1) no set is a member of itself; (2) sets (unlike properties) have their extensions essentially; hence sets are contingent beings and no set could have existed if one of its members had not; (3) sets form an iterated structure: at the first level, sets whose members are nonsets, at the second, sets whose members are nonsets or first level sets, etc. Many (Cantor) also inclined to think of sets as collections--i.e., things whose existence depends upon a certain sort of intellectual activity--a collecting or "thinking together" (Cantor). If sets were collections, that would explain their having the first three features. But of course there are far to many sets for them to be a product of human thinking together; there are many sets such that no human being has ever thought their members together, many that are such that their members have not been thought together by any human being. That requires an infinite mind--one like God's.

A variant: perhaps a way to think together all the members of a set is to attend to a certain property and then consider all the things that have that property: e.g., all the natural numbers. Then many infinite sets are sets that could have been collected by human beings; but not nearly all--not, e.g., arbitrary collections of real numbers. (axiom of choice)

This argument will appeal to those who think there are lots of sets and either that sets have the above three properties or that sets are collections.

Charles Parsons, "What is the Iterative Conception of Set?" in Mathematics in Philosophy pp 268 ff.

Hao Wang From Mathematics to Philosophy chap. 6: iterative and constructivist (i.e., the basic idea is that sets are somehow constructed and are constructs) conception of set.

Note that on the iterative conception, the elements of a set are in an important sense prior to the set; that is why on this conception no set is a member of itself, and this disarms the Russell paradoxes in the set theoretical form, although of course it does nothing with respect to the property formulation of the paradoxes. (Does Chris Menzel's way of thinking bout propositions as somehow constructed by God bear here?)

Cantor's definition of set (1895):

By a "set" we understand any collection M into a whole of definite well-distinguished objects of our intuition or our thought (which will be called the "elements" of M) Gesammelte Abhandlungen mathematischen und philosophischen, ed. Ernst Zermelo, Berlin: Springer, 1932 p. 282.

Shoenfield (Mathematical Logic) l967 writes:

A closer examination of the (Russell) paradox shows that it does not really contradict the intuitive notion of a set. According to this notion, a set A is formed by gathering together certain objects to form a single object, which is the set A. Thus before the set A is formed, we must have available all of the objects which are to be members of A. (238)

Wang: "The set is a single object formed by collecting the members together." (238)

Wang: (182)

It is a basic feature of reality that there are many things. When a multitude of given objects can be collected together, we arrive at a set. For example, there are two tables in this room. We are ready to view them as given both separately and as a unity, and justify this by pointing to them or looking at them or thinking about them either one after the other or simultaneously. Somehow the viewing of certain objects together suggests a loose link which ties the objects together in our intuition.

(C) The argument From (Natural) numbers

(I once heard Tony Kenny attribute a particularly elegant version of this argument to Bob Adams.) It also seems plausible to think of numbers as dependent upon or even constituted by intellectual activity; indeed, students always seem to think of them as "ideas" or "concepts", as dependent, somehow, upon our intellectual activity. So if there were no minds, there would be no numbers. (According to Kroneker, God made the natural numbers and man made the rest--not quite right if the argument from sets is correct.) But again, there are too many of them for them to arise as a result of human intellectual activity. Consider, for example, the following series of functions: 2 lambda n is two to the second to the second .... to the second n times. The second member is ##2 (n); the third 3#2(n), etc. (See The Mathematical Gardener, the essay by Knuth.) 6**2(15), for example would be a number many times larger than any human being could grasp. , for example, is to the We should therefore think of them as among God's ideas. Perhaps, as Christopher Menzel suggests (special issue of Faith and Philosophy) they are properties of equinumerous sets, where properties are God's concepts.

There is also a similar argument re properties . Properties seem very similar to concepts. (Is there really a difference between thinking of the things that fall under the concept horse and considering the things that have the property of being a horse?) In fact many have found it natural to think of properties as reified concepts. But again, there are properties, one wants to say, that have never been entertained by any human being; and it also seems wrong to think that properties do not exist before human beings conceive them. But then (with respect to these considerations) it seems likely that properties are the concepts of an unlimited mind: a divine mind.

(D) The Argument From Counterfactuals

Consider such a counterfactual as

(1) If Neal had gone into law he would have been in jail by now.

It is plausible to suppose that such a counterfactual is true if and only if its consequent is true in the nearby (i.e., sufficiently similar) possible worlds in which its antecedent is true (Stalnaker, Lewis, Pollock, Nute). But of course for any pair of distinct possible worlds W and W*, there will be infinitely many respects in which they resemble each other, and infinitely many in which they differ. Given agreement on these respects and on the degree of difference within the respects, there can still be disagreement about the resultant total similarity of the two situations. What you think here--which possible worlds you take to be similar to which others uberhaupt will depend upon how you weight the various respects.

Illustrative interlude: Chicago Tribune, June 15, l986:

"When it comes to the relationship between man, gorilla and chimpanzee, Morris Goodman doesn't monkey around.

"No matter where you look on the genetic chain the three of us are 98.3% identical" said Goodman, a Wayne State University professor in anatomy and cell biology.

"Other than walking on two feet and not being so hairy, the main different between us and a chimp is our big brain" said the professor. . . . . the genetic difference between humans and chimps is about 1.7 %.

"How can we be so close genetically if we look so different? There's only a .2 % difference between a dachshund and a Great Dane, yet both look quite different (sic)," Goodman said.

"He explained that if you look at the anatomies of humans and chimps, chimps get along better in trees than people, but humans get along better on the ground. (Or in subways, libraries and submarines.)

How similar uberhaupt you think chimps and humans are will depend upon how you rate the various respects in which they differ: composition of genetic material, hairiness, brain size, walking on two legs, appreciation of Mozart, grasp of moral distinctions, ability to play chess, ability to do philosophy, awareness of God, etc. End of Illustrative interlude

Some philosophers as a result argue that counterfactuals contain an irreducibly subjective element. E.g., consider this from van Fraassen:

Consider again statement (3) about the plant sprayed with defoliant. It is true in a given situation exactly if the 'all else' that is kept 'fixed' is such as to rule out the death of the plant for other reason. But who keeps what fixed? The speaker, in his mind. .... Is there an objective right or wrong about keeping one thing rather than another firmly in mind when uttering the antecedent? (The Scientific Image p. 116)

(This weighting of similarities) and therefore don't belong in serious, sober, objective science. The basic idea is that considerations as to which respects (of difference) are more important than which is not something that is given in rerum natura, but depends upon our interests and aims and plans. In nature apart from mind, there are no such differences in importance among respects of difference.

Now suppose you agree that such differences among respects of difference do in fact depend upon mind, but also think (as in fact most of us certainly do) that counterfactuals are objectively true or false: you can hold both of these if you think there is an unlimited mind such that the weightings it makes are then the objectively correct ones (its assignments of weights determine the correct weights). No human mind, clearly, could occupy this station. God's mind, however, could; what God sees as similar is similar.

Joseph Mondola, "The Indeterminacy of Options", APQ April l987 argues for the indeterminacy of many counterfactuals on the grounds that I cite here, substantially.

(E) The Argument from physical constants

(Look at Barrow and Tipler The Anthropic Cosmological Principle)

Carr and Rees ("The Anthropic Principle and the Structure of the Physical World" (Nature, l979)):

"The basic features of galaxies, stars, planets and the everyday world are essentially determined by a few microphysical constants and by the effects of gravitation. . . . several aspects of our Universe--some which seem to be prerequisites for the evolution of any form of life--depend rather delicately on apparent 'coincidences' among the physical constants" ( p. 605).

If the force of gravity were even slightly stronger, all stars would be blue giants; if even slightly weaker, all would be red dwarfs. (Brandon Carter, "Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology", in M. S. Longair, ed, Confrontation of Cosmological Theories with Observational Data l979 p. 72 According to Carter, under these conditions there would probably be no life. So probably if the strength of gravity were even slightly different, habitable planets would not exist.

The existence of life also depends delicately upon the rate at which the universe is expanding. S. W. Hawking "The Anisotropy of the Universe at Large Times" in Longair p., 285:

"...reduction of the rate of expansion by one part in 1012 at the time when the temperature of the Universe was 1010 K would have resulted in the Universe's starting to recollapse when its radius was only 1/3000 of the present value and the temperature was still 10,000 K"--much too warm for comfort. He concludes that life is only possible because the Universe is expanding at just the rate required to avoid recollapse".

If the strong nuclear forces were different by about 5% life would not have been able to evolve.

The same goes for the weak interaction force.

So if the weakness of the gravitational force relative to the electromagnetic force, or the strength of either the strong or weak forces were altered even slightly one way or the other, the universe would have been largely different, so different in fact that life could not exist. Pat Wilson, "The Anthropic Cosmological Principle" unpublished.

Similarly for the number of neutrinos, and for the mass of the neutrino

Before doing much of anything with this (and for Oxford, maybe only mention it and work harder with others) look again at: "The SAP also Rises: . . . " American Philosophical Quarterly, Oct. l987

Davies, P. C. W., The Accidental Universe, l982:

All this prompts the question of why, from the infinite range of possible values that nature could have selected for the fundamental constants, and from the infinite variety of initial conditions that could have characterized the primeval universe, the actual values and conditions conspire to produce the particular range of very special features that we observe. For clearly the universe is a very special place: exceedingly uniform on a large scale, yet not so precisely uniform that galaxies could not form; ...an expansion rate tuned to the energy content to unbelievable accuracy; values for the strengths of its forces that permit nuclei to exist, yet do not burn up all the cosmic hydrogen, and many more apparent accidents of fortune. p. 111

And what is impressive about all these coincidences is that they are apparently required for the existence of life as we know it (as they say).

Some thinkers claim that none of this ought to be thought surprising or as requiring explanation: no matter how things had been, it would have been exceedingly improbable. (No matter what distribution of cards is dealt, the distribution dealt will be improbable.) This is perhaps right, but how does it work? and how is it relevant? We are playing poker; each time I deal I get all the aces; you get suspicious: I try to allay your suspicions by pointing out that my getting all the aces each time I deal is no more improbable than any other equally specific distribution over the relevant number of deals. Would that explanation play in Dodge City (or Tombstone)?

Others invoke the Anthropic Principle, which is exceedingly hard to understand but seems to point out that a necessary condition of these values of the physical constants being observed at all (by us or other living beings) is that they have very nearly the values they do have; we are here to observe these constants only because they have the values they do have. Again, this seems right, but how is it relevant? What does it explain? It still seems puzzling that these constants should have just the values they do. Why weren't they something quite different? This is not explained by pointing out that we are here. (a counterexample to Hempelian claims about explanation) Like "explaining" the fact that God has decided to create me (instead of passing me over in favor of someone else) by pointing out that I am in fact here, and that if God had not thus decided, I wouldn't have been here to raise the question.

Another approach:

Abstract:

We examine the question of whether the present isotropic state of the universe could have resulted from initial conditions which were "chaotic" in the sense of being arbitrary, any anisotropy dying away as the universe expanded. We show that the set of spatially homogeneous cosmological models which approach isotropy at infinite times is of measure zero in the space of all spatially homogenous models. This indicates that the isotropy of the Robertson-Walker models is unstable to homogeneous and anisotropic perturbations. It therefore seems that there is only a small set of initial conditions that would give rise to universal models which would be isotropic to within the observed limits at the present time. One possible way out of this difficulty is to suppose that there is an infinite number of universes with all possible different initial conditions. Only those universes which are expanding just fast enough to avoid recollapsing would contain galaxies, and hence intelligent life. However, it seems that this subclass of universes which have just the escape velocity would in general approach isotropy. On this view, the fact that we observe the universe to be isotropic would simply be a reflection of our own existence.

We shall now put forward an idea which offers a possible way out of this difficulty. This idea is based on the discovery that homogeneous cosmological models do in general tend toward isotropy if they have exactly the same escape velocity. Of course, such "parabolic" homogeneous models form a set of measure zero among all homogeneous models. However, we can justify their consideration by adopting a philosophy which has been suggested by Dicke (1961) and Carter (1968). In this approach one postulates that there is not one universe, but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions. From the existence of the unstable anisotropic model it follows that nearly all of the universes become highly anisotropic. However, these universes would not be expected to contain galaxies, since condensations can grow only in universes in which the rate of expansion is just sufficient to avoid recollapse. The existence of galaxies would seem to be a necessary precondition for the development of any form of intelligent life. Thus there will be life only in those universes which tend toward isotropy at large times. The fact that we have observed the universe to be isotropic therefore only a consequence of our own existence. 319

Spatially homogeneous models can be divided into three classes: those which have less than the escape velocity (.e., those whose rate of expansion is insufficient to prevent them from recollapsing), those which have just the escape velocity, and those which have more than the escape velocity. Models of the first class exist only for a finite time, and therefore do not approach arbitrarily near to isotropy. We have shown that models of the third class do in general tend to isotropy at arbitrarily large times. Those models of the second class which are sufficiently near to the Robertson-Walker models do in general tend to isotropy, but this class is of measure zero in the space of all homogeneous models. It therefore seems that one cannot explain the isotropy of the universe without postulating special initial conditions.. . . .

The most attractive answer would seems to come from the Dickie-Carter idea that there is a very large number of universes, with all possible combinations of initial data and values of the fundamental constants. In those universes with less than the escape velocity small density perturbations will not have time to develop into galaxies and stars before the universe recollapses. In those universes with more than the escape velocity, small density perturbations would still have more than the escape velocity, and so would not form bound systems. It is only in those universes which have very nearly the escape velocity that one could expect galaxies to develop, and we have found that such universes will in general approach isotropy. Since it would seem that the existence of galaxies is a necessary condition for the development of intelligent life, the answer to the question "why is the universe isotropic?" is "because we are here". 334

C. B. Colling and S.W. Hawking, "Why is the Universe Isotropic?" The Astrophysical Journal, March 1, l973

Here you had better look up Alan Guth , "Inflationary Universes: A possible solution to the horizon and flatness problems, Physical Review D, 23, 1981 347-356, and some other pieces mentioned by John Earman, "The SAP also Rises: . . . " American Philosophical Quarterly, Oct. l987

From a theistic point of view, however, no mystery at all and an easy explanation.

(F) The Naive Teleological Argument

Swinburne:

The world is a complicated thing. There are lots and lots of different bits of matter, existing over endless time (or possibly beginning to exist at some finite time). The bits of it have finite and not particularly natural sizes, shapes, masses, etc; and they come together in finite, diverse and very far from natural conglomerations (viz. lumps of matter on planets and stars, and distributed throughout interstellar space). . . . . Matter is inert and has no powers which it can choose to exercise; it does what it has to do. yet each bit of matter behaves in exactly the same way as similar bits of matter throughout time and space, the way codified in natural laws. . . . . all electrons throughout endless time and space have exactly the same powers and properties as all other electrons (properties of attracting, repelling, interacting, emitting radiation, etc.), all photons have the same powers and properties as all other photons etc., etc. Matter is complex, diverse, but regular in its behaviour. Its existence and behaviour need explaining in just the kind of way that regular chemical combinations needed explaining; or it needs explaining when we find all the cards of a pack arranged in order. EG 288

Newton: Whence arises all this order and beauty and structure?

Hume Dialogues: Cleanthes: Consider, anatomize the eye. Survey its structure and contrivance, and tell me, from your own feeling, if the idea of a contriver does not immediately flow in upon you with a force like that of sensation. The most obvious conclusion, surely, is in favour of design, and it requires time, reflection and study to summon up those frivolous, though abstruse objections which can support infidelity.

The idea: the beauty, order and structure of the universe and the structure of its parts strongly suggest that it was designed; it seems absurd to think that such a universe should have just been there, that it wasn't designed and created but just happened. Contemplating these things can result in a strong impulse to believe that the universe was indeed designed--by God.

(Hume's version may be very close to a wholly different style of "argument": one where the arguer tries to help the arguee achieve the sort of situation in which the Sensus Divinitatis operates.)

(G) Tony Kenny's style of teleological argument

(h) The ontological argument

Another argument thrown in for good measure.
Why is there anything at all? That is, why are there any contingent beings at all? (Isn't that passing strange, as S says?) An answer or an explanation that appealed to any contingent being would of course raise the same question again. A good explanation would have to appeal to a being that could not fail to exist, and (unlike numbers, propositions, sets, properties and other abstract necessary beings) is capable of explaining the existence of contingent beings (by, for example, being able to create them). The only viable candidate for this post seems to be God, thought of as the bulk of the theistic tradition has thought of him: that is, as a necessary being, but also as a concrete being, a being capable of causal activity. (Difference from S's Cosmo Arg: on his view God a contingent being, so no answer to the question "Why are there anything (contingent) at all?"

II. Half a dozen Epistemological Arguments

(J) The argument from positive epistemic status

Clearly many of our beliefs do have positive epistemic status for us (at any rate most of us think so, most of us accept this premise). As we have seen, positive epistemic status is best thought of as a matter of a belief's being produced by cognitive faculties that are functioning properly in the sort of environment that is appropriate for them. The easiest and most natural way to think of proper functioning, however, is in terms of design: a machine or an organism is working properly when it is working in the way it was designed to work by the being that designed it. But clearly the best candidate for being the being who has designed our cognitive faculties would be God.

This premise of this argument is only a special case of a much broader premise: there are many natural (nonartifactual) things in the world besides our cognitive faculties such that they function properly or improperly: organs of our bodies and of other organisms, for example. (Tony Kenny's design argument)

Objection: perhaps there is indeed this initial tendency to see these things as the product of intelligent design; but there is a powerful defeater in evolutionary theory, which shows us a perfectly natural way in which all of these things might have come about without design.

Reply: (1) is it in fact plausible to think that human beings, for example, have arisen through the sorts of mechanisms (random genetic mutation and natural selection) in the time that according to contemporary science that has been available? The conference of biologists and mathematicians ("Mathematical Challenges to the NeoDarwinian Interpretation of Evolution", ed. Paul Morehead and Martin Kaplan, Philadelphia, Wistar Institute Press); the piece by Houston Smith. The chief problem: most of the paths one might think of from the condition of not having eyes, for example, to the condition of having them will not work; each mutation along the way has to be adaptive, or appropriately connected with something adaptive. (2) There does not appear to be any decent naturalistic account of the origin of life, or of language.

(K) The Argument from the confluence of proper function and reliability

We ordinarily think that when our faculties are functioning properly in the right sort of environment, they are reliable. Theism, with the idea that God has created us in his image and in such a way that we can acquire truth over a wide range of topics and subjects, provides an easy, natural explanation of that fact. The only real competitor here is nontheistic evolutionism; but nontheistic evolution would at best explain our faculties' being reliable with respect to propositions which are such that having a true belief with respect to them has survival value. That does not obviously include moral beliefs, beliefs of the kind involved in completeness proofs for axiomatizations of various first order systems, and the like. (More poignantly, beliefs of the sort involved in science, or in thinking evolution is a plausible explanation of the flora a fauna we see.) Still further, true beliefs as such don't have much by way of survival value; they have to be linked with the right kind of dispositions to behavior. What evolution requires is that our behavior have survival value, not necessarily that our beliefs be true. (Sufficient that we be programmed to act in adaptive ways.) But there are many ways in which our behavior could be adaptive, even if our beliefs were for the most part false. Our whole belief structure might (a) be a sort of byproduct or epiphenomenon, having no real connection with truth, and no real connection with our action. Or (b) our beliefs might be connected in a regular way with our actions, and with our environment, but not in such as way that the beliefs would be for the most part true.

Can we define a notion of natural plausibility, so that we can say with Salmon that belief in God is just implausible, and hence needs a powerful argument from what is plausible? This would make a good section in the book. Here could argue that what you take to be naturally plausible depends upon whether you are a theist or not. (It doesn't have to do only with what seems plausible to you, or course) And here could put into this volume some of the stuff from the other one about these questions not being metaphysically or theologically neutral.

Patricia Churchland (JP LXXXIV Oct 87) argues that the most important thing about the human brain is that it has evolved; hence (548) its principle function is to enable the organism to move appropriately. "Boiled down to essentials, a nervous system enables the organism to succeed in the four F's: feeding fleeing, fighting and reproducing. The principle chore of nervous systems is to get the body parts where they should be in order that the organism may survive. . . . . . Truth, whatever that is, definitely takes the hindmost." (Self-referential problems loom here.) She also makes the point that we can't expect perfect engineering from evolution; it can't go back to redesign the basics.

Note that there is an interesting piece by Paul Horwich "Three Forms of Realism", Synthese, 51, (1982) 181-201 where he argues that the very notion of mind independent truth implies that our claims to knowledge cannot be rationally justified. The difficulty "concerns the adequacy of the canons of justification implicit in scientific and ordinary linguistic practice--what reason is there to suppose that they guide us towards the truth? This question, given metaphysical realism, is substantial, and, I think, impossible to answer; and it is this gulf between truth and our ways of attempting to recognize it which constitutes the respect in which the facts are autonomous. Thus metaphysical realism involves to an unacceptable, indeed fatal, degree the autonomy of fact: there is from that perspective no reason to suppose that scientific practice provides even the slightest clue to what is true. 185 ff.

(L) The Argument from Simplicity

According to Swinburne, simplicity is a prime determinant of intrinsic probability. That seems to me doubtful, mainly because there is probably no such thing in general as intrinsic (logical) probability. Still we certainly do favor simplicity; and we are inclined to think that simple explanations and hypotheses are more likely to be true than complicated epicyclic ones. So suppose you think that simplicity is a mark of truth (for hypotheses). If theism is true, then some reason to think the more simple has a better chance of being true than the less simple; for God has created both us and our theoretical preferences and the world; and it is reasonable to think that he would adapt the one to the other. (If he himself favored anti-simplicity, then no doubt he would have created us in such a way that we would too.) If theism is not true, however, there would seem to be no reason to think that the simple is more likely to be true than the complex.

(M) The Argument from induction

Hume pointed out that human beings are inclined to accept inductive forms of reasoning and thus to take it for granted, in a way, that the future will relevantly resemble the past. (This may have been known even before Hume.) As Hume also pointed out, however, it is hard to think of a good (noncircular) reason for believing that indeed the future will be relevantly like the past. Theism, however, provides a reason: God has created us and our noetic capacities and has created the world; he has also created the former in such a way as to be adapted to the latter. It is likely, then, that he has created the world in such a way that in fact the future will indeed resemble the past in the relevant way). (And thus perhaps we do indeed have a priori knowledge of contingent truth: perhaps we know a priori that the future will resemble the past.) (Note here the piece by Aron Edidin: "Language Learning and A Priori Knowledge), APQ October l986 (Vol. 23/ 4); Aron argues that in any case of language learning a priori knowledge is involved.)

This argument and the last argument could be thought of as exploiting the fact that according to theism God has created us in such a way as to be at home in the world (Wolterstorff.)

(N) The Putnamian Argument (the Argument from the Rejection of Global Skepticism)

Hilary Putnam (Reason Truth and History) and others argue that if metaphysical realism is true (if "the world consists of a fixed totality of mind independent objects", or if "there is one true and complete description of the 'the way the world is'") then various intractable skeptical problems arise. For example, on that account we do not know that we are not brains in a vat. But clearly we do know that we are not brains in a vat; hence metaphysical realism is not true. But of course the argument overlooks the theistic claim that we could perfectly well know that we are not brains in a vat even if metaphysical realism is true: we can know that God would not deceive us in such a disgustingly wholesale manner. So you might be inclined to accept (1) the Putnamian proposition that we do know that we are not brains in a vat (2) the anti-Putnamian claim that metaphysical realism is true and antirealism a mere Kantian galimatias, and (3) the quasi-Putnamian proposition that if metaphysical realism is true and there is no such person God who has created us and our world, adapting the former to the latter, then we would not know that we are not brains in a vat; if so, then you have a theistic argument.

Variant: Putnam and others argue that if we think that there is no conceptual link between justification (conceived internalistically) and truth, then we should have to take global skepticism really seriously. If there is no connection between these two, then we have no reason to think that even our best theories are any more likely to be true than the worst theories we can think of. We do, however, know that our best theories are more likely to be true than our worst ones; hence. . . . You may be inclined to accept (1) the Putnamian thesis that it is false that we should take global skepticism with real seriousness, (2) the anti-Putnamian thesis that there is no conceptual link between justification and truth (at any rate if theism is false), and (3) the quasi-Putnamian thesis that if we think is no link between the two, then we should take global skepticism really seriously. Then you may conclude that there must be a link between the two, and you may see the link in the theistic idea that God has created us and the world in such a way that we can reflect something of his epistemic powers by virtue of being able to achieve knowledge, which we typically achieve when we hold justified beliefs.

Here in this neighborhood and in connection with anti-realist considerations of the Putnamian type, there is a splendid piece by Shelley Stillwell in the '89 Synthese entitled something like "Plantinga's Anti-realism" which nicely analyzes the situation and seems to contain the materials for a theistic argument.

(O) The Argument from Reference

Return to Putnam's brain in a vat. P argues that our thought has a certain external character: what we can think depends partly on what the world is like. Thus if there were no trees, we could not think the thought there are no trees ; the word 'tree' would not mean what it does mean if in fact there were no trees (and the same for other natural kind terms--water, air, horse, bug, fire, lemon, human being, and the like, and perhaps also artifactual kind terms--house, chair, airplane, computer, barometer, vat, and the like.) But then, he says, we can discount brain in vat skepticism: it can't be right, because if we were brains in a vat, we would not have the sort of epistemic contact with vats that would permit our term 'vat' to mean what in fact it does. But then we could not so much as think the thought: we are brains in a vat. So if we were, we could not so much as think the thought that we were. But clearly we can think that thought (and if we couldn't we couldn't formulate brain in vat skepticism; so such skepticism must be mistaken.

But a different and more profound skepticism lurks in the neighborhood: we think we can think certain thoughts, where we can give general descriptions of the thoughts in question. Consider, for example, our thought that there are trees. We think there is a certain kind of large green living object, that grows and is related in a certain way to its environment; and we name this kind of thing 'tree'. But maybe as a matter of fact we are not in the sort of environment we think we are in. Maybe we are in a sort of environment of a totally different sort, of such a sort that in fact we can't form the sort of thoughts we think we can form. We think we can form thoughts of certain kind, but in fact we cannot. That could be the case. Then it isn't so much (or only) that our thoughts might be systematically and massively mistaken; instead it might be that we can't think the thoughts we think we can think. Now as a matter of fact we can't take this skepticism seriously; and, indeed, if we are created by God we need not take it seriously, for God would not permit us to be deceived in this massive way.

(P) The Kripke-Wittgenstein Argument From Plus and Quus

(Q) The General Argument from Intuition.

We have many kinds of intuitions: (1) logical (narrow sense and broad sense):. the intuitions codified in propositional modal logic--if it could be the case that the moon is made of green cheese, then it is necessary that that could be so; moral, (2) arithmetical, set theoretical and mathematical generally, (3) moral, (4) philosophical (Leib's Law; there aren't any things that do not exist; sets don't have the property of representing things as being a certain way; neither trees nor numbers are neither true nor false; there are a great number of things that are either true or false; there is such a thing as positive epistemic status; there is such a property as being unpunctual; and so on.) You may be inclined to think that all or some of these ought to be taken with real seriousness, and give us real and important truth. It is much easier to see how this could be so on a theistic than on a nontheistic account of the nature of human beings.

At the Mississippi Philoso Association Meeting in Nov., l986, Robert Holyer read a paper nicely developing this argument, and referring to John Beversluis' book, who attacks the argument, but in a mean spirited way and not with much success. This argument along with Augustine's "Our hearts are restless til they rest in thee, O God."

A couple of more arguments: (1) the argument from the causal theory of knowledge: many philosophers think there is a problem with our alleged knowledge of abstract objects in that they think we can't know truths about an object with which we are not in the appropriate causal relation. They then point out that we are not in much of any causal relation with abstract objects, and conclude, some of them, that there is a real problem with our knowing anything about abstract objects. (e.g., Paul Benacerraf.) But if we think of abstract objects as God's thoughts, then he is in causal relation with them, and also with us, so that there should be no problem as to how it is that we could know something about them. (On the causal theory of knowledge, if you think of abstract objects as just there, and as not standing in causal relations, then the problem should really be that it is hard to see how even God could have any knowledge of them.)

There is another realism anti-realism argument lurking here somewhere, indicated or suggested by Wolterstorff's piece in the Tomberlin metaphysics volume. It has to do with whether there are really any joints in reality, or whether it might not be instead that reality doesn't have any joints, and there are no essential properties of objects. Instead, there is only de dicto reality (this could be the argument from de re modality) with all classifications somehow being done by us. Interesting. Also another topic for Christian philosophy.

Another argument, brought to my attention by Nick Wolterstorff: the Chomsky argument from language learning. look this us. Where does C say any such thing? And where exactly does it go? Does it go with the KW plus quus argument?

Another argument… Thomas Nagel, the view from nowhere 78ff. Thinks it amazing that there should be any such thing as the sort of objective thinking or objective point of view that we do in fact have. Perhaps it is really amazing only from a naturalist point of view. He says he has no explanation. Maybe you find it amazing, maybe you don't. (I'm not sure I see why it is amazing yet.) He argues cogently that there is no good evolutionary explanation of this: first, what needs to b explained is the very possibility of this, and second, supposed that is explained, he goes on to argue that evolution gives us no good explanation of our higher mental abilities. The question is whether the mental powers necessary for the making of stone axes, and hunter-gatherer success are sufficient for the construction of theories about sub atomic particles, proofs of Gödel's theorem, the invention of the compact disc, and so on. He thinks not. So he is really on to something else: not so much 'objective thinking' as higher mental powers involved in these striking intellectual accomplishments.

The evolutionary explanation would be that intellectual powers got started by going along for the ride, so to speak, and then turned out to be useful, and were such that improvements in them got selected when we came down from the trees. (At that point a bigger brain became useful (Don't whales have an even bigger one?). A sort of two part affair, the first part being accidental. So then the second part would be selected for survival value or advantage. But of course the question is whether this gives the slightest reason to think these theories have any truth to them at all. And he fails to mention the fact that all that really gets selected is behavior; there are various combinations of desire and belief that can lead to adaptive actions even if the belief is completely mistaken.

III. Moral arguments

(R) moral arguments (actually R1 to Rn)

There are many different versions of moral arguments, among the best being Bob Adams' favored version (in "Moral Arguments for Theistic Belief" in C. Delaney, Rationality and Religious Belief (Notre Dame). (1) One might find oneself utterly convinced (as I do) that morality is objective, not dependent upon what human beings know or think, and that it cannot be explained in terms of any "natural" facts about human beings or other things; that it can't ultimately be explained in terms of physical, chemical or biological facts. (2) One may also be convinced that there could not be such objective moral facts unless there were such a person as God who, in one way or another, legislates them.

Here consider George Mavrodes' argument that morality would be 'queer' in a Russellian or nontheistic universe (in "Religion and the Queerness of Morality" in Rationality, Religious Belief and Moral Commitment, ed. Audi and Wainwright.)

Other important arguments here: A.E Taylor's (The Faith of a Moralist) version, and Clem Dore's (and Sidgwick's) Kantian argument from the confluence of morality with true self-interest, some of the other arguments considered by Bob Adams in the above mentioned paper, and arguments by Hastings Rashdall in The Theory of Good and Evil and by W.R. Sorley, Moral Values and the Idea of God which we used to read in college.

(R*) The argument from evil.

Many philosophers offer an anti-theistic argument from evil, and perhaps they have some force. But there is also a theistic argument from evil. There is real and genuine evil in the world: evil such that it isn't just a matter of personal opinion that the thing in question is abhorrent, and furthermore it doesn't matter if those who perpetrate it think it is good, and could not be convinced by anything we said. And it is plausible to think that in a nontheistic or at any rate a naturalistic universe, there could be no such thing. So perhaps you think there is such a thing as genuine and horrifying evil, and that in a nontheistic universe, there could not be; then you have another theistic argument.

How to make this argument more specific? "what Pascal later called the 'triple abyss' into which mankind has fallen: the libidinal enslavement to the egotistical self: the libido dominandi, or lust for power over others and over nature; the libido sentiendi, or lust for intense sensation; and the libido sciendi, or lust for manipulative knowledge, knowledge that is primarily used to increase our own power, profit and pleasure." Michael D. Aeschliman "Discovering the Fall" This World Fall l988 p. 93.

How think about utterly appalling and horrifying evil? The christian understanding: it is indeed utterly appalling and horrifying; it is defying God, the source of all that is good and just. It has a sort of cosmic significance: in this way it is the other side of the coin from the argument from love. There we see that the deep significance of love can't be explained in terms of naturalistic categories; the same goes here. From a naturalistic perspective, there is nothing much more to evil--say the sheer horror of the holocaust, of Pol Pot, or a thousand other villains--than there is to the way in which animals savage each other. A natural outgrowth of natural processes.

Hostility, hatred, hostility towards outsiders or even towards one's family is to be understood in terms simply of the genes' efforts (Dawkins) to ensure its survival. Nothing perverted or unnatural about it. (Maybe can't even have these categories.) But from a theistic pint of view, deeply perverted, and deeply horrifying. And maybe this is the way we naturally see it. The point here is that it is objectively horrifying. We find it horrifying: and that is part of its very nature, as opposed to the naturalistic way of thinking about it where there really can't be much of anything like objective horrifyingness.

In Peter Berger, A Rumor of Angels, around page 53, there is an argument that certain kinds of human wickedness are so appalling that they require something like hell.

The thing to do here: take an example of some really horrifying evil-- the Dostoyevsky thing from one of the visual aids.

On a naturalistic way of looking at the matter, it is hard to see how there can really be such a thing as evil: (though of course there could be things we don't like, prefer not to happen): how could there be something that was bad, worthy of disapproval, even if we and all other human beings were wildly enthusiastic about it? On naturalistic view, how make sense of (a) our intuition that what is right or wrong, good or evil does not depend upon what we like or think) and (b) our revulsion at evil--the story the prophet Nathan told David, at the sort of thing that went on in Argentina, Stalin's Russia, Hitler's Germany (Sophie's Choice); the case mention in Surin's book about the young child who was hanged and remained living for half an hour after he was hanged; the fact that the Nazis were purposely trying to be cruel, to induce despair, taunting their victims with the claim that no one would ever know of their fate and how they were treated; the thing from Dostoyevsky, who says that beasts wouldn't do this, they wouldn't be so artistic about it. compare dying from cancer to the sort of horror the Germans did: the second is much worse than the first, somehow, but not because it causes more pain. It is because of the wickedness involved, a wickedness we don't see in the cancer. An appalling wickedness.

There seems to be a lot more to it than there could be on a naturalistic account of the matter. So the naturalist says: evil is a problem for you: why would a good God permit evil, or all that evil? But evil also a problem for him: There really isn't any evil, (or isn't any of a certain sort, a sort such that in fact we think there is some of that sort) on a naturalistic perspective. (This needs working out, but I think there is something to it.)



IV. Other Arguments

(S) The Argument from Colors and Flavors (Adams and Swinburne)

What is the explanation of the correlation between physical and psychical properties? Presumably there is an explanation of it; but also it will have to be, as Adams and Swinburne say, a personal, nonscientific explanation. The most plausible suggestion would involve our being created that way by God.

(T) The argument from Love

Man-woman, parent-child, family, friendship, love of college, church, country--many different manifestations. Evolutionary explanation: these adaptive and have survival value. Evolutionarily useful for male and female human beings, like male and female hippopotami, to get together to have children colts) and stay together to raise them; and the same for the other manifestations of love. The theistic account: vastly more to it than that: reflects the basic structure and nature of reality; God himself is love.

(U) The Mozart Argument

On a naturalistic anthropology, our alleged grasp and appreciation of (alleged) beauty is to be explained in terms of evolution: somehow arose in the course of evolution, and something about its early manifestations had survival value. But miserable and disgusting cacophony (heavy metal rock?) could as well have been what we took to be beautiful. On the theistic view, God recognizes beauty; indeed, it is deeply involved in his very nature. To grasp the beauty of a Mozart's D Minor piano concerto is to grasp something that is objectively there; it is to appreciate what is objectively worthy of appreciation.

(V) The Argument from Play and enjoyment

Fun, pleasure, humor, play, enjoyment. (Maybe not all to be thought of in the same way.) Playing: evolution: an adaptive means of preparing for adult life (so that engaging in this sort of thing as an adult suggests a case of arrested development). But surely there is more to it than that. The joy one can take in humor, art, poetry, mountaineering, exploring, adventuring (the problem is not to explain how it would come about that human beings enjoyed mountaineering: no doubt evolution can do so. The problem is with its significance. Is it really true that all there is to this is enjoyment? Or is there a deeper significance? The Westminster Shorter Catechism: the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy him (and his creation and gifts) forever.

(W) Arguments from providence and from miracles

(X) C.S. Lewis's Argument from Nostalgia

Lewis speaks of the nostalgia that often engulfs us upon beholding a splendid land or seascape; these somehow speak to us of their maker. Not sure just what the argument is; but suspect there is one there.

(Y) The argument from the meaning of life

How does thought about the meaningfulness or meaninglessness of life fit in? Sartre, Camus, Nagel.

(Z) The Argument from (a) to (Y)

These arguments import a great deal of unity into the philosophic endeavor, and the idea of God helps with an astonishingly wide variety of cases: epistemological, ontological, ethical, having to do with meaning, and the like of that.


you're (deliberately) confusing the two different definitions of "evidence". One in the usage of a courtroom and the other in science. Also you're wording the situation to deliberately enforce solipsism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solipsism).

Say there is a man in court. His DNA was found all over the crime scene. His finger prints where found on the murder weapon which was covered in the victims blood.

All the "evidence" is against him. He say's he "knows" he's innocent. What do you believe?

Obviously the only reasonable evaluation is to trust the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE over the mans word .

I see no difference from court 'evidence' and scientific 'evidence'. Please explain the difference to me.
You're saying MY belief is unreasonable. The question isn't what other ought to believe, who am I to say? but what that man ought to believe. What do I believe? Well, it depends about what I know about him. If he's my brother whom I've known all my life intimately, and I find it incredible that he could do the crime, then I might indeed be rationally justified in placing the evidence in a secondary place of importance. The jury, obviously could not rationally do the same.
Say the defendant says he was out hiking, he knows he was out hiking when the crime was committed.
If the defendant really hiked during the time of the crime, was functioning properly cognitively, enjoyed a propitious epistemic environment, then the memorial belief that s/he is innocent is warranted for him or her, but not for the others. Hence my example: How credible, deserving of intellectual respectability would others view the defendant's defense, his or her memory belief of a pleasant afternoon hike? Not well, of course. But this is my point!

A belief can and may be properly basic, warranted, if it's: (a) true, and (b) the result of properly functioning, truth-aimed cognitive faculties, operating in ancongenial (or propitious) epistemic environment, and so on even if it's not probable with respect to the total body of (public) evidence T? Our evidentialist proclivities aren't always [ever?] reliable!

Again, even though others would, i.e. the jury, abide wholly unconvinced of the defendant's hike, nonetheless the defendant is
warranted in his or belief that he hiked during the time of the crime. But the others wouldn't be equally warranted, if warranted
at all, in believing the defendant. Here is the person-relative character of warrant and warrant conferment


Many times religions use the notion of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY to try and "defeat" science.

Since your belief is based on faith, you are "ALWAYS right". Scientific knowledge is, and relies upon being proved wrong. Every time "science" is proved wrong, it means we have a new theory or new evidence that explains things in the way we couldn't before.

My belief, as I've said, is not based on faith, and can be falsified, as I've also explained. Even as a basic belief it can be falsified : if I acquire the belief in inappropriate circumstances (someone pays me 5 bucks to believe) or if it conflicts with other basic beliefs (if I believe in God, 2+2 could not =4), or if it conflicted with other data that I know about reality, or if the arguments which I found compelling were proved necessarily false.


If scientific theories where never proved wrong, we'd never have learnt anything. The evolution of the scientific model of the atom is a perfect example of this, but it is too long to get into here, though I'm unsure you know it.

However, people like you are emotionally tied into the idea of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY. Its comfortable, not knowing isn't. There are big questions we don't have answers to (whats the origin of the universe being the main one). Some people can't handle that.

Therefore you don't even want to try and understand science. You say dumb things like "science can't prove everything", or "science is proven wrong all the time" (Notice I am using "You" in a more general form to describe other religious people).

I actually agree with you. I personally wrestle with faith all the time. And I lose my mind when I ask other Christians how they deal with all the suffering in the world and they say "Oh well, its all a mystery.." I think as mature adults we have an ethical responsibility to wrestle with these things, and Christianity in fact gives few answers, which I respect more than the new age, or fundamentalist christians, who have an easy answer for everything. I live in paradox and mystery and the tension sometimes threatens to tear me apart, but I refuse to give in to easy solutions.




To sumarize:

This is the point, as a Christian, you are putting yourself in the position of the solipsist, i.e. "I KNOW god exists", i.e. the man in court. As a scientist I would be in the jury.

I agree. And you can be rationally justified in believing in the man's guilt. Just as the man can be justified in believing in his innocence.


Its possible that this man is innocent, and that all the evidence is false, but as an outside observer, which is man's position in the universe, there is no reason to believe "faith" (i.e. I KNOW!) above evidence.

Having evidence doesn't mean something is true. Evidence is something that CAN be used to prove a hypothesis.

There is evidence that cell phone use causes cancer, this does not mean that they in fact do.

What is or is not is a matter of fact. Evidence is one part of the scientific method (observation) that we use to try and work out what the fact is.

Scientific theories can and are often wrong. however "right" and "wrong" aren't scientifically useful terms, only what has more explanatory power than not.

Religion therefore is one of the weakest explanatory theories in existence. Because not only does it make no claims of observable reality (try asking someone where heaven or god is, the answer is invaraible EVERYWHERE or ANOTHER DIMENSION), but it actively shuts down any further exploration of the truth.

"This is what god did and theres no reason to explore it anymore, because God is love, and maths, and everything. God can't be wrong, and science can't explain XYZ."

The plum pudding model of the atom explained more than the previous model, it explained the phenomenon of electricity. The Quark model of the atom then explains quantum randomness. And whenever the CERN (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cern)experiments go underway, there'll be an even more detailed model of the atom that proves our current one incomplete.

The point is it is very rare in science that a theory is COMPLETELY proved wrong, usually it is just adapted when new information comes to light. Even when a theory is completely wrong, it was not completely wrong if it served a useful purpose.

For example, ancient men used to believe wood contained fire, and that by rubbing it together you released the fire. While a very rudimentary and flawed theory, it still has explanatory power (i.e. you can make fire with wood), and eventually over improving science, we got to a point where we learnt fire is caused by combustion of chemical compounds.

Its simply not possible to go from no knowledge to full knowledge, so even flawed theories have their place and use. Religion, however, does not allow for the exploration of further truth.[/QUOTE]

I don't think I've ever said anything to contradict any of the above. I don't see how religion blocks exploration for further truth. Then again, I still don't know what your criteria for truth is.
I think all your beliefs are reasonable, they are justified, in the same way mine are. We do not need evidence for many of our beliefs to be rationally justified (free-will, other minds etc) however we do need criteria that can be falsified, which I have laid out for a belief to be reasonable or not.
Your beliefs do not function that way. Are you waiting for evidence that other minds exist before you commit to it? Do you doubt all yr memories unless you have evidence for them? Of course not! That's ridiculous. So why am I unreasonable to do the same with regards to God?
Both can be falsifiable, as I say. For instance, you have a memory that you had oatmeal for breakfast, then someone says, "you couldn't have, remember, you were still working" "Oh that right I forgot!" Other contrary evidence has come up, which make yr belief unreasonable.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1565760]Sigh. I guess I shouldn't be dissapointed, since I know the only reason your acting like that is because you have no evidence, and acknowledging that fact would make your whole idiotic house of cards fall down.

As I've said, I have no evidence, nor is it necessary to have a rational belief, as I've explained, and as is my very point, just as belief in other minds, or certain memories do not need evidence, tho they need to meet certain criteria, which I've laid out. There are various compelling arguments, mentioned above, that when taken together, can rationally constitute a reasonably compelling argument.


Its shocking how many people pretend they don't get burden of proof, and don't get that they instinctively know it.

I do.


I imagine going up to one of you people in real life.

You: Hey idiot! I planted an invisible bomb into your brain last night, you can't detect it in any way, and if you try it'll detonate and kill you, if you don't give me all your money I'll set it off!

Idiot: Of course, theres no way I can prove theres not a bomb in my brain, so I better do what you say.

Or maybe I can tell the hot female idiots that they have an incurable disease that can't be detected by "science", and that the only cure is in their pants.

Yeah right...:rolleyes:

(actually that was a very mean thought)

I can't see why I would be compelled to believe this?
How can a bomb be invisible? Why would you put it in my brain? You must give a compelling reason. How would you do it at night without me waking?
However, if I knew you, and knew you hated me, and knew you worked for the military and were indeed working on making an invisible bomb that could be implanted in a persons brain, and I knew you had killed before, and I knew all this for a fact, weather from actual observation or some other way, then your claim might indeed meet the criteria for me to reasonably believe you.
So, as I say, it must depend on the appropriate circumstances.



Too bad you don't actually apply your philosophy consistently or I could have alot of fun with you.

How am I inconsistent? You yourself have beliefs that have no evidence, other minds, free will, certain memories etc
So if burden of proof is your main criteria for truth, then you are logically inconsistent, not I.

[Havet]

As I've said, I have no evidence, nor is it necessary to have a rational belief, as I've explained, and as is my very point, just as belief in other minds, or certain memories do not need evidence, tho they need to meet certain criteria, which I've laid out. There are various compelling arguments, mentioned above, that when taken together, can rationally constitute a reasonably compelling argument.

You are using the fact that axioms are rational beliefs that don't require evidence to justify why your beliefs are rational without evidence. I guess the most simple question I could ask is: How is the belief in God axiomatic?

Because I know it's not. Axioms are a statement of fact.

Does a God exist? Oh, and don't please don't say something stupid like "God is math" or "God is the greatest thing in the universe".



I can't see why I would be compelled to believe this?
How can a bomb be invisible? Why would you put it in my brain? You must give a compelling reason. How would you do it at night without me waking?


Simple: Magic

i guess only god can do magic without needing any scientific evidence, because when I claim to do magic now you're asking for proof.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1566178]You are using the fact that axioms are rational beliefs that don't require evidence to justify why your beliefs are rational without evidence. I guess the most simple question I could ask is: How is the belief in God axiomatic?

Because I know it's not. Axioms are a statement of fact.

Does a God exist? Oh, and don't please don't say something stupid like "God is math" or "God is the greatest thing in the universe".

An axiom can be a basic fundamental beliefs despite having no evidential proof, but not only axioms.
This is the third time I'm posting this, by the way, :


there are basic beliefs from which all inferential beliefs must reasonable come from. Basic beliefs, I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are self-evident (2+2=4), evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks blue to me), memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God, or if you acquired your belief in God because someone paid you to, or it conflicts with other things you know to be true etc).

My criteria for truth is logical consistency. The above answers for that. If you have a different framework, let me know and I'll check it out, and if it is more logically consistent I'll apply it to my beliefs and change them accordingly.


Simple: Magic

i guess only god can do magic without needing any scientific evidence, because when I claim to do magic now you're asking for proof.[/QUOTE]

Well, I pointed out how it could be a reasonable belief in the right circumstances. As can belief in God.

But -
My question - why would you put a bomb in my brain?
Yr answer : Magic.

Does this make sense?

As to the rest, what is magic? And why would I believe it exists? And why would I believe you posses it? Will my believing in your claim solve any scientific or logical or metaphysical or moral or epistemological problems, as my belief in God does as my theistic arguments above possibly can?

If you're asking how God can be eternal or all good or omnipotent ect then indeed I do require compelling arguments to believe this rationally.

I am simply saying my belief in God is rational. The above arguments, taken together, can, for some people, constitute a compelling argument. Further, God can be a fundamental belief that needs no argument or evidence for belief, like many of your beliefs that you hold with no evidence (other minds etc)

[Havet]

Again, that is my point. It's silly to ask for evidence for an axiom. It is a foundational belief. It's basic, like God. I DON'T HAVE EVIDENCE FOR GOD. My whole argument is that it is non-sensical to ask for proof, as nonsensical as asking for proof that 2+2=4. And besides being a basic belief, there are arguments for God that are not proof, but are reasonably compelling for some people.

Nobody asks evidence for axioms precisely because they are axioms. Axioms are self-evident in the sense that they cannot be disproven without assuming them first, which completely warrants that persons attempt to refute the axiom.

Like i said above, here's an example:


An example would be the action axiom. This axiom states simply that humans act. This is irrefutable because a simple attempt to refute it would in fact be a human action, thus implicitly accepting the statement as true and nullifying the argument. Thus, the action axiom is an example of what is referred to as a synthetic a priori statement, which is beyond empirical verification or refutation.

In this sense, the belief in God is NOT an axiom because it is neither self-evident nor irrefutable. People can provide some sort of evidence, although not required, to prove the axiom that humans act, whilst one cannot do the same with God, hence religion's necessity of faith, which is contrary to reason.


First, belief in God need not be logically proven to be rational, as I've explained ad nauseum, Other minds can't be logically proven! Or many memories! Do you say anyone who believes other people exist is irrational?

And like I said ad nauseum, proving there are other minds and proving there is a God is two completely different things.

I can prove there are other minds, like i said earlier, by different methods: personal senses, cross-referencing senses, and acting upon those senses to gain more information. Other people exist regardless of whether we are aware of that or not.

Could it be that other people don't exist? Sure, but under occam's razor, the theory with best explanatory power suggests that they do exist.


I see no difference from court 'evidence' and scientific 'evidence'. Please explain the difference to me.

Clearly you aren't, or don't, want to pay attention.


Say there is a man in court. His DNA was found all over the crime scene. His finger prints where found on the murder weapon which was covered in the victims blood.

All the "evidence" is against him. He say's he "knows" he's innocent. What do you believe?

Obviously the only reasonable evaluation is to trust the EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE over the mans word .

Many times religions use the notion of ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY to try and "defeat" science.

Since your belief is based on faith, you are "ALWAYS right". Scientific knowledge is, and relies upon being proved wrong. Every time "science" is proved wrong, it means we have a new theory or new evidence that explains things in the way we couldn't before.

If scientific theories where never proved wrong, we'd never have learnt anything. The evolution of the scientific model of the atom is a perfect example of this, but it is too long to get into here, though I'm unsure you know it.

We only trust scientific evidence because it provides the best explanatory power, and has demonstrated its usefulness by being able to explain things we couldn't otherwise.

It doesn't matter if the man claims he is innocent or not. What matters is the evidence. If there is little evidence, we are less sure about his actions, but the more evidence we have, the best we can make good decisions.


What do I believe? Well, it depends about what I know about him. If he's my brother whom I've known all my life intimately, and I find it incredible that he could do the crime, then I might indeed be rationally justified in placing the evidence in a secondary place of importance. The jury, obviously could not rationally do the same.
Say the defendant says he was out hiking, he knows he was out hiking when the crime was committed.
If the defendant really hiked during the time of the crime, was functioning properly cognitively, enjoyed a propitious epistemic environment, then the memorial belief that s/he is innocent is warranted for him or her, but not for the others. Hence my example: How credible, deserving of intellectual respectability would others view the defendant's defense, his or her memory belief of a pleasant afternoon hike? Not well, of course. But this is my point!

This is why the defendant's defense must also be done with evidence, not just what he "knows" to be true, because he may very well be lying. Evidence, and it's interpretation, and the best ways to make rational judgements about something, contrary to a dogmatic set of ideas.


My belief, as I've said, is not based on faith, and can be falsified, as I've also explained. Even as a basic belief it can be falsified : if I acquire the belief in inappropriate circumstances (someone pays me 5 bucks to believe) or if it conflicts with other basic beliefs (if I believe in God, 2+2 could not =4), or if it conflicted with other data that I know about reality, or if the arguments which I found compelling were proved necessarily false.

Listen, what you're trying so desperately to say is this:

"Since I cannot show evidence that God exists, and I "know" God exists, then the concept of evidence is flawed in what regards God.", hence all your babbling trying to show how evidence is not always a good way to make judgements.

All I ask is scientific evidence that God exists. God is not an axiom, nor can it simply be proven by philosophical arguments. Show me evidence that he exists, and THEN we'll talk.


I actually agree with you. I personally wrestle with faith all the time. And I lose my mind when I ask other Christians how they deal with all the suffering in the world and they say "Oh well, its all a mystery.." I think as mature adults we have an ethical responsibility to wrestle with these things, and Christianity in fact gives few answers, which I respect more than the new age, or fundamentalist christians, who have an easy answer for everything. I live in paradox and mystery and the tension sometimes threatens to tear me apart, but I refuse to give in to easy solutions.

Well that's good, but everytime the question boils down to this: HOW do you KNOW God exists?

And all i'm asking for is scientific evidence, which is the best way, so far developed by humans, to test the veracity of claims.


I agree. And you can be rationally justified in believing in the man's guilt. Just as the man can be justified in believing in his innocence.



Ah, you see, as a scientist, i don't have any beliefs until I see evidence. I am justified, according to scientific principles, in believing (which isn't really a belief as faith is, it's actually a form of knowledge) that the man is guilty ONLY when I see the evidence that proves that.




I know free-will exists. It comes down to an analysis on the human brain, and atoms.

is the flow of atoms inside a sun, the same as inside a human brain?

one is obviously vastly more complex than the other. in the sun there are only 4-5 different types of atoms, in the brain there are thousands of different compounds.

the brain is more complex than the sun because the atomic interactions are more complicated.

the key is self awareness, thats what makes it seem like "free will". most machines don't seem like they "make" choices, because they don't have any power to be aware of the choices they are making

humans do, and in humans, the circuitry that makes us be aware of our choices is hooked directly into those choices. we're also capable of changing how our machinery is wired.

obviously at a certain point its just atoms knocking into each other, but to say that thats all thats happening in the human brain is a vast oversimplification, because the atoms that are knocking into each other are doing it for very specific reasons.

when you feel pride, or amazement, there are corresponding atoms to that.

when someone understands how an atom works, there are atoms making that happen.

a sun might have millions more atoms than a brain, but doesn't mean its more complicated. in the sun the same reaction is happening to trillions of atoms, whereas in a brain tiny areas of the brain can be having vastly different reactions.

[QUOTE=splitteeth]Do you doubt all yr memories unless you have evidence for them? Of course not! That's ridiculous. So why am I unreasonable to do the same with regards to God?

Actually, I doubt many of my memories, ebcause more often than not i've found myself going by my memories, and then they turn out to not match reality. This is why i often cross-reference my memories with those of other people's, or ask them about it.

I know there is a little "voice" inside both our heads that makes us "just know" we are right concerning our memories, but sometimes that isn't enough, which is why i cross-reference as much as I can, decreasing the probability that I am wrong. This why you should do the same in regards to God.


.

Well, I pointed out how it could be a reasonable belief in the right circumstances. As can belief in God.

But -
My question - why would you put a bomb in my brain?
Yr answer : Magic.

Does this make sense?

As to the rest, what is magic? And why would I believe it exists? And why would I believe you posses it? Will my believing in your claim solve any scientific or logical or metaphysical or moral or epistemological problems, as my belief in God does as my theistic arguments above possibly can?

If you're asking how God can be eternal or all good or omnipotent ect then indeed I do require compelling arguments to believe this rationally.

Obviously I could never prove magic, and that i planted a bomb in your head. My whole example was to prove the ridiculousness of the assumption that one can belief things without evidence.

So forget arguments. Show me evidence.


I am simply saying my belief in God is rational. The above arguments, taken together, can, for some people, constitute a compelling argument. Further, God can be a fundamental belief that needs no argument or evidence for belief, like many of your beliefs that you hold with no evidence (other minds etc)

Just show me the evidence.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1572416]Nobody asks evidence for axioms precisely because they are axioms. Axioms are self-evident in the sense that they cannot be disproven without assuming them first, which completely warrants that persons attempt to refute the axiom.

Like i said above, here's an example:



In this sense, the belief in God is NOT an axiom because it is neither self-evident nor irrefutable. People can provide some sort of evidence, although not required, to prove the axiom that humans act, whilst one cannot do the same with God, hence religion's necessity of faith, which is contrary to reason.

There are five basic beliefs, axioms are one. There are five others. I've already posted this 3 other times, but I'll do it again with numbers if it helps :


I think, can reasonable include beliefs that are 1) AXIOMS self-evident (2+2=4), 2) evident to the senses (you go outside and the sky is blue), 3) incorrigible (they have to be true - like, that mountain looks scary to me), 4) memory beliefs, beliefs about the past, 5) belief in an external world and other minds, beliefs in the testimony of others, etc...
In short, all the beliefs that are produced by our cognitive faculties in the appropriate circumstances. So 'there is a tree' is true only in the appropriate circumstances, namely, that there's a tree around, otherwise it's a hallucination. Included in here properly can be belief in God as I've explained above (as long as it can be maintained in regards to other reasonable beliefs, so if there's too much evil in the world, then you couldn't reasonable believe in a good God etc). Otherwise you'd be describing a computer, not an actual human.


And like I said ad nauseum, proving there are other minds and proving there is a God is two completely different things.

I can prove there are other minds, like i said earlier, by different methods: personal senses, cross-referencing senses, and acting upon those senses to gain more information. Other people exist regardless of whether we are aware of that or not.

None of that's evidence. And the 5 things I've mentioned - other minds, the universe popping into existence 5 minutes ago etc- have been acknowledged by Dawkins, Russell, and many other scientists. There is no evidence that these propositions are wrong, and indeed, by Okams razor, some of them are even simpler.


Could it be that other people don't exist? Sure, but under occam's razor, the theory with best explanatory power suggests that they do exist.

Neither theory has better explanatory power, since there is no evidence. This is accepted the world over by mathamatitions, scientists, logicians etc Ask any of 'em.

If your looking for a theory with the best explanatory power then I'd suggest you look into the theory of God for how the universe began :

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.



Clearly you aren't, or don't, want to pay attention.



We only trust scientific evidence because it provides the best explanatory power, and has demonstrated its usefulness by being able to explain things we couldn't otherwise.

It doesn't matter if the man claims he is innocent or not. What matters is the evidence. If there is little evidence, we are less sure about his actions, but the more evidence we have, the best we can make good decisions.



This is why the defendant's defense must also be done with evidence, not just what he "knows" to be true, because he may very well be lying. Evidence, and it's interpretation, and the best ways to make rational judgements about something, contrary to a dogmatic set of ideas.



Listen, what you're trying so desperately to say is this:

"Since I cannot show evidence that God exists, and I "know" God exists, then the concept of evidence is flawed in what regards God.", hence all your babbling trying to show how evidence is not always a good way to make judgements.

All I ask is scientific evidence that God exists. God is not an axiom, nor can it simply be proven by philosophical arguments. Show me evidence that he exists, and THEN we'll talk.



Well that's good, but everytime the question boils down to this: HOW do you KNOW God exists?

And all i'm asking for is scientific evidence, which is the best way, so far developed by humans, to test the veracity of claims.



Ah, you see, as a scientist, i don't have any beliefs until I see evidence. I am justified, according to scientific principles, in believing (which isn't really a belief as faith is, it's actually a form of knowledge) that the man is guilty ONLY when I see the evidence that proves that.

Ok. So you believe the universe came into existence 5 minutes ago. You suspend yr judgment of other people/minds exist since theres no evidence (at best arguments) eyc


I know free-will exists. It comes down to an analysis on the human brain, and atoms.

is the flow of atoms inside a sun, the same as inside a human brain?

one is obviously vastly more complex than the other. in the sun there are only 4-5 different types of atoms, in the brain there are thousands of different compounds.

the brain is more complex than the sun because the atomic interactions are more complicated.

the key is self awareness, thats what makes it seem like "free will". most machines don't seem like they "make" choices, because they don't have any power to be aware of the choices they are making

humans do, and in humans, the circuitry that makes us be aware of our choices is hooked directly into those choices. we're also capable of changing how our machinery is wired.

obviously at a certain point its just atoms knocking into each other, but to say that thats all thats happening in the human brain is a vast oversimplification, because the atoms that are knocking into each other are doing it for very specific reasons.

when you feel pride, or amazement, there are corresponding atoms to that.

when someone understands how an atom works, there are atoms making that happen.

a sun might have millions more atoms than a brain, but doesn't mean its more complicated. in the sun the same reaction is happening to trillions of atoms, whereas in a brain tiny areas of the brain can be having vastly different reactions.

Well, I need evidence. Pinker in 'The Blank Slate' provides pretty strong evidence that free-will is an illusion. So far you've given my an argument. Show me the evidence and then we'll talk.


Actually, I doubt many of my memories, ebcause more often than not i've found myself going by my memories, and then they turn out to not match reality. This is why i often cross-reference my memories with those of other people's, or ask them about it.


Yea, I covered this. Like you just naturally know you had breakfast this morning and will reasonably go on to believe it unless contrary evidence comes up - like someone says 'wait-you were working with me all morning you couldn't have had breakfast!"
So, as I keep saying, basic beliefs, like memory, are only justified in the appropriate circumstances. For instance, if you have a memory of eating breakfast this morning AND yr trapped in a barren cellar, then you are not justified in yr belief.
Likewise, I naturally believe in God unless evidence to the contrary is introduced etc


I know there is a little "voice" inside both our heads that makes us "just know" we are right concerning our memories, but sometimes that isn't enough, which is why i cross-reference as much as I can, decreasing the probability that I am wrong. This why you should do the same in regards to God.

I totally agree, and I do.


Obviously I could never prove magic, and that i planted a bomb in your head. My whole example was to prove the ridiculousness of the assumption that one can belief things without evidence.

So forget arguments. Show me evidence.



Just show me the evidence.

The universe. The fact you exist.

For both the most probable explanation is God - scientifically, rationally, and mathematically.

[Ovi]

The universe. The fact you exist.

For both the most probable explanation is God - scientifically, rationally, and mathematically.
In my opinion, you're making a great confusion: you confuse a universe god with a human god. They're 2 different things. The former is a god whose only purpose was to create the universe and make it tick, but we're not special to him at all compared to a rock for instance. And there's a human god, one that makes us not just different but special compared to a sheep or a rock; a god that cares about us more than it cares about a rock. A good who made us perhaps after his own image.

Those who believe in a human god (one that makes us special) usually refute things like evolution; they don't generally believe that we evolved from other primates, but that we are special to anything else in this universe.

However a universe god is something completely different. Since we evolved just like any other animal, some conclusions can be drawn:


there's no point in worshiping such a god because he does not care about us
physics, as a natural science that has the goal of exploring the natural laws, is nothing but a way to find god
thus, there is no difference between a universe god and the laws of physics; you can believe in what ever you want, it makes no difference

What I'm saying is that the 'there must be someone who made the universe, thus this god cares about us' is bogus; you can't explain the presence of a human god by arguing for a universe one.

A fundamental problem in physics is the universe creation. How can the universe be made out of nothing? Surely someone made it. But then who made god?
That's why when it comes to the universe god I'm skeptic simply because it doesn't explain anything. It is a solution waiting for a problem.

So when I say I want proofs for your god, I mean I want proof that your god cares about us. Of course nobody can prove this.

[spiltteeth]

In my opinion, you're making a great confusion: you confuse a universe god with a human god. They're 2 different things. The former is a god whose only purpose was to create the universe and make it tick, but we're not special to him at all compared to a rock for instance. And there's a human god, one that makes us not just different but special compared to a sheep or a rock; a god that cares about us more than it cares about a rock. A good who made us perhaps after his own image.

Those who believe in a human god (one that makes us special) usually refute things like evolution; they don't generally believe that we evolved from other primates, but that we are special to anything else in this universe.

However a universe god is something completely different. Since we evolved just like any other animal, some conclusions can be drawn:


there's no point in worshiping such a god because he does not care about us
physics, as a natural science that has the goal of exploring the natural laws, is nothing but a way to find god
thus, there is no difference between a universe god and the laws of physics; you can believe in what ever you want, it makes no difference

What I'm saying is that the 'there must be someone who made the universe, thus this god cares about us' is bogus; you can't explain the presence of a human god by arguing for a universe one.

A fundamental problem in physics is the universe creation. How can the universe be made out of nothing? Surely someone made it. But then who made god?
That's why when it comes to the universe god I'm skeptic simply because it doesn't explain anything. It is a solution waiting for a problem.

So when I say I want proofs for your god, I mean I want proof that your god cares about us. Of course nobody can prove this.

Well, first, as to 'Who created God' I'll give you the answer scientists gave about the universe before the Big Bang Model - He is beginingless, therefore he needs no cause.
It is a mathematical impossibility to have an infinite regress, at some point you MUST posit a cause which itself is uncaused (beginingless)

However, since we KNOW the universe had a beginning, it does need a cause.

I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

But yr other objection is a good point. Kind of like - Ok, He exists, maybe he's also personal, but who cares.

But actually, I think evolution points to the fact that we may reasonably believe He has a special concern for us from the complexity, order and fine-tuning of our cosmos, as well as be a conscious and intelligent being.

It seems He created the universe just so we could exist!

Consider the following evidence :



During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Now there are three possibilities for explaining the presence of this remarkable fine-tuning of the universe: physical necessity, chance, or design. The first alternative holds that there is some unknown Theory of Everything (T.O.E.) which would explain the way the universe is. It had to be that way, and there was really no chance or little chance of the universe's not being life-permitting. By contrast, the second alternative states that the fine-tuning is due entirely to chance. It's just an accident that the universe is life-permitting, and we're the lucky beneficiaries. The third alternative rejects both of these accounts in favor of an intelligent Mind behind the cosmos, who designed the universe to permit life. Which of these alternatives is the most plausible?

The first alternative seems extraordinarily implausible. There is just no physical reason why these constants and quantities should have the values they do. As P. C. W. Davies states,

Even if the laws of physics were unique, it doesn't follow that the physical universe itself is unique. . . . the laws of physics must be augmented by cosmic initial conditions. . . . There is nothing in present ideas about 'laws of initial conditions' remotely to suggest that their consistency with the laws of physics would imply uniqueness. Far from it. . . .
. . . it seems, then, that the physical universe does not have to be the way it is: it could have been otherwise.6

For example, the most promising candidate for a T.O.E. to date, super-string theory or M-Theory, fails to predict uniquely our universe. In fact, string theory allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10500 different universes governed by the present laws of nature, so that it does nothing to render the observed values of the constants and quantities physically necessary.

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Students or laymen who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in one's driveway.

Some people have tried to escape this problem by claiming that we really shouldn't be surprised at the finely-tuned conditions of the universe, for if the universe were not fine-tuned, then we wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that we are here, we should expect the universe to be fine-tuned. But such reasoning is logically fallacious. We can show this by means of a parallel illustration. Imagine you're traveling abroad and are arrested on trumped-up drug charges and dragged in front of a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. You hear the command given: "Ready! Aim! Fire!" and you hear the deafening roar of the guns. And then you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 trained marksmen missed! Now what would you conclude? "Well, I guess I really shouldn't be surprised that they all missed. After all, if they hadn't all missed, then I wouldn't be here to be surprised about it! Given that I am here, I should expect them all to miss." Of course not! You would immediately suspect that they all missed on purpose, that the whole thing was a set-up, engineered for some reason by someone. While you wouldn't be surprised that you don't observe that you are dead, you'd be very surprised, indeed, that you do observe that you are alive. In the same way, given the incredible improbability of the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life, it is reasonable to conclude that this is not due to chance, but to design.

In order to rescue the alternative of chance, its proponents have therefore been forced to adopt the hypothesis that there exists an infinite number of randomly ordered universes composing a sort of World Ensemble or multiverse of which our universe is but a part. Somewhere in this infinite World Ensemble finely-tuned universes will appear by chance alone, and we happen to be one such world.

There are, however, at least two major failings of the World Ensemble hypothesis: First, there's no evidence that such a World Ensemble exists. No one knows if there are other worlds. Moreover, recall that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that any universe in a state of continuous cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past. Their theorem applies to the multiverse, too. Therefore, since the past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated by now, so that there's no guarantee that a finely-tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble.

Second, if our universe is just a random member of an infinite World Ensemble, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than what we in fact observe. Roger Penrose has calculated that it is inconceivably more probable that our solar system should suddenly form by the random collision of particles than that a finely-tuned universe should exist. (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison.7) So if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, it is inconceivably more probable that we should be observing a universe no larger than our solar system. Or again, if our universe were just a random member of a World Ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since such things are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities' falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the World Ensemble than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On atheism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no World Ensemble.

So once again, the view that Christian theists have always held, that there is an intelligent designer of the universe, seems to make much more sense than the atheistic view that the universe just happens to be by chance fine-tuned to an incomprehensible precision for the existence of intelligent life.

We can summarize this second argument as follows:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

[Ovi]

Well, first, as to 'Who created God' I'll give you the answer scientists gave about the universe before the Big Bang Model - He is beginingless, therefore he needs no cause.
It is a mathematical impossibility to have an infinite regress, at some point you MUST posit a cause which itself is uncaused (beginingless)

Not really. There's nothing impossible with an universe with infinite age. And even if there would be a problem with that, whether the beginning of everything is due to a god that simply exists or physical laws that simply exist makes no difference.


However, since we KNOW the universe had a beginning, it does need a cause.

We don't KNOW that the universe had a beginning, we THINK that it had. And that doesn't rule out the possibility of other universes at the same time or before our own.


I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

Why? How would a god that made the universe make us special?


But yr other objection is a good point. Kind of like - Ok, He exists, maybe he's also personal, but who cares.

I believe that he's not special to us and that physically there is no difference between believing in a universe god and the laws of physics.


But actually, I think evolution points to the fact that we may reasonably believe He has a special concern for us from the complexity, order and fine-tuning of our cosmos, as well as be a conscious and intelligent being.

It seems He created the universe just so we could exist!

Even so, arguing that he made the universe will never lead to the fact that he made us.


Consider the following evidence :

So what about the second alternative, that the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance? The problem with this alternative is that the odds against the universe's being life-permitting are so incomprehensibly great that they cannot be reasonably faced. Even though there will be a huge number of life-permitting universes lying within the cosmic landscape, nevertheless the number of life-permitting worlds will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable.
False. A tiny tiny chance, but finite, of it happening in an infinitely aged or in an infinite number of universes means a certainty of it happening. Consider the quote: if it can happen, it will given enough time


Students or laymen who blithely assert, "It could have happened by chance!" simply have no conception of the fantastic precision of the fine-tuning requisite for life. They would never embrace such a hypothesis in any other area of their lives—for example, in order to explain how there came to be overnight a car in one's driveway.Wrong again. Anyone with minimal knowledge of thermodynamics and QM knows that physics is based on probability.


There are, however, at least two major failings of the World Ensemble hypothesis: First, there's no evidence that such a World Ensemble exists.
There aren't any evidence for a universe god either.


No one knows if there are other worlds.
No one knows if there is a god. They can only think.


Moreover, recall that Borde, Guth, and Vilenkin proved that any universe in a state of continuous cosmic expansion cannot be infinite in the past.
Actually it can. You can have contraction followed by expansion.


Their theorem applies to the multiverse, too. Therefore, since the past is finite, only a finite number of other worlds can have been generated by now, so that there's no guarantee that a finely-tuned world will have appeared in the ensemble.Nobody ever said that this is the only universe that has ever existed. Nobody proved that this is the only universe that exists right now either.

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1573455]Not really. There's nothing impossible with an universe with infinite age. And even if there would be a problem with that, whether the beginning of everything is due to a god that simply exists or physical laws that simply exist makes no difference.

We know the universe had a beginning, from logic, math, astrophysics, and cosmology, which I explained, but I'd be happy to expand upon.


We don't KNOW that the universe had a beginning, we THINK that it had. And that doesn't rule out the possibility of other universes at the same time or before our own.

We know the universe had a beginning. From math, logic, astrophysics, and cosmology. And it rules out ever knowing about other universes "before" our own (time came into existence with the big bang)

However, if you do not believe in science, math, or logic, then obviously my argument will not convince you.


Why? How would a god that made the universe make us special?

Why what? Why would He be personal and not just some mechanism?

I'll expand,
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.


I believe that he's not special to us and that physically there is no difference between believing in a universe god and the laws of physics.

As I say, we can reasonably conclude the cause of the universe is that the first cause is a personal, powerful and intelligent being.


Even so, arguing that he made the universe will never lead to the fact that he made us.

I'd say the fact that we exist is fairly strong evidence.


False. A tiny tiny chance, but finite, of it happening in an infinitely aged or in an infinite number of universes means a certainty of it happening. Consider the quote: if it can happen, it will given enough time

We know the Universe had a beginning. And I don't think there's any reason to believe in an 'infinite number of universes.' I mean, maybe we are all in the matrix! But again, I believe in science.
There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.
Ot else you do not care about the Truth.


Wrong again. Anyone with minimal knowledge of thermodynamics and QM knows that physics is based on probability.

Yes, I believe I have given you the actual probabilities. It is astronomically improbable that this Universe is due to chance. I'd be happy to go over the numbers again.


There aren't any evidence for a universe god either.

I believe I have given you a compelling argument, if you dispute any of the data I'll be happy to go over it with you.


No one knows if there is a god. They can only think.

No one can know if evolution is real! But the evidence is overwhelming that in all reasonable probability, evolution, more likely than not, is true.
From the evidence, we can say, more likely than not, God exists.


Actually it can. You can have contraction followed by expansion.
Nobody ever said that this is the only universe that has ever existed. Nobody proved that this is the only universe that exists right now either.

The evidence is overwhelming that this is the only Universe, if their are others we could never know about them, so maybe pink unicorns exist in those other universes, no one can prove they don't!

As far as your theory on contraction followed by expansion, this is called the Oscillating Universe Theory, which had been abandoned by it's originators as well as the scientific community.

The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Ironically, Hawkings even commented that this theory sees so desperate, that he thinks the people who were trying to make it work were doing so for psychological reasons to avoid the implications of the Big Bang!

In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Listen, I'm interested in Truth, not in intellectual masturbation, or pseudo-science, or mysticism, or academic intellectualizing.

The unreasonable person will clutch at any staws to avoid the facts, since math and science do not convince you, I will never either.

I'm serious and my time is precious. If you sincerely want to know things, I will always be happy to answer, but if you just like arguing, please leave me alone - no offense, respectfully.

[spiltteeth]

Just to be fair OVI, I'll summarize the evidence that the universe had a beginning from the Big Bang model, thermodynamics, logic, and math :


If the universe never had a beginning, that means that the number of past events in the history of the universe is infinite. But mathematicians recognize that the existence of an actually infinite number of things leads to self-contradictions. For example, what is infinity minus infinity? Well, mathematically, you get self-contradictory answers. This shows that infinity is just an idea in your mind, not something that exists in reality. David Hilbert, perhaps the greatest mathematician of the twentieth century, states,



The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought. The role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.
But that entails that since past events are not just ideas, but are real, the number of past events must be finite. Therefore, the series of past events can't go back forever; rather the universe must have begun to exist.

David Hume's famous remark that he "never asserted so absurd a Proposition as that anything might arise without cause."

Therefore, we are led to reject the possibility of a completed infinite sequence of events because its implications are openly false. Once again, according to David Hume:
an infinite number of real parts of time, passing in succession, and exhausted one after another, appears so evident a contradiction, that no man whose judgment is not corrupted, instead of being improved, by the sciences, would ever be able to admit of it.


This conclusion has been confirmed by remarkable discoveries in astronomy and astrophysics. In one of the most startling developments of modern science, we now have pretty strong evidence that the universe is not eternal in the past but had an absolute beginning about 13 billion years ago in a cataclysmic event known as the Big Bang. What makes the Big Bang so startling is that it represents the origin of the universe from literally nothing. For all matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,


"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

Of course, alternative theories have been crafted over the years to try to avoid this absolute beginning, but none of these theories has commended itself to the scientific community as more plausible than the Big Bang theory. In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:



It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

That problem was nicely captured by Anthony Kenny of Oxford University. He writes, "A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing." But surely that doesn't make sense! Out of nothing, nothing comes. So why does the universe exist instead of just nothing? Where did it come from? There must have been a cause which brought the universe into being.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states systems have the tendency to pass from a more ordered to a less ordered state, in other words, all systems have the tendency to pass from a state of lower entropy into a state of higher entropy.

Indeed, as another comrade pointed out, the universe is eternal, but will suffer a 'heat death'. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states the universe as a whole will eventually come to a state of equilibrium and suffer heat death. But this apparently firm projection raised an even deeper question: if, given sufficient time, the universe will suffer heat death, then why, if it has existed forever, is it not now in a state of heat death? If in a finite amount of time the universe will inevitably come to equilibrium, from which no significant further change is physically possible, then it should already be at equilibrium by now, if it has existed for infinite time. Like a ticking clock, it should by now have run down. Since it has not yet run down, this implies, in the words of Richard Schlegel, "In some way the universe must have been wound up."

P. C. W. Davies reports,


Today, few cosmologists doubt that the universe, at least as we know it, did have an origin at a finite moment in the past. The alternative - that the universe has always existed in one form or another—runs into a rather basic paradox. The sun and stars cannot keep burning forever: sooner or later they will run out of fuel and die.

The same is true of all irreversible physical processes; the stock of energy available in the universe to drive them is finite, and cannot last for eternity. This is an example of the so-called second law of thermodynamics, which, applied to the entire cosmos, predicts that it is stuck on a one-way slide of degeneration and decay towards a final state of maximum entropy, or disorder. As this final state has not yet been reached, it follows that the universe cannot have existed for an infinite time.

Davies concludes, "The universe can't have existed forever. We know there must have been an absolute beginning a finite time ago."
So, you would need to say you do not believe in the Big Bang model, the second law of theordynamics, or math to say you do not believe the universe began.

[Ovi]

We know the universe had a beginning, from logic, math, astrophysics, and cosmology, which I explained, but I'd be happy to expand upon.



We know the universe had a beginning. From math, logic, astrophysics, and cosmology. And it rules out ever knowing about other universes "before" our own (time came into existence with the big bang)

However, if you do not believe in science, math, or logic, then obviously my argument will not convince you.

I'm in my last year of the Faculty of Physics and I believe in proof. Nobody ever ever proved that this is the only universe that has ever existed and there aren't many physicists in their right minds that would even say such a thing. The theory of Big Bang is a theory that explains how our universe formed. It does not rule out the possibility of any other universe at all.


Why what? Why would He be personal and not just some mechanism?

I'll expand,
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

It makes absolutely no sense. Why would a universe creator care about us, as human beings, as animals just like any other?



As I say, we can reasonably conclude the cause of the universe is that the first cause is a personal, powerful and intelligent being.



I'd say the fact that we exist is fairly strong evidence.

There is no evidence. Most physicists who know a lot about the universe are atheists. Not all, but at least the vast majority of those I know are.


We know the Universe had a beginning. And I don't think there's any reason to believe in an 'infinite number of universes.' I mean, maybe we are all in the matrix! But again, I believe in science.

There's nothing unscientific about an infinite number of universes. Whether you want to believe it or not is a different thing.


There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.
Ot else you do not care about the Truth.

In that case god lacks any evidence whatsoever.


Yes, I believe I have given you the actual probabilities. It is astronomically improbable that this Universe is due to chance. I'd be happy to go over the numbers again.

An infinite number of universes multiplied by a very small, but finite probability = infinity


I believe I have given you a compelling argument, if you dispute any of the data I'll be happy to go over it with you.

It makes absolutely no sense saying that the universe was made by a god, which means that god is human like.


No one can know if evolution is real! But the evidence is overwhelming that in all reasonable probability, evolution, more likely than not, is true.
From the evidence, we can say, more likely than not, God exists.

There is no evidence whatsoever!


The evidence is overwhelming that this is the only Universe, if their are others we could never know about them, so maybe pink unicorns exist in those other universes, no one can prove they don't!

As far as your theory on contraction followed by expansion, this is called the Oscillating Universe Theory, which had been abandoned by it's originators as well as the scientific community.

The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Actually strictly mathematically it is not impossible for such a large fluctuation, so that the entropy decreases dramatically. It's just highly unlikely. But considering an infinite time, it's not only likely, it's going to happen. Of course this is being ignorant; we have no idea how the laws of physics apply at such great distances; we have no idea how the laws of physics change with time.


Ironically, Hawkings even commented that this theory sees so desperate, that he thinks the people who were trying to make it work were doing so for psychological reasons to avoid the implications of the Big Bang!

Physicists also thought protons are elementary particles. However I was only saying that there can be contractions followed by expansions. There are so many things we don't know, that saying this is impossible is completely ignorant.


In fact, in 2003 Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin were able to prove that any universe which is, on average, in a state of cosmic expansion cannot be eternal in the past but must have an absolute beginning. Vilenkin pulls no punches:

Nobody proved anything, but created a theory that might or might not be correct. Nobody ever in the history of mankind has ever proved a physical theory in the mathematical sense because our assumptions might our might not be correct. On the contrary, everything we used to know ended up being wrong every single time. Plus there can be an infinite number of universes at any time, not just one after the other, and the fact that we might not be able to observe them is irrelevant in this discussion.


Listen, I'm interested in Truth, not in intellectual masturbation, or pseudo-science, or mysticism, or academic intellectualizing.

The unreasonable person will clutch at any staws to avoid the facts, since math and science do not convince you, I will never either.

I'm serious and my time is precious. If you sincerely want to know things, I will always be happy to answer, but if you just like arguing, please leave me alone - no offense, respectfully.
The only one that hides behind assumptions is you. You want to believe so much in a god that in completely stops you from being objective.

[spiltteeth]

I'm in my last year of the Faculty of Physics and I believe in proof. Nobody ever ever proved that this is the only universe that has ever existed and there aren't many physicists in their right minds that would even say such a thing. The theory of Big Bang is a theory that explains how our universe formed. It does not rule out the possibility of any other universe at all.

Anything is possible. Maybe there's a universe of pink Unicorns or we are in the matrix. IMy criteria for truth is logical consistency. What is yours?
Why would I believe in something like multiple universes just because it's possible? It's possible Unicorns exist. Why believe that? There's no evidence or compelling argument.


It makes absolutely no sense. Why would a universe creator care about us, as human beings, as animals just like any other?

I don't think we are just like any other animals.


There is no evidence. Most physicists who know a lot about the universe are atheists. Not all, but at least the vast majority of those I know are.

I believe I've given you a compelling argument.


There's nothing unscientific about an infinite number of universes. Whether you want to believe it or not is a different thing.

First, There's nothing unscientific that Unicorns might exist, why would I believe in it? Why do you prefer yr multiple Universe theory over the Big Bang?
However, there is much that is unscientific about multiple universes.
I would like to hear your scientific evidence for multiple universes.

I'll give you a brief lesson in why I do not believe in multiple Universes.

M-Theory says the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10(500) different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10(500) possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

This is the “multiple universe” hypothesis mentioned by Carrier. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. (The more spins of the roulette wheel, the better the chances of your number coming up!) The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis?

Why preferr the multiple universe hypothesis? For we have no experience whatsoever of other universes—the multiple universe hypothesis is a bold venture in metaphysical cosmology. Our familiarity with our universe does nothing to warrant the appeal to other universes as familiar entities—at least not more so than the design hypothesis. For while we are likewise not familiar with designers of universes, we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. Indeed, theists have sometimes been accused of anthropomorphism in this regard!

Moreover, while we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God.

Finally, Carrier is mistaken when he opines that we cannot know that multiple universes do not exist and therefore agnosticism is the only justified conclusion. (Interesting to compare this conclusion with the frequent atheist claim that in the absence of evidence for God we should conclude that God does not exist! Do you see the inconsistency?) He is unaware of the potentially lethal objections to the multiple universe hypothesis that have been lodged by physicists like Roger Penrose of Oxford University (The Road to Reality). Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite world ensemble of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison! So if our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Observable universes like that are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one random member of an ensemble of worlds.

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so “impotent” that it is actually “misconceived” to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.

Since the alternative of chance stands or falls with the multiple universe hypothesis, that alternative is seen to be very implausible. It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design, unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be even more implausible than its competitors.



In that case god lacks any evidence whatsoever.

I have given you a compelling argument.


An infinite number of universes multiplied by a very small, but finite probability = infinity

There is no evidence for infinite universes, I thought you believe in evidence?


It makes absolutely no sense saying that the universe was made by a god, which means that god is human like.

If you have an alternative theory I'll listen. However, it does make sense, as I've shown.


There is no evidence whatsoever!

Uh....the universe?


Actually strictly mathematically it is not impossible for such a large fluctuation, so that the entropy decreases dramatically. It's just highly unlikely. But considering an infinite time, it's not only likely, it's going to happen. Of course this is being ignorant; we have no idea how the laws of physics apply at such great distances; we have no idea how the laws of physics change with time.

Physicists also thought protons are elementary particles. However I was only saying that there can be contractions followed by expansions. There are so many things we don't know, that saying this is impossible is completely ignorant.

Where did I say it was impossible? Please, lets be respectful and not twist words.
First - there is no evidence OR reason to believe time is infinite. In fact. rationally and mathematical THIS is impossible, as I've explained.
But, as I said, it's not impossible, just wildly improbable that we exist by chance.
Therefore it is MORE probable, much more, that we do NOT exist by chance.


Nobody proved anything, but created a theory that might or might not be correct. Nobody ever in the history of mankind has ever proved a physical theory in the mathematical sense because our assumptions might our might not be correct. On the contrary, everything we used to know ended up being wrong every single time. Plus there can be an infinite number of universes at any time, not just one after the other, and the fact that we might not be able to observe them is irrelevant in this discussion.

Why would you believe a theory of multiple universes when there is no evidence?
You must give a reason to prefer a theory that has LESS evidence than the Big Bang.

So you do not believe any scientific theory because it might be wrong?
So if you said it is reasonably probable that evolution is true, and I said "Well, this is just a theory and might be wrong" You would accept that as a good reason not to believe in evolution!


The only one that hides behind assumptions is you. You want to believe so much in a god that in completely stops you from being objective.

What assumptions have I made?

You assume, with no proof, evidence, or compelling argument, that Multiple Universes exist !
You choose to believe in a theory that has LESS proof, LESS evidence, and NO compelling arguments!
How can you honestly say yr being objective when you choose such a flawed theory?!

And where have I not been objective?
Where is my math wrong?
Or my science? My rational deductions?

[Ovi]

Anything is possible. Maybe there's a universe of pink Unicorns or we are in the matrix. IMy criteria for truth is logical consistency. What is yours?
Why would I believe in something like multiple universes just because it's possible? It's possible Unicorns exist. Why believe that? There's no evidence or compelling argument.

Why would you believe in a single universe? There's no evidence or compelling argument.



I don't think we are just like any other animals.

So I've noticed.


I believe I've given you a compelling argument.


Your compelling arguments don't mean shit to most physicist that actually know what they're talking about.



First, There's nothing unscientific that Unicorns might exist, why would I believe in it? Why do you prefer yr multiple Universe theory over the Big Bang?

A multiple universe theory doesn't exclude the Big Bang! Just because there are more universes than our own that doesn't mean Big Bang is wrong! You have some logic, I'll say.


However, there is much that is unscientific about multiple universes.
I would like to hear your scientific evidence for multiple universes.

I'll give you a brief lesson in why I do not believe in multiple Universes.

M-Theory says the physical universe must be 11-dimensional, but why the universe should possess just that number of dimensions is not addressed by the theory. Moreover, M-Theory fails to predict uniquely the values of the constants of nature. It turns out that string theory allows a “cosmic landscape” of around 10(500) different universes governed by the present laws of nature but with different values of the physical constants. Moreover, even though there may be a huge number of possible universes lying within the life-permitting region of the cosmic landscape, nevertheless that life-permitting region will be unfathomably tiny compared to the entire landscape, so that the existence of a life-permitting universe is fantastically improbable. Indeed, given the number of constants that require fine-tuning, it is far from clear that 10(500) possible universes is enough to guarantee that even one life-permitting world will appear by chance in the landscape!

All this has been said with respect to the constants alone; there is still nothing to explain the arbitrary quantities put in as boundary conditions. The extraordinarily low entropy condition of the early universe would be a good example of an arbitrary quantity which seems to have just been put in at the creation as an initial condition. There is no reason to think that showing every constant and quantity to be physically necessary is anything more than a pipe-dream.

This is the “multiple universe” hypothesis mentioned by Carrier. The multiple universe hypothesis is essentially an effort on the part of partisans of chance to multiply their probabilistic resources in order to reduce the improbability of the occurrence of fine-tuning. (The more spins of the roulette wheel, the better the chances of your number coming up!) The very fact that otherwise sober scientists must resort to such a remarkable hypothesis is a sort of backhanded compliment to the design hypothesis. It shows that the fine-tuning does cry out for explanation. But is the multiple universe hypothesis as plausible as the design hypothesis?

Why preferr the multiple universe hypothesis? For we have no experience whatsoever of other universes—the multiple universe hypothesis is a bold venture in metaphysical cosmology.

We have no experience whatsoever of any god, thus there must be multiple universes. That's your argument in reverse.


Our familiarity with our universe does nothing to warrant the appeal to other universes as familiar entities—at least not more so than the design hypothesis. For while we are likewise not familiar with designers of universes, we certainly are familiar with minds and the products of intelligent design, so that the appeal to a designer as the best explanation of the fine-tuning is an appeal to a familiar explanatory entity. Indeed, theists have sometimes been accused of anthropomorphism in this regard!

Moreover, while we have no evidence of the existence of multiple universes, we do have independent reasons for believing in the existence of an ultramundane designer of the universe, namely, the other arguments for the existence of God.

Finally, Carrier is mistaken when he opines that we cannot know that multiple universes do not exist and therefore agnosticism is the only justified conclusion. (Interesting to compare this conclusion with the frequent atheist claim that in the absence of evidence for God we should conclude that God does not exist! Do you see the inconsistency?)

At least it's better than: in the absence of evidence of god, I believe it exists.


He is unaware of the potentially lethal objections to the multiple universe hypothesis that have been lodged by physicists like Roger Penrose of Oxford University (The Road to Reality). Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite world ensemble of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

Penrose calculates that the odds of our universe’s low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. The odds of our solar system’s being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, on the other hand, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123).

Random collisions? It is well known how our solar system was formed, those random collisions follow some general rules such as conservation of linear and angular momentum, as well as energy.


Penrose calls it “chicken feed” by comparison! So if our universe were but one member of a collection of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. Observable universes like that are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one random member of an ensemble of worlds.

Or again, if our universe is but one random member of a world ensemble, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiple universe hypothesis. Penrose concludes that multiple universe explanations are so “impotent” that it is actually “misconceived” to appeal to them to explain the special features of the universe.

If there are an infinite number of universes, any finite probable event will occur! And yes those extraordinary events can occur, but it's highly unlikely in our life time.


Since the alternative of chance stands or falls with the multiple universe hypothesis, that alternative is seen to be very implausible. It therefore seems that the fine-tuning of the universe is plausibly due neither to physical necessity nor to chance. It follows that the fine-tuning is therefore due to design, unless the design hypothesis can be shown to be even more implausible than its competitors.

If there can be a god that who the hell said there can't be some fine tuned initial conditions?





I have given you a compelling argument.

That does not prove the existence of a god whatsoever. In the best case scenario it proves that we don't know that much about physical laws.




There is no evidence for infinite universes, I thought you believe in evidence?


There is no evidence for a god either. Other than: I believe there are no multiple universes, thus there is a god, which makes absolutely no sense. Just like people 10000 years ago, you try to explain the things we cannot understand by some deity.



If you have an alternative theory I'll listen. However, it does make sense, as I've shown.

Basically you say this: we don't know that much about the universe=> a god made the universe => that god cares about us.


Where did I say it was impossible? Please, lets be respectful and not twist words.
First - there is no evidence OR reason to believe time is infinite. In fact. rationally and mathematical THIS is impossible, as I've explained.
But, as I said, it's not impossible, just wildly improbable that we exist by chance.
Therefore it is MORE probable, much more, that we do NOT exist by chance.

Lack of knowledge does not equate the existence of god.




Why would you believe a theory of multiple universes when there is no evidence?
You must give a reason to prefer a theory that has LESS evidence than the Big Bang.

It does not contradict Big Bang at all.


So you do not believe any scientific theory because it might be wrong?
So if you said it is reasonably probable that evolution is true, and I said "Well, this is just a theory and might be wrong" You would accept that as a good reason not to believe in evolution!



What assumptions have I made?

You assume, with no proof, evidence, or compelling argument, that Multiple Universes exist !
You choose to believe in a theory that has LESS proof, LESS evidence, and NO compelling arguments!
How can you honestly say yr being objective when you choose such a flawed theory?!

And where have I not been objective?
Where is my math wrong?
Or my science? My rational deductions?
First of all, as I already said, just because we don't know that much about the universe, it doesn't mean there is a god. All it means is that we don't know that much about the universe. Second you didn't prove (you can't) that there can't be an infinite number of universes as we speak. Third, you assume that the laws of physics as we know them today are correct and because they can't explain everything you come to the wrong conclusion of the existence of a deity. They are most likely only an approximations of reality, just like it always was.

[spiltteeth]

Why would you believe in a single universe? There's no evidence or compelling argument.

The evidence is overwhelming, it requires several pages of mathematical proofs, but I will provide them if you sincerely wish.


So I've noticed.

Your compelling arguments don't mean shit to most physicist that actually know what they're talking about.

Most? I've quoted the most respected, accomplished theorists, atheist and theist alike. Which premise do you disagree with and why?


A multiple universe theory doesn't exclude the Big Bang! Just because there are more universes than our own that doesn't mean Big Bang is wrong! You have some logic, I'll say.

Yes. I know. Did you read my critique of the multi Yniverse theory, and why it doesn't make sense to be a valid cause of the big bang? I don't know yr level of math or physics, but I will expand.
Still, what is yr critique of the big bang?
What is yr evidence for the multiple universe theory? As I've shown, most evidence contradicts the theory!


We have no experience whatsoever of any god, thus there must be multiple universes. That's your argument in reverse.

Millions have experience of God, but thats not the point, the point is we have MORE experience of other minds, as I write.


At least it's better than: in the absence of evidence of god, I believe it exists.

Random collisions? It is well known how our solar system was formed, those random collisions follow some general rules such as conservation of linear and angular momentum, as well as energy.

Yes. There is no reason for them to collide in the exact precise way going the exact precise velocity that just happened to create the universe.


If there are an infinite number of universes, any finite probable event will occur! And yes those extraordinary events can occur, but it's highly unlikely in our life time.

If we are in the matrix....Why believe in the infinite Universes? All the evidence is contrary to this theory.
If you do not believe in science or math than you are free to belive in anything - multiple universes, giants holding up our planet etc

I
f there can be a god that who the hell said there can't be some fine tuned initial conditions?

There could be. The chances are astronomically improbable though.


That does not prove the existence of a god whatsoever. In the best case scenario it proves that we don't know that much about physical laws.

There is no evidence for a god either. Other than: I believe there are no multiple universes, thus there is a god, which makes absolutely no sense. Just like people 10000 years ago, you try to explain the things we cannot understand by some deity.

If you have a better, more compelling theory with more evidence than I will believe that.
I also believe in evolution. If you have a better, more compelling theory with more evidence than evolution, than I will believe in that.


Basically you say this: we don't know that much about the universe=> a god made the universe => that god cares about us.

Lack of knowledge does not equate the existence of god.

NO I'M SAYING THE OPPOSITE - we know a hell of a lot about the universe, the BEST hypothesis with the most strength for explaining it is God.
If you have another theory with greater explanatory strength please let me know.


It does not contradict Big Bang at all.

It contradicts all the evidence and math.


First of all, as I already said, just because we don't know that much about the universe, it doesn't mean there is a god. All it means is that we don't know that much about the universe. Second you didn't prove (you can't) that there can't be an infinite number of universes as we speak. Third, you assume that the laws of physics as we know them today are correct and because they can't explain everything you come to the wrong conclusion of the existence of a deity. They are most likely only an approximations of reality, just like it always was.

We know a great deal about the universe.

But yr right, if you do not believe in science or math, and can just say "well maybe that's wrong" then nothing can ever be proven mathematically or scientifically to you.

Since you not believe in science or math, I ask you again - what is yr criteria for truth?

And yr right, just because it contradicts all the evidence I can't prove there is no multiple universes.
All I can say is that it is much more probable that they don't exist.
Still, you must give a reason to prefer a theory that has LESS evidence, this is illogical.

The fact that you believe in the theory with LESS proof proves to me you do not care for the truth.

One can never prove a negative, I could never prove Santa Clause does not exist either.

[Ovi]

The evidence is overwhelming, it requires several pages of mathematical proofs, but I will provide them if you sincerely wish.



Most? I've quoted the most respected, accomplished theorists, atheist and theist alike. Which premise do you disagree with and why?



Yes. I know. Did you read my critique of the multi Yniverse theory, and why it doesn't make sense to be a valid cause of the big bang? I don't know yr level of math or physics, but I will expand.
Still, what is yr critique of the big bang?
What is yr evidence for the multiple universe theory? As I've shown, most evidence contradicts the theory!

There is no evidence! The only thing you said is that I am somehow against the Big Bang and that if there were an infinite number of universes we should be observing a different one. But you're the one who said that us simply living requires something highly improbable. The idea is that we live in a special universe because the vast majority of them cannot sustain life, thus no one can observe them!


Millions have experience of God, but thats not the point, the point is we have MORE experience of other minds, as I write.

No such experience has ever passed the rigors of science. You do believe in science, right?


Yes. There is no reason for them to collide in the exact precise way going the exact precise velocity that just happened to create the universe.

You just said that the solar system itself is so highly unlikely despite the fact that people have explained it's formation by those random collisions some time ago. So it's not that unlikely after all.


.

If we are in the matrix....Why believe in the infinite Universes? All the evidence is contrary to this theory.
If you do not believe in science or math than you are free to belive in anything - multiple universes, giants holding up our planet etc

There is no evidence against it; and there is no experimental data to confirm it either. Just because of that you assume there is a god.


I

There could be. The chances are astronomically improbable though.



If you have a better, more compelling theory with more evidence than I will believe that.
I also believe in evolution.

I don't have to. Just because I don't know everything in the universe that doesn't mean I have to invent a god.


If you have a better, more compelling theory with more evidence than evolution, than I will believe in that.



NO I'M SAYING THE OPPOSITE - we know a hell of a lot about the universe, the BEST hypothesis with the most strength for explaining it is God.

But on the contrary. Because we can't explain why the universe is the way it is you assume there is a god. This does not prove the existence the god, all it proves is that we don't know everything about the universe. There's no way you can logically deduce from known physics, the existence of a god that makes us special.


If you have another theory with greater explanatory strength please let me know.



It contradicts all the evidence and math.

Not having any experimental data that supports it doesn't mean it has to contradict it. In fact it doesn't at all.




We know a great deal about the universe.

But yr right, if you do not believe in science or math, and can just say "well maybe that's wrong" then nothing can ever be proven mathematically or scientifically to you.

There isn't a single physicist in his right mind that could possibly say he knows something certain about physics and he can prove it. You can't prove anything mathematically if your assumptions might not be correct.


Since you not believe in science or math, I ask you again - what is yr criteria for truth?

There is no truth in physics that we know of. Most likely all the laws of physics that we know today are wrong, just like it always was, but they're a fairly good approximation of the real world to us.


And yr right, just because it contradicts all the evidence I can't prove there is no multiple universes.
All I can say is that it is much more probable that they don't exist.
Still, you must give a reason to prefer a theory that has LESS evidence, this is illogical.

It doesn't contradict anything at all.


The fact that you believe in the theory with LESS proof proves to me you do not care for the truth.

I told you that such a theory does not contradict any data supporting the Big Bang at all. Get over it.

[spiltteeth]

There is no evidence! The only thing you said is that I am somehow against the Big Bang and that if there were an infinite number of universes we should be observing a different one. But you're the one who said that us simply living requires something highly improbable. The idea is that we live in a special universe because the vast majority of them cannot sustain life, thus no one can observe them!

No such experience has ever passed the rigors of science. You do believe in science, right?

You just said that the solar system itself is so highly unlikely despite the fact that people have explained it's formation by those random collisions some time ago. So it's not that unlikely after all.

There is no evidence against it; and there is no experimental data to confirm it either. Just because of that you assume there is a god.

I don't have to. Just because I don't know everything in the universe that doesn't mean I have to invent a god.

But on the contrary. Because we can't explain why the universe is the way it is you assume there is a god. This does not prove the existence the god, all it proves is that we don't know everything about the universe. There's no way you can logically deduce from known physics, the existence of a god that makes us special.

Not having any experimental data that supports it doesn't mean it has to contradict it. In fact it doesn't at all.

There isn't a single physicist in his right mind that could possibly say he knows something certain about physics and he can prove it. You can't prove anything mathematically if your assumptions might not be correct.

There is no truth in physics that we know of. Most likely all the laws of physics that we know today are wrong, just like it always was, but they're a fairly good approximation of the real world to us.

It doesn't contradict anything at all.

I told you that such a theory does not contradict any data supporting the Big Bang at all. Get over it.

Ovi, if you don't believe in science or math, as I keep saying, then indeed nothing can ever be proven to you.

You say physics and math can't prove anything, that they are 'probably wrong.'

1) What is your critique of the physics? What makes you think they are 'probably wrong'?

2) If math and science can not tell you the truth, then for a 3rd time, what is your criteria for truth?

3) As I keep saying, 'God' does not prove anything, it is the most probable explanation for the universe based on what we know now. If you contest this I would like to hear what you feel is a MORE probable answer. The 'multiple universe' theory? Fine. Tell me why you have so much faith in this theory, explain it to me.

4) There is a 'flat earth' society that says the exact same thing as you. 'No one can really say the earth is round because math and physics can't prove anything etc' You do not believe in physics or math. Fine. What do you believe in?

5) No one has 'explained' these random collisions, they have been described - by physics and math, which you say are 'probably wrong.' Again, I await yr reasons for thinking this.

6) You say the multiple universe theory 'doesn't contradict anything at all' yet I've shown it does. Please, back yrself up - how does it not contradict the known laws of physics and math?

7)
I told you that such a theory does not contradict any data supporting the Big Bang at all. Get over it.

Yes you told me. You provided no math, no evidence, no science, no reason, you told me.
I told you why it does - with reasons. What are the REASONS OVI? How old are you?

[Ovi]

Ovi, if you don't believe in science or math, as I keep saying, then indeed nothing can ever be proven to you.

You say physics and math can't prove anything, that they are 'probably wrong.'

Who said math can't prove anything?


1) What is your critique of the physics? What makes you think they are 'probably wrong'?
2) If math and science can not tell you the truth, then for a 3rd time, what is your criteria for truth?

Everything I'll say you'll dismiss as unscientific so what's the point. Here's someone who has similar opinions to mine in this subject

Each piece, or part, of the whole nature is always an approximation to the complete truth, or the complete truth so far as we know it. In fact, everything we know is only some kind of approximation, because we know that we do not know all the laws as yet. Therefore, things must be learned only to be unlearned again or, more likely, to be corrected.......The test of all knowledge is experiment. Experiment is the sole judge of scientific “truth”.
We have found it of paramount importance that in order to progress, we must recognize our ignorance and leave room for doubt. Scientific knowledge is a body of statements of varying degrees of certainty — some most unsure, some nearly sure, but none absolutely certain. Now, we scientists are used to this, and we take it for granted that it is perfectly consistent to be unsure, that it is possible to live and not know. But I don’t know whether everyone realizes this is true. Our freedom to doubt was born out of a struggle against authority in the early days of science. It was a very deep and strong struggle: permit us to question — to doubt — to not be sure. I think that it is important that we do not forget this struggle and thus perhaps lose what we have gained.
God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. His name is Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of all time.




3) As I keep saying, 'God' does not prove anything, it is the most probable explanation for the universe based on what we know now. If you contest this I would like to hear what you feel is a MORE probable answer. The 'multiple universe' theory? Fine. Tell me why you have so much faith in this theory, explain it to me.

I don't. I just don't think that my lack of understanding of the universe is attributed to the existence of a god. If god doesn't prove anything, if there's no way we can directly prove that he exists, if he won't talk to us, then why the hell would I fool myself that he exists?


4) There is a 'flat earth' society that says the exact same thing as you. 'No one can really say the earth is round because math and physics can't prove anything etc' You do not believe in physics or math. Fine. What do you believe in?

I believe in science and in the limits of our understanding.


5) No one has 'explained' these random collisions, they have been described - by physics and math, which you say are 'probably wrong.' Again, I await yr reasons for thinking this.

6) You say the multiple universe theory 'doesn't contradict anything at all' yet I've shown it does. Please, back yrself up - how does it not contradict the known laws of physics and math?

It does not contradict the Big Bang model.


7)

Yes you told me. You provided no math, no evidence, no science, no reason, you told me.
I told you why it does - with reasons. What are the REASONS OVI? How old are you?
How does this universe contradict the existence of other universes? And stop with the: you are unscientific, what's your age thing. I'm not criticizing you for believing in god because I couldn't care less about that. But saying that physics proves god it's too much. (Since I already said I'm in the last year at the Faculty of Physics, 21 might be a good guess).

[spiltteeth]

Who said math can't prove anything?

Everything I'll say you'll dismiss as unscientific so what's the point. Here's someone who has similar opinions to mine in this subject
His name is Richard Feynman, one of the greatest physicists of all time.

I don't. I just don't think that my lack of understanding of the universe is attributed to the existence of a god. If god doesn't prove anything, if there's no way we can directly prove that he exists, if he won't talk to us, then why the hell would I fool myself that he exists?

I believe in science and in the limits of our understanding.

It does not contradict the Big Bang model.

How does this universe contradict the existence of other universes? And stop with the: you are unscientific, what's your age thing. I'm not criticizing you for believing in god because I couldn't care less about that. But saying that physics proves god it's too much. (Since I already said I'm in the last year at the Faculty of Physics, 21 might be a good guess).

Frankly, I am astounded that you are study physics and make reference to the Oscillating universe theory!

First, math proves the universe more likely than not had a beginning.

Also, I agree with Richard Feynman. I don't see how it contradicts what I've said.

I claim we can reasonable believe the universe had a beginning, and that therefore it had a cause, and I simply deduct what some of the properties of said cause is.

Well, I guess i'll say it a fifth time, physics doesn't prove God, but God is the most probable answer. I've already explained why the evidence contradicts the multiple universe theory of Viulenkin, but, if yr serious I will spend my next hour typing up the specifics, and I will even give you page numbers which refer to his famous paper 'Many Worlds in One:The Search for Other Universes'

Please engage with the science, as you yourself claim you are generally interested in the truth. And since I've taken much time and effort here, at your repeated request, even though I asked you not to continue with this unless you were truly serious, I expect an equally scientific response.

Vilenkin vigorously champions the idea that we live in a multiverse, that is to say, the causally connected universe is but one domain in a much vaster cosmos which comprises an infinite number of such domains. Moreover, each causally connected domain is subdivided into an infinite number of subdomains, each constituting an observable universe bounded by an event horizon. As if that were not enough, Vilenkin also endorses Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, so that even the infinite multiverse is but one of an indefinitely large class of distinct multiverses. The result is a breath-taking vision of physical reality.

At the heart of Vilenkin's vision of the world is the theory of future-eternal, or everlasting, inflation (Vilenkin misleadingly calls it eternal inflation, even though he holds that the inflationary multiverse has only a finite past). According to generic inflationary theory, our universe exists in a true vacuum state with an energy density that is nearly zero, but earlier it existed in a false vacuum state with a very high energy density. The energy density of the false vacuum overwhelms even the intense gravitational attraction generated by the extremely high matter density of the early universe, causing a super-rapid, or inflationary, expansion, during which the universe grew from atomic proportions to a size larger than the observable universe in a thirtieth of a microsecond. Vilenkin does a nice job of explaining the empirical evidence that supports the fact of such an early inflationary era.

But Vilenkin needs more than generic inflationary theory. In order to ensure eternal inflation, Vilenkin hypothesizes that the scalar fields determining the energy density and evolution of the false vacuum state are characterized by a certain slope which issues in a false vacuum expanding so rapidly that, as it decays into pockets of true vacuum, the "island universes" thereby generated in this sea of false vacuum, though themselves expanding at enormous rates, cannot keep up with the expansion of the false vacuum and so find themselves increasingly separated with time. New pockets of true vacuum will continue to form in the gaps between the island universes and become themselves isolated worlds. Despite the fact that the multiverse is finite and geometrically closed, Vilenkin claims that the false vacuum will go on expanding forever. He does not explain how this is consistent, apart from special pleading, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

At this point Vilenkin executes a nifty piece of legerdemain. As the island universes expand, their central regions eventually grow dark and barren, while stars are forming at their ever-expanding perimeters. We should think of the decay of false vacuum to true vacuum going on at the islands' expanding boundaries as multiple Big Bangs. From the global perspective of the inflating multiverse, these Big Bangs occur successively, as the island boundaries grow with time. In the global time of the multiverse, each island is at any time finite in extent though growing. Now comes the sleight of hand. When we consider the internal, cosmic time of each island universe, each can be traced back to an initial Big Bang event. We can now string together these various Big Bang events as occurring simultaneously. Big Bangs which will occur in the global future are now to be regarded as present. As a result, the infinite, temporal series of successive Big Bangs is converted into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous Big Bangs. Hence, from the internal point of view each island universe is infinite in extent.

This blurring of appearance and reality leads Vilenkin to some bizarre conclusions. Since each island universe is taken to be infinite by its inhabitants, it can be subdivided into an infinite number of observable regions (or O-regions) each the size of our observable universe. Quantum mechanics implies that there is only a finite number of histories from the Big Bang to any moment in any O-region. Hence, given an infinite number of O-regions, it follows that every single history is repeated an infinite number of times. Thus, our own world in minutest detail is duplicated an infinite number of times throughout the O-regions in our island. Indeed, "all possible variations" on our world's history will appear an infinite number of times in the ensemble of O-regions.

Notice that this conclusion presupposes that the physical world can be completely described by the equations of quantum mechanics. As such, it is subverted by the presence in the world of agents endowed with freedom of the will whose actions are emphatically not random. There is no reason whatsoever to think that in some O-region Adolf Hitler (or his counterpart) will deliver his Nürnberg address standing on his head, much less that he (or they) would decide to do something so silly an infinite number of times. But never mind; the more fundamental error on Vilenkin's part is his deft transformation of an infinite, temporal succession of future O-regions into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous O-regions. We see the switch when he says, "any history that has a nonzero probability will happen—or rather has happened—in an infinite number of O-regions!" (p. 112). Viewed globally, these O-regions are in the future and will be infinite in number only in the sense that the island will continue to exist forever. Even more fundamentally, Vilenkin's conclusion seems to presuppose spacetime realism or, as it is sometimes called, four-dimensionalism, for if tense and temporal becoming are objective features of reality, then the future is potentially infinite only, and future O-regions do not in any sense exist. If there is a global tide of becoming, then there is no actually infinite collection of O-regions after all.

This reviewer cannot help but wonder about the psychology of persons who seem to find a certain glee in the prospect of infinite duplicates of our world. (I'm told that Vilenkin initially found this idea depressing; but if so, he seems to have gotten over it.) Why do some people seem to find this idea so attractive? I think we have a clue in Vilenkin's "A Farewell to Uniqueness," where he writes,

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete (p. 117).

Never mind the odd assumption that the significance of humankind is to be assessed in terms of its rarity in the cosmos; it is the note of celebration that accompanies this alleged demotion that strikes me.

Much of Vilenkin's interest in postulating many worlds in one is to find purchase for the Anthropic Principle in order to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. Quantum fluctuations in the scalar fields determine what sort of vacuum will decay out of the false vacuum, each associated with a different set of values for the constants of nature. By postulating an infinite array of island universes, randomly varying in their constants, Vilenkin can appeal to the Anthropic Principle to explain away the observed fine-tuning: our observations are constrained by a selection effect imposed by our own existence. Postulating many worlds enables one to avoid the inference to design, which might be taken to place homo sapiens (the most complex structure in the world) at the center of the universe. The delight in duplicate worlds springs from the consequent dethronement of mankind as the crown of creation.

But if an infinite ensemble of simultaneous island universes does not actually exist, Vilenkin's attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life collapses. For if, in fact, an infinite array of island universes does not yet exist, if most of them lie in the potentially infinite future and are therefore unreal, then there actually exist only as many universes as can have formed in the false vacuum since the multiverse's inception at its boundary in the finite past. Given the incomprehensible improbability of the constants' all falling randomly into the life-permitting range, it may well be highly improbable that a life-permitting island universe should have decayed this soon out of the false vacuum. In that case the sting of fine-tuning has not been relieved.

Vilenkin's whole multiverse scenario depends, it will be recalled, on the hypothesis of eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation. Although Vilenkin observes that "Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far" (p. 214), he also admits, "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don't know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (p. 61). One would have thought that this lack of evidence would have tempered the confidence with which Vilenkin promotes the multiverse hypothesis.

Wholly apart from its speculative nature, however, the multiverse hypothesis faces a potentially lethal problem, which Vilenkin does not even mention. Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe. This same problem proved devastating for Ludwig Boltzmann's appeal to a multiverse hypothesis in classical physics in order to explain why, if it has existed forever, the universe is not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium or heat death. Boltzmann made the bold speculation that the universe as a whole does, in fact, exist in a state of heat death, but that here and there random fluctuations produce pockets of disequilibrium, which Boltzmann referred to as "worlds." Ours is one of these, and we should not be surprised to observe our world in such a highly improbable disequilibrium state, since observers cannot exist anywhere else. Boltzmann's daring hypothesis has been universally rejected by contemporary physics on the grounds that were our universe but one such world in a multiverse, it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller region of disequilibrium—even one in which our solar system alone was produced in the twinkling of an eye by a random fluctuation—than what we do observe, since that is incomparably more probable than the whole universe's being progressively formed by a decline in entropy from an equilibrium state.

Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller orderly universe. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, according to Penrose, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.

But Vilenkin is not through yet. While acknowledging that most physicists take an agnostic attitude toward the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Vilenkin feels compelled to embrace Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. On the Copenhagen interpretation it is measurement by an observer which reduces quantum indeterminacy to a precise state. "The 'orthodox' Copenhagen interpretation, which requires an external observer to perform measurements on the system, cannot even be formulated in this case [i.e., quantum cosmology]: there are no observers external to the universe" (p. 115). Such an assertion seems, however, to presuppose atheism. Moreover, it ignores the fact that Copenhagen and Many Worlds do not exhaust our choices: there are plenty of alternatives.

Tellingly, Vilenkin later asserts that his own favored theory of quantum creation presupposes as a necessary condition the Many Worlds Interpretation:

If the Copenhagen interpretation is adopted, then the creation was a one-shot event, with a single universe popping out of nothing. This, however, leads to a problem. The most likely thing to pop out of nothing is a tiny Planck-sized universe, which would not tunnel, but would instantly collapse and disappear. Tunneling to a larger size has a small probability and therefore requires a large number of trials. It appears to be consistent only with the Everett interpretation (p. 187).

Vilenkin had better hope that such is not the case, for most philosophers and physicists would regard it as the reductio ad absurdum of his creation account.

This brings us to the other great cosmological question that occupies Vilenkin in the book: whether the universe—or, rather, multiverse—had an absolute beginning. After recounting the prediction of an absolute beginning by the standard Big Bang model and cataloguing various attempts to avert it, Vilenkin explains his formulation with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth in 2003 of a theorem which establishes that any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary. This is a theorem of great power which applies both to inflationary models and to current, higher dimensional, brane cosmological models based on string theory, as well to as typical expansion models. Vilenkin pulls no punches: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

While recognizing that theologians have often welcomed evidence of the universe's beginning as evidence for God's existence, Vilenkin dismisses such a view as "far too simplistic" (p. 177). How so? Vilenkin cites the Jain poet Jinasena, who asked, "If God created the world, were was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170). Since Vilenkin rejects the Jain view that the world is uncreated and eternal, he knows that similar "paradoxes" face him as well (p. 177). If theism is simplistic, therefore, it will not be because it confronts peculiar problems, but because it stops short of addressing those problems. Vilenkin seems to assume that the theist is stupefied in the face of such questions. But that is hardly the case. Jinasena's first question concerns the efficient cause of the universe and his second the material cause. The first question is not difficult to answer: "Nowhere," since space and time come into being at creation, so that there is no "before" and "where" prior to the beginning. The second question is more baffling; but if Vilenkin's theory of quantum tunneling provides an account of how the universe can arise without a material cause, then the theist may freely avail himself of it also. The advantage of theism over naturalistic accounts is that theism provides an efficient cause of the universe, whereas naturalism cannot.

The naturalist is therefore constrained to say that the universe came into being without either an efficient or a material cause. Vilenkin's theory of quantum creation is precisely an attempt to make such a view plausible. His exposition of his model is so clear and simple that it is easy for the metaphysician to see where Vilenkin has misconstrued its ontological import. He invites us to envision a small, closed, spherical universe filled with a false vacuum and containing some ordinary matter. If the radius of such a universe is small, classical physics predicts that it will collapse to a point; but quantum physics permits it to "tunnel" into a state of inflation. (Recall that such an event is nonetheless so improbable that the Many Worlds Interpretation must be invoked to save the account.) If we allow the radius to shrink all the way to zero, there still remains some positive probability of the universe's tunneling to inflation. Now Vilenkin equates the initial state of the universe explanatorily prior to tunneling with nothingness: "what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from zero size—from nothing!—to a finite radius and beginning to inflate" (p. 180). This equivalence is patently mistaken. As Vilenkin's diagram on the same page illustrates, the quantum tunneling is at every point a function from something to something. For quantum tunneling to be truly from nothing, the function would have to have a single term, the posterior term. Another way of seeing the point is to reflect on the fact that "to have no radius" (as is the case with nothingness) is not "to have a radius whose measure is zero."

Vilenkin himself seems to realize that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows, "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181). It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that "The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe" (p. 181). Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (Intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe [p. 205], the closest Vilenkin comes to theism). If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that "there was no universe." Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin's theory will be false.

That Vilenkin has not truly grasped how radical being's coming from non-being is is evident from his incredulity at the claim of the Hartle-Hawking model that an infinite universe should arise from nothing. He exclaims, "The most probable thing to pop out of nothing is then an infinite, empty, flat space. I find this very hard to believe!" (p. 191). Vilenkin finds it easier to believe that an itsy-bitsy universe should pop into being out of nothing. He thereby evinces a lack of understanding of the metaphysical chasm that separates being from non-being. As A. N. Prior pointed out, if something can come out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything—including an infinite universe—do not come into being out of nothing.

Vilenkin, then, cannot answer the paradoxes of creation as well as can the theist. In fact, the conjunction of theism with Vilenkin's model would be a congenial account of creation. We could have a complete, scientific description of the universe back to its beginning, at which God created the initial state of the universe. But naturalism on its own cannot do the job. If efficient causality apart from material causation seems difficult, then the origin of the universe without either efficient or material causation is even more so.

One might try to rescue a naturalistic quantum tunneling account by providing a mathematical description of it in terms of Euclidean, or what Hawking calls imaginary, time. In that case the universe does not come into being at all but exists timelessly as a non-singular, four-dimensional manifold having a shape analogous to that of a shuttlecock. Hawking, at least, famously took this to eliminate the need for a Creator. But it is interesting that Vilenkin will have no truck with such a realist construal of the Euclidean four-space. It is introduced "only for computational convenience" (p. 182). The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal "lost much of its intuitive appeal" after switching to Euclidean time; in fact, "it instructs us to sum over histories that are certainly impossible, because we do not live in Euclidean time" (pp. 190-1). This is sensible metaphysics; but it precludes recourse to imaginary time as a way of avoiding the so-called paradoxes of creation.

[Ovi]

Frankly, I am astounded that you are study physics and make reference to the Oscillating universe theory!

I'm even more surprised how you try to explain god on physics


First, math proves the universe more likely than not had a beginning.

It proves that the universe more likely has a beginning? What kind of proof is that?


Also, I agree with Richard Feynman. I don't see how it contradicts what I've said.

Sure it does.



1) What is your critique of the physics? What makes you think they are 'probably wrong'?

2) If math and science can not tell you the truth, then for a 3rd time, what is your criteria for truth?

Your assumption that we know almost everything never stops to amaze me.


I claim we can reasonable believe the universe had a beginning, and that therefore it had a cause, and I simply deduct what some of the properties of said cause is.

Well, I guess i'll say it a fifth time, physics doesn't prove God, but God is the most probable answer. I've already explained why the evidence contradicts the multiple universe theory of Viulenkin, but, if yr serious I will spend my next hour typing up the specifics, and I will even give you page numbers which refer to his famous paper 'Many Worlds in One:The Search for Other Universes'

Please engage with the science, as you yourself claim you are generally interested in the truth. And since I've taken much time and effort here, at your repeated request, even though I asked you not to continue with this unless you were truly serious, I expect an equally scientific response.

Scientific is this: nothing in physics is certain; we don't know shit about the universe.
And as Feynman brilliantly said it: God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand . Saying that our current understanding of the universe doesn't explain why we exist, thus there is a god is exactly that.

There are many and conflicting theories about the universe. The Bing Bang might explain what happened with out universe after the event but it says absolutely nothing about other universes or what happened before the event.

Not to mention that saying that this theory of universe formation contradicts what we already know is not a very powerful argument against it. Theories end up being replaced by something more accurate all the time.

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1574759]I'm even more surprised how you try to explain god on physics

And yet you can't say why your suprised. You can't point to any science that I've written to rebut it.


It proves that the universe more likely has a beginning? What kind of proof is that?

Uh, proofs that are mathematical are mathematical proofs.


Sure it does.

What he says contradicts none of the science I've postulated. I'm not interested in opinions. Every asshole has an opinion.


Your assumption that we know almost everything never stops to amaze me.

Not only is this not my opinion, but I've refuted it FIVE times. Which means yr dumb or haven't even read what I wrote.


Scientific is this: nothing in physics is certain; we don't know shit about the universe.
And as Feynman brilliantly said it: God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand . Saying that our current understanding of the universe doesn't explain why we exist, thus there is a god is exactly that.

There are many and conflicting theories about the universe. The Bing Bang might explain what happened with out universe after the event but it says absolutely nothing about other universes or what happened before the event.

What other universes? My entire essay refutes that this is a reasonable opinion, on scientific grounds. Of course yr free to make shit up - maybe Santa claus lives in one of those other universes! Oh Boy!


Not to mention that saying that this theory of universe formation contradicts what we already know is not a very powerful argument against it. Theories end up being replaced by something more accurate all the time.

If not mathematical and scientific proof, then what WOULD be a powerful argument?


Scientific is this: nothing in physics is certain; we don't know shit about the universe.

Yes, that is certainly scientific. "We don't know shit about the universe."

I keep saying my posit is based on probability, nor certainty, because this is how physics works. There's no way in hell you can convince me your a science student.

If this is your attitude, you'll make a great physicist.

Based on your answers I'm going to make the hypothesis that you're a moron.

That's really your rebuttal to the paper I wrote. Holy shit. I might as well of been talking to my dog.

[Ovi]

And yet you can't say why your suprised. You can't point to any science that I've written to rebut it.

Uh, proofs that are mathematical are mathematical proofs.

I can prove that there's a chance that tomorrow will rain. Now that's a proof!




What he says contradicts none of the science I've postulated. I'm not interested in opinions. Every asshole has an opinion.



Not only is this not my opinion, but I've refuted it FIVE times. Which means yr dumb or haven't even read what I wrote.



What other universes? My entire essay refutes that this is a reasonable opinion, on scientific grounds. Of course yr free to make shit up - maybe Santa claus lives in one of those other universes! Oh Boy!

I don't give a shit about other universes. I already told you that I am not supposed to explain stuff that cannot be explained today.




If not mathematical and scientific proof, then what WOULD be a powerful argument?



Yes, that is certainly scientific. "We don't know shit about the universe."

I keep saying my posit is based on probability, nor certainty, because this is how physics works. There's no way in hell you can convince me your a science student.

I'm not even trying.:laugh:


If this is your attitude, you'll make a great physicist.

Thank you.


Based on your answers I'm going to make the hypothesis that you're a moron.

At least I'm not going to say god exists simply because I can't understand lightning. If everyone would do that we would be living in a fucking cave worshiping the god of rain.


That's really your rebuttal to the paper I wrote. Holy shit. I might as well of been talking to my dog.
Go ahead. While you're at it, you might as well worship your dog. There's a greater chance that he might listen to your prayers than an invisible man in the sky.

[spiltteeth]

I asked you not to continue unless you were serious.

I wasted a great deal of time answering you because you insisted you were interested.

Why did you act so disrespectfully?

[Ovi]

I asked you not to continue unless you were serious.

I wasted a great deal of time answering you because you insisted you were interested.

Why did you act so disrespectfully?
Now I am disrespectful?

Why would I waste my time answering to every single paragraph of yours when the conclusion was obvious from the beginning? If we do know why the universe is like this then great, if not we'll keep researching. God is not part of any equation.

But just like anyone who tries to prove religious thoughts through physics, you picked the most mysterious thing in physics, where there are so many unknowns and you claim that this is due to god. When many of these problems will have an answer, you'll cling to other unexplained things and so on. Now I'm supposed to debate with you about multiple universes and why the universe started with such a low entropy, 2 currently unsolved problems in physics?

[spiltteeth]

Now I am disrespectful?

Why would I waste my time answering to every single paragraph of yours when the conclusion was obvious from the beginning? If we do know why the universe is like this then great, if not we'll keep researching. God is not part of any equation.

But just like anyone who tries to prove religious thoughts through physics, you picked the most mysterious thing in physics, where there are so many unknowns and you claim that this is due to god. When many of these problems will have an answer, you'll cling to other unexplained things and so on. Now I'm supposed to debate with you about multiple universes and why the universe started with such a low entropy, 2 currently unsolved problems in physics?

Actually I never claimed it was due to God, I claimed, with what we know now, it is the most probable answer. I know I keep repeating this, but you will not accept it. This far, you have not given a more probable answer.

You yourself asked me several time why the multiple Universe theory contradicted the evidence, and I told you I'd answer IN DEPTH -IF- you were serious.
Now you refuse to engage with my answer, after I specifically asked you, respectfully, NOT to ask UNLESS you were going to really engage in the science?

I have answered yr question.
You have answered none of mine.

You say "we don't know shit about the universe"
No Ovi, we know a great deal. This information is in science books. If you don't know than shut yr ignorant mouth, this discussion is for adults.

So, I' repeat, and forget the word 'God'

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

I don't care about your opinions Ovi, if you don't want to discuss the science fine, if you do then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

[Ovi]

Actually I never claimed it was due to God, I claimed, with what we know now, it is the most probable answer. I know I keep repeating this, but you will not accept it. This far, you have not given a more probable answer.

You yourself asked me several time why the multiple Universe theory contradicted the evidence, and I told you I'd answer IN DEPTH -IF- you were serious.
Now you refuse to engage with my answer, after I specifically asked you, respectfully, NOT to ask UNLESS you were going to really engage in the science?

What science? Multiple universes is an unsolved problem in physics.


I have answered yr question.
You have answered none of mine.

You say "we don't know shit about the universe"
No Ovi, we know a great deal. This information is in science books. If you don't know than shut yr ignorant mouth, this discussion is for adults.

We don't know shit about multiple universes and why the universe had such a low entropy. Of course you claim you know the answer, despite the fact that nobody else really does.


So, I' repeat, and forget the word 'God'

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

Who said anything about a being? How did you conclude from those 3 points that there must be a being?


It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

What does the universe creation have to do with us humans if that's what you mean through personal? What does this timeless cause have to do with humans?


There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

I don't care about your opinions Ovi, if you don't want to discuss the science fine, if you do then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.
Reject what? From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. What being are you talking about? And again, Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. what is personal? You mean us? These 2 points make no sense. And when it comes to theories, like multiple universes and the low entropy nobody knows how these things could be explained. Reject what? We know there was a low entropy but we don't know why.

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1575559]What science? Multiple universes is an unsolved problem in physics.

We don't know shit about multiple universes and why the universe had such a low entropy. Of course you claim you know the answer, despite the fact that nobody else really does.

As I keep saying, I make no such claim. You yourself objected to premise one on the multiple Universe theory. And we know general consequences, and we know why it is not a probable theory.

You asked me why the evidence contradicts the current theory. thus:

Vilenkin vigorously champions the idea that we live in a multiverse, that is to say, the causally connected universe is but one domain in a much vaster cosmos which comprises an infinite number of such domains. Moreover, each causally connected domain is subdivided into an infinite number of subdomains, each constituting an observable universe bounded by an event horizon. As if that were not enough, Vilenkin also endorses Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, so that even the infinite multiverse is but one of an indefinitely large class of distinct multiverses. The result is a breath-taking vision of physical reality.

At the heart of Vilenkin's vision of the world is the theory of future-eternal, or everlasting, inflation (Vilenkin misleadingly calls it eternal inflation, even though he holds that the inflationary multiverse has only a finite past). According to generic inflationary theory, our universe exists in a true vacuum state with an energy density that is nearly zero, but earlier it existed in a false vacuum state with a very high energy density. The energy density of the false vacuum overwhelms even the intense gravitational attraction generated by the extremely high matter density of the early universe, causing a super-rapid, or inflationary, expansion, during which the universe grew from atomic proportions to a size larger than the observable universe in a thirtieth of a microsecond. Vilenkin does a nice job of explaining the empirical evidence that supports the fact of such an early inflationary era.

But Vilenkin needs more than generic inflationary theory. In order to ensure eternal inflation, Vilenkin hypothesizes that the scalar fields determining the energy density and evolution of the false vacuum state are characterized by a certain slope which issues in a false vacuum expanding so rapidly that, as it decays into pockets of true vacuum, the "island universes" thereby generated in this sea of false vacuum, though themselves expanding at enormous rates, cannot keep up with the expansion of the false vacuum and so find themselves increasingly separated with time. New pockets of true vacuum will continue to form in the gaps between the island universes and become themselves isolated worlds. Despite the fact that the multiverse is finite and geometrically closed, Vilenkin claims that the false vacuum will go on expanding forever. He does not explain how this is consistent, apart from special pleading, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

At this point Vilenkin executes a nifty piece of legerdemain. As the island universes expand, their central regions eventually grow dark and barren, while stars are forming at their ever-expanding perimeters. We should think of the decay of false vacuum to true vacuum going on at the islands' expanding boundaries as multiple Big Bangs. From the global perspective of the inflating multiverse, these Big Bangs occur successively, as the island boundaries grow with time. In the global time of the multiverse, each island is at any time finite in extent though growing. Now comes the sleight of hand. When we consider the internal, cosmic time of each island universe, each can be traced back to an initial Big Bang event. We can now string together these various Big Bang events as occurring simultaneously. Big Bangs which will occur in the global future are now to be regarded as present. As a result, the infinite, temporal series of successive Big Bangs is converted into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous Big Bangs. Hence, from the internal point of view each island universe is infinite in extent.

This blurring of appearance and reality leads Vilenkin to some bizarre conclusions. Since each island universe is taken to be infinite by its inhabitants, it can be subdivided into an infinite number of observable regions (or O-regions) each the size of our observable universe. Quantum mechanics implies that there is only a finite number of histories from the Big Bang to any moment in any O-region. Hence, given an infinite number of O-regions, it follows that every single history is repeated an infinite number of times. Thus, our own world in minutest detail is duplicated an infinite number of times throughout the O-regions in our island. Indeed, "all possible variations" on our world's history will appear an infinite number of times in the ensemble of O-regions.

Notice that this conclusion presupposes that the physical world can be completely described by the equations of quantum mechanics. As such, it is subverted by the presence in the world of agents endowed with freedom of the will whose actions are emphatically not random. There is no reason whatsoever to think that in some O-region Adolf Hitler (or his counterpart) will deliver his Nürnberg address standing on his head, much less that he (or they) would decide to do something so silly an infinite number of times. But never mind; the more fundamental error on Vilenkin's part is his deft transformation of an infinite, temporal succession of future O-regions into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous O-regions. We see the switch when he says, "any history that has a nonzero probability will happen—or rather has happened—in an infinite number of O-regions!" (p. 112). Viewed globally, these O-regions are in the future and will be infinite in number only in the sense that the island will continue to exist forever. Even more fundamentally, Vilenkin's conclusion seems to presuppose spacetime realism or, as it is sometimes called, four-dimensionalism, for if tense and temporal becoming are objective features of reality, then the future is potentially infinite only, and future O-regions do not in any sense exist. If there is a global tide of becoming, then there is no actually infinite collection of O-regions after all.

This reviewer cannot help but wonder about the psychology of persons who seem to find a certain glee in the prospect of infinite duplicates of our world. (I'm told that Vilenkin initially found this idea depressing; but if so, he seems to have gotten over it.) Why do some people seem to find this idea so attractive? I think we have a clue in Vilenkin's "A Farewell to Uniqueness," where he writes,

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete (p. 117).

Never mind the odd assumption that the significance of humankind is to be assessed in terms of its rarity in the cosmos; it is the note of celebration that accompanies this alleged demotion that strikes me.

Much of Vilenkin's interest in postulating many worlds in one is to find purchase for the Anthropic Principle in order to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. Quantum fluctuations in the scalar fields determine what sort of vacuum will decay out of the false vacuum, each associated with a different set of values for the constants of nature. By postulating an infinite array of island universes, randomly varying in their constants, Vilenkin can appeal to the Anthropic Principle to explain away the observed fine-tuning: our observations are constrained by a selection effect imposed by our own existence. Postulating many worlds enables one to avoid the inference to design, which might be taken to place homo sapiens (the most complex structure in the world) at the center of the universe. The delight in duplicate worlds springs from the consequent dethronement of mankind as the crown of creation.

But if an infinite ensemble of simultaneous island universes does not actually exist, Vilenkin's attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life collapses. For if, in fact, an infinite array of island universes does not yet exist, if most of them lie in the potentially infinite future and are therefore unreal, then there actually exist only as many universes as can have formed in the false vacuum since the multiverse's inception at its boundary in the finite past. Given the incomprehensible improbability of the constants' all falling randomly into the life-permitting range, it may well be highly improbable that a life-permitting island universe should have decayed this soon out of the false vacuum. In that case the sting of fine-tuning has not been relieved.

Vilenkin's whole multiverse scenario depends, it will be recalled, on the hypothesis of eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation. Although Vilenkin observes that "Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far" (p. 214), he also admits, "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don't know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (p. 61). One would have thought that this lack of evidence would have tempered the confidence with which Vilenkin promotes the multiverse hypothesis.

Wholly apart from its speculative nature, however, the multiverse hypothesis faces a potentially lethal problem, which Vilenkin does not even mention. Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe. This same problem proved devastating for Ludwig Boltzmann's appeal to a multiverse hypothesis in classical physics in order to explain why, if it has existed forever, the universe is not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium or heat death. Boltzmann made the bold speculation that the universe as a whole does, in fact, exist in a state of heat death, but that here and there random fluctuations produce pockets of disequilibrium, which Boltzmann referred to as "worlds." Ours is one of these, and we should not be surprised to observe our world in such a highly improbable disequilibrium state, since observers cannot exist anywhere else. Boltzmann's daring hypothesis has been universally rejected by contemporary physics on the grounds that were our universe but one such world in a multiverse, it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller region of disequilibrium—even one in which our solar system alone was produced in the twinkling of an eye by a random fluctuation—than what we do observe, since that is incomparably more probable than the whole universe's being progressively formed by a decline in entropy from an equilibrium state.

Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller orderly universe. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, according to Penrose, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.

But Vilenkin is not through yet. While acknowledging that most physicists take an agnostic attitude toward the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Vilenkin feels compelled to embrace Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. On the Copenhagen interpretation it is measurement by an observer which reduces quantum indeterminacy to a precise state. "The 'orthodox' Copenhagen interpretation, which requires an external observer to perform measurements on the system, cannot even be formulated in this case : there are no observers external to the universe" (p. 115). Such an assertion seems, however, to presuppose atheism. Moreover, it ignores the fact that Copenhagen and Many Worlds do not exhaust our choices: there are plenty of alternatives.

Tellingly, Vilenkin later asserts that his own favored theory of quantum creation presupposes as a necessary condition the Many Worlds Interpretation:

If the Copenhagen interpretation is adopted, then the creation was a one-shot event, with a single universe popping out of nothing. This, however, leads to a problem. The most likely thing to pop out of nothing is a tiny Planck-sized universe, which would not tunnel, but would instantly collapse and disappear. Tunneling to a larger size has a small probability and therefore requires a large number of trials. It appears to be consistent only with the Everett interpretation (p. 187).

Vilenkin had better hope that such is not the case, for most philosophers and physicists would regard it as the reductio ad absurdum of his creation account.

This brings us to the other great cosmological question that occupies Vilenkin in the book: whether the universe—or, rather, multiverse—had an absolute beginning. After recounting the prediction of an absolute beginning by the standard Big Bang model and cataloguing various attempts to avert it, Vilenkin explains his formulation with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth in 2003 of a theorem which establishes that any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary. This is a theorem of great power which applies both to inflationary models and to current, higher dimensional, brane cosmological models based on string theory, as well to as typical expansion models. Vilenkin pulls no punches: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

While recognizing that theologians have often welcomed evidence of the universe's beginning as evidence for God's existence, Vilenkin dismisses such a view as "far too simplistic" (p. 177). How so? Vilenkin cites the Jain poet Jinasena, who asked, "If God created the world, were was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170). Since Vilenkin rejects the Jain view that the world is uncreated and eternal, he knows that similar "paradoxes" face him as well (p. 177). If theism is simplistic, therefore, it will not be because it confronts peculiar problems, but because it stops short of addressing those problems. Vilenkin seems to assume that the theist is stupefied in the face of such questions. But that is hardly the case. Jinasena's first question concerns the efficient cause of the universe and his second the material cause. The first question is not difficult to answer: "Nowhere," since space and time come into being at creation, so that there is no "before" and "where" prior to the beginning. The second question is more baffling; but if Vilenkin's theory of quantum tunneling provides an account of how the universe can arise without a material cause, then the theist may freely avail himself of it also. The advantage of theism over naturalistic accounts is that theism provides an efficient cause of the universe, whereas naturalism cannot.

The naturalist is therefore constrained to say that the universe came into being without either an efficient or a material cause. Vilenkin's theory of quantum creation is precisely an attempt to make such a view plausible. His exposition of his model is so clear and simple that it is easy for the metaphysician to see where Vilenkin has misconstrued its ontological import. He invites us to envision a small, closed, spherical universe filled with a false vacuum and containing some ordinary matter. If the radius of such a universe is small, classical physics predicts that it will collapse to a point; but quantum physics permits it to "tunnel" into a state of inflation. (Recall that such an event is nonetheless so improbable that the Many Worlds Interpretation must be invoked to save the account.) If we allow the radius to shrink all the way to zero, there still remains some positive probability of the universe's tunneling to inflation. Now Vilenkin equates the initial state of the universe explanatorily prior to tunneling with nothingness: "what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from zero size—from nothing!—to a finite radius and beginning to inflate" (p. 180). This equivalence is patently mistaken. As Vilenkin's diagram on the same page illustrates, the quantum tunneling is at every point a function from something to something. For quantum tunneling to be truly from nothing, the function would have to have a single term, the posterior term. Another way of seeing the point is to reflect on the fact that "to have no radius" (as is the case with nothingness) is not "to have a radius whose measure is zero."

Vilenkin himself seems to realize that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows, "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181). It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that "The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe" (p. 181). Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (Intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe [p. 205], the closest Vilenkin comes to theism). If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that "there was no universe." Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin's theory will be false.

That Vilenkin has not truly grasped how radical being's coming from non-being is is evident from his incredulity at the claim of the Hartle-Hawking model that an infinite universe should arise from nothing. He exclaims, "The most probable thing to pop out of nothing is then an infinite, empty, flat space. I find this very hard to believe!" (p. 191). Vilenkin finds it easier to believe that an itsy-bitsy universe should pop into being out of nothing. He thereby evinces a lack of understanding of the metaphysical chasm that separates being from non-being. As A. N. Prior pointed out, if something can come out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything—including an infinite universe—do not come into being out of nothing.

Vilenkin, then, cannot answer the paradoxes of creation as well as can the theist. In fact, the conjunction of theism with Vilenkin's model would be a congenial account of creation. We could have a complete, scientific description of the universe back to its beginning, at which God created the initial state of the universe. But naturalism on its own cannot do the job. If efficient causality apart from material causation seems difficult, then the origin of the universe without either efficient or material causation is even more so.

One might try to rescue a naturalistic quantum tunneling account by providing a mathematical description of it in terms of Euclidean, or what Hawking calls imaginary, time. In that case the universe does not come into being at all but exists timelessly as a non-singular, four-dimensional manifold having a shape analogous to that of a shuttlecock. Hawking, at least, famously took this to eliminate the need for a Creator. But it is interesting that Vilenkin will have no truck with such a realist construal of the Euclidean four-space. It is introduced "only for computational convenience" (p. 182). The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal "lost much of its intuitive appeal" after switching to Euclidean time; in fact, "it instructs us to sum over histories that are certainly impossible, because we do not live in Euclidean time" (pp. 190-1). This is sensible metaphysics; but it precludes recourse to imaginary time as a way of avoiding the so-called paradoxes of creation.


Who said anything about a being? How did you conclude from those 3 points that there must be a being?

This is the EIGTH time, but I will keep repeating myself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.


What does the universe creation have to do with us humans if that's what you mean through personal? What does this timeless cause have to do with humans?

I have already said this 4 times, but I will keep repeating it.
During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to think this being has a special concern for us.


Reject what? [I]From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. What being are you talking about? And again, Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. what is personal? You mean us? These 2 points make no sense. And when it comes to theories, like multiple universes and the low entropy nobody knows how these things could be explained. Reject what? We know there was a low entropy but we don't know why.

I know your playing dumb but I'll repeat yet again :
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

BEING as in personal. That is, God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God's case, that would be everything). Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things... Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be... Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen. To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire. ¶ So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act... First, therefore, God is a person. But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said "Let there be light"; and there was light.)

HOWEVER, if you have a more probable theory based on what we know, and dispute premise 1 or 2, please do so.

[Ovi]

As I keep saying, I make no such claim. You yourself objected to premise one on the multiple Universe theory. And we know general consequences, and we know why it is not a probable theory.

So you claim that multiple universes is indeed an unsolved problem yet you say that you know it can't be. How is that an unsolved problem to you?


You asked me why the evidence contradicts the current theory. thus:

Vilenkin vigorously champions the idea that we live in a multiverse, that is to say, the causally connected universe is but one domain in a much vaster cosmos which comprises an infinite number of such domains. Moreover, each causally connected domain is subdivided into an infinite number of subdomains, each constituting an observable universe bounded by an event horizon. As if that were not enough, Vilenkin also endorses Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics, so that even the infinite multiverse is but one of an indefinitely large class of distinct multiverses. The result is a breath-taking vision of physical reality.

At the heart of Vilenkin's vision of the world is the theory of future-eternal, or everlasting, inflation (Vilenkin misleadingly calls it eternal inflation, even though he holds that the inflationary multiverse has only a finite past). According to generic inflationary theory, our universe exists in a true vacuum state with an energy density that is nearly zero, but earlier it existed in a false vacuum state with a very high energy density. The energy density of the false vacuum overwhelms even the intense gravitational attraction generated by the extremely high matter density of the early universe, causing a super-rapid, or inflationary, expansion, during which the universe grew from atomic proportions to a size larger than the observable universe in a thirtieth of a microsecond. Vilenkin does a nice job of explaining the empirical evidence that supports the fact of such an early inflationary era.

But Vilenkin needs more than generic inflationary theory. In order to ensure eternal inflation, Vilenkin hypothesizes that the scalar fields determining the energy density and evolution of the false vacuum state are characterized by a certain slope which issues in a false vacuum expanding so rapidly that, as it decays into pockets of true vacuum, the "island universes" thereby generated in this sea of false vacuum, though themselves expanding at enormous rates, cannot keep up with the expansion of the false vacuum and so find themselves increasingly separated with time. New pockets of true vacuum will continue to form in the gaps between the island universes and become themselves isolated worlds. Despite the fact that the multiverse is finite and geometrically closed, Vilenkin claims that the false vacuum will go on expanding forever. He does not explain how this is consistent, apart from special pleading, with the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

At this point Vilenkin executes a nifty piece of legerdemain. As the island universes expand, their central regions eventually grow dark and barren, while stars are forming at their ever-expanding perimeters. We should think of the decay of false vacuum to true vacuum going on at the islands' expanding boundaries as multiple Big Bangs. From the global perspective of the inflating multiverse, these Big Bangs occur successively, as the island boundaries grow with time. In the global time of the multiverse, each island is at any time finite in extent though growing. Now comes the sleight of hand. When we consider the internal, cosmic time of each island universe, each can be traced back to an initial Big Bang event. We can now string together these various Big Bang events as occurring simultaneously. Big Bangs which will occur in the global future are now to be regarded as present. As a result, the infinite, temporal series of successive Big Bangs is converted into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous Big Bangs. Hence, from the internal point of view each island universe is infinite in extent.

This blurring of appearance and reality leads Vilenkin to some bizarre conclusions. Since each island universe is taken to be infinite by its inhabitants, it can be subdivided into an infinite number of observable regions (or O-regions) each the size of our observable universe. Quantum mechanics implies that there is only a finite number of histories from the Big Bang to any moment in any O-region. Hence, given an infinite number of O-regions, it follows that every single history is repeated an infinite number of times. Thus, our own world in minutest detail is duplicated an infinite number of times throughout the O-regions in our island. Indeed, "all possible variations" on our world's history will appear an infinite number of times in the ensemble of O-regions.

Notice that this conclusion presupposes that the physical world can be completely described by the equations of quantum mechanics. As such, it is subverted by the presence in the world of agents endowed with freedom of the will whose actions are emphatically not random. There is no reason whatsoever to think that in some O-region Adolf Hitler (or his counterpart) will deliver his Nürnberg address standing on his head, much less that he (or they) would decide to do something so silly an infinite number of times. But never mind; the more fundamental error on Vilenkin's part is his deft transformation of an infinite, temporal succession of future O-regions into an infinite, spatial array of simultaneous O-regions. We see the switch when he says, "any history that has a nonzero probability will happen—or rather has happened—in an infinite number of O-regions!" (p. 112). Viewed globally, these O-regions are in the future and will be infinite in number only in the sense that the island will continue to exist forever. Even more fundamentally, Vilenkin's conclusion seems to presuppose spacetime realism or, as it is sometimes called, four-dimensionalism, for if tense and temporal becoming are objective features of reality, then the future is potentially infinite only, and future O-regions do not in any sense exist. If there is a global tide of becoming, then there is no actually infinite collection of O-regions after all.

This reviewer cannot help but wonder about the psychology of persons who seem to find a certain glee in the prospect of infinite duplicates of our world. (I'm told that Vilenkin initially found this idea depressing; but if so, he seems to have gotten over it.) Why do some people seem to find this idea so attractive? I think we have a clue in Vilenkin's "A Farewell to Uniqueness," where he writes,

In the worldview that has emerged from eternal inflation, our Earth and our civilization are anything but unique. Instead, countless identical civilizations are scattered in the infinite expanse of the cosmos. With humankind reduced to absolute cosmic insignificance, our descent from the center of the universe is now complete (p. 117).

Never mind the odd assumption that the significance of humankind is to be assessed in terms of its rarity in the cosmos; it is the note of celebration that accompanies this alleged demotion that strikes me.

Much of Vilenkin's interest in postulating many worlds in one is to find purchase for the Anthropic Principle in order to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe. Quantum fluctuations in the scalar fields determine what sort of vacuum will decay out of the false vacuum, each associated with a different set of values for the constants of nature. By postulating an infinite array of island universes, randomly varying in their constants, Vilenkin can appeal to the Anthropic Principle to explain away the observed fine-tuning: our observations are constrained by a selection effect imposed by our own existence. Postulating many worlds enables one to avoid the inference to design, which might be taken to place homo sapiens (the most complex structure in the world) at the center of the universe. The delight in duplicate worlds springs from the consequent dethronement of mankind as the crown of creation.

But if an infinite ensemble of simultaneous island universes does not actually exist, Vilenkin's attempt to explain away the fine-tuning of the universe for intelligent life collapses. For if, in fact, an infinite array of island universes does not yet exist, if most of them lie in the potentially infinite future and are therefore unreal, then there actually exist only as many universes as can have formed in the false vacuum since the multiverse's inception at its boundary in the finite past. Given the incomprehensible improbability of the constants' all falling randomly into the life-permitting range, it may well be highly improbable that a life-permitting island universe should have decayed this soon out of the false vacuum. In that case the sting of fine-tuning has not been relieved.

Vilenkin's whole multiverse scenario depends, it will be recalled, on the hypothesis of eternal inflation, which in turn is based upon the existence of certain primordial scalar fields which govern inflation. Although Vilenkin observes that "Inflation is eternal in practically all models suggested so far" (p. 214), he also admits, "Another important question is whether or not such scalar fields really exist in nature. Unfortunately, we don't know. There is no direct evidence for their existence" (p. 61). One would have thought that this lack of evidence would have tempered the confidence with which Vilenkin promotes the multiverse hypothesis.

Wholly apart from its speculative nature, however, the multiverse hypothesis faces a potentially lethal problem, which Vilenkin does not even mention. Simply stated, if our universe is but one member of an infinite collection of randomly varying universes, then it is overwhelmingly more probable that we should be observing a much different universe than that which we in fact observe.

But wasn't our existence based on some very improbable constants? If so, we could not have lived in the universes that are more probable.


This same problem proved devastating for Ludwig Boltzmann's appeal to a multiverse hypothesis in classical physics in order to explain why, if it has existed forever, the universe is not now in a state of thermodynamic equilibrium or heat death. Boltzmann made the bold speculation that the universe as a whole does, in fact, exist in a state of heat death, but that here and there random fluctuations produce pockets of disequilibrium, which Boltzmann referred to as "worlds." Ours is one of these, and we should not be surprised to observe our world in such a highly improbable disequilibrium state, since observers cannot exist anywhere else. Boltzmann's daring hypothesis has been universally rejected by contemporary physics on the grounds that were our universe but one such world in a multiverse, it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller region of disequilibrium—even one in which our solar system alone was produced in the twinkling of an eye by a random fluctuation—than what we do observe, since that is incomparably more probable than the whole universe's being progressively formed by a decline in entropy from an equilibrium state.

True, IF indeed everything is random. While measuring a system you'll always have an indeterminacy, that does not mean the system does not follow a determinate path. In this case, while the universe seems to follow the secons law of thermodynamics very well, in a few billion years the entire universe could collapse back because that is how it's meant to be. This Bohm interpretation, although just like any other theory, fails to explain everything, is still debated.


Now a similar problem afflicts the contemporary appeal to the multiverse to explain away fine-tuning. Roger Penrose has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number.

Yet we can only observe such rare universes. Why does our universe exist? Nobody knows.


If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller orderly universe. The odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by random collisions of particles is, according to Penrose, about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all the constants and quantities of nature's falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those are much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but one member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse.

If horses would pop into and out of existence and if perpetual machines would exist, then most likely we would not be alive right now to talk about it. Plus this is being subjective. We find our planet to lack such abnormal events because we define normal as our own world.


But Vilenkin is not through yet. While acknowledging that most physicists take an agnostic attitude toward the physical interpretation of quantum mechanics, Vilenkin feels compelled to embrace Everett's Many Worlds Interpretation. On the Copenhagen interpretation it is measurement by an observer which reduces quantum indeterminacy to a precise state. "The 'orthodox' Copenhagen interpretation, which requires an external observer to perform measurements on the system, cannot even be formulated in this case [i.e., quantum cosmology]: there are no observers external to the universe" (p. 115). Such an assertion seems, however, to presuppose atheism. Moreover, it ignores the fact that Copenhagen and Many Worlds do not exhaust our choices: there are plenty of alternatives.

Tellingly, Vilenkin later asserts that his own favored theory of quantum creation presupposes as a necessary condition the Many Worlds Interpretation:

If the Copenhagen interpretation is adopted, then the creation was a one-shot event, with a single universe popping out of nothing. This, however, leads to a problem. The most likely thing to pop out of nothing is a tiny Planck-sized universe, which would not tunnel, but would instantly collapse and disappear. Tunneling to a larger size has a small probability and therefore requires a large number of trials. It appears to be consistent only with the Everett interpretation (p. 187).

Vilenkin had better hope that such is not the case, for most philosophers and physicists would regard it as the reductio ad absurdum of his creation account.

This brings us to the other great cosmological question that occupies Vilenkin in the book: whether the universe—or, rather, multiverse—had an absolute beginning. After recounting the prediction of an absolute beginning by the standard Big Bang model and cataloguing various attempts to avert it, Vilenkin explains his formulation with Arvind Borde and Alan Guth in 2003 of a theorem which establishes that any universe which has on average over its past history been in a state of expansion cannot be infinite in the past but must have a spacetime boundary. This is a theorem of great power which applies both to inflationary models and to current, higher dimensional, brane cosmological models based on string theory, as well to as typical expansion models. Vilenkin pulls no punches: "It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning" (p. 176).

While recognizing that theologians have often welcomed evidence of the universe's beginning as evidence for God's existence, Vilenkin dismisses such a view as "far too simplistic" (p. 177). How so? Vilenkin cites the Jain poet Jinasena, who asked, "If God created the world, were was He before creation?" and "How could God have made the world without any raw material?" (p. 170). Since Vilenkin rejects the Jain view that the world is uncreated and eternal, he knows that similar "paradoxes" face him as well (p. 177). If theism is simplistic, therefore, it will not be because it confronts peculiar problems, but because it stops short of addressing those problems. Vilenkin seems to assume that the theist is stupefied in the face of such questions. But that is hardly the case. Jinasena's first question concerns the efficient cause of the universe and his second the material cause. The first question is not difficult to answer: "Nowhere," since space and time come into being at creation, so that there is no "before" and "where" prior to the beginning.

So if space and time have no meaning before the universe creation, why would a god do? Why not some laws that exist before the universe, just like some god would?


The second question is more baffling; but if Vilenkin's theory of quantum tunneling provides an account of how the universe can arise without a material cause, then the theist may freely avail himself of it also. The advantage of theism over naturalistic accounts is that theism provides an efficient cause of the universe, whereas naturalism cannot.

The naturalist is therefore constrained to say that the universe came into being without either an efficient or a material cause. Vilenkin's theory of quantum creation is precisely an attempt to make such a view plausible. His exposition of his model is so clear and simple that it is easy for the metaphysician to see where Vilenkin has misconstrued its ontological import. He invites us to envision a small, closed, spherical universe filled with a false vacuum and containing some ordinary matter. If the radius of such a universe is small, classical physics predicts that it will collapse to a point; but quantum physics permits it to "tunnel" into a state of inflation. (Recall that such an event is nonetheless so improbable that the Many Worlds Interpretation must be invoked to save the account.) If we allow the radius to shrink all the way to zero, there still remains some positive probability of the universe's tunneling to inflation. Now Vilenkin equates the initial state of the universe explanatorily prior to tunneling with nothingness: "what I had was a mathematical description of a universe tunneling from zero size—from nothing!—to a finite radius and beginning to inflate" (p. 180). This equivalence is patently mistaken. As Vilenkin's diagram on the same page illustrates, the quantum tunneling is at every point a function from something to something. For quantum tunneling to be truly from nothing, the function would have to have a single term, the posterior term. Another way of seeing the point is to reflect on the fact that "to have no radius" (as is the case with nothingness) is not "to have a radius whose measure is zero."

Vilenkin himself seems to realize that he has not really described the tunneling of the universe from literally nothing, for he allows, "And yet, the state of 'nothing' cannot be identified with absolute nothingness. The tunneling is described by the laws of quantum mechanics, and thus 'nothing' should be subjected to these laws" (p. 181). It follows that the universe described by those laws is not nothing. Unfortunately, Vilenkin draws the mistaken inference that "The laws of physics must have existed, even though there was no universe" (p. 181). Even if one takes a Platonistic view of the laws of nature, they are at most either mathematical objects or propositions, abstract entities that have no effect on anything. (Intriguingly, Vilenkin entertains a conceptualist view according to which the laws exist in a mind which predates the universe [p. 205], the closest Vilenkin comes to theism). If these laws are truly descriptive, then obviously it cannot be true that "there was no universe." Of course, the laws could have existed and been false, in which case they are non-descriptive; but then Vilenkin's theory will be false.

That Vilenkin has not truly grasped how radical being's coming from non-being is is evident from his incredulity at the claim of the Hartle-Hawking model that an infinite universe should arise from nothing. He exclaims, "The most probable thing to pop out of nothing is then an infinite, empty, flat space. I find this very hard to believe!" (p. 191). Vilenkin finds it easier to believe that an itsy-bitsy universe should pop into being out of nothing. He thereby evinces a lack of understanding of the metaphysical chasm that separates being from non-being. As A. N. Prior pointed out, if something can come out of nothing, then it becomes inexplicable why anything and everything—including an infinite universe—do not come into being out of nothing.

Vilenkin, then, cannot answer the paradoxes of creation as well as can the theist. In fact, the conjunction of theism with Vilenkin's model would be a congenial account of creation. We could have a complete, scientific description of the universe back to its beginning, at which God created the initial state of the universe. But naturalism on its own cannot do the job. If efficient causality apart from material causation seems difficult, then the origin of the universe without either efficient or material causation is even more so.

One might try to rescue a naturalistic quantum tunneling account by providing a mathematical description of it in terms of Euclidean, or what Hawking calls imaginary, time. In that case the universe does not come into being at all but exists timelessly as a non-singular, four-dimensional manifold having a shape analogous to that of a shuttlecock. Hawking, at least, famously took this to eliminate the need for a Creator. But it is interesting that Vilenkin will have no truck with such a realist construal of the Euclidean four-space. It is introduced "only for computational convenience" (p. 182). The Hartle-Hawking no-boundary proposal "lost much of its intuitive appeal" after switching to Euclidean time; in fact, "it instructs us to sum over histories that are certainly impossible, because we do not live in Euclidean time" (pp. 190-1). This is sensible metaphysics; but it precludes recourse to imaginary time as a way of avoiding the so-called paradoxes of creation.

So how is a universe made out of nothing by a god supposed to be a better explanation that a universe made out of nothing without a god?




This is the EIGTH time, but I will keep repeating myself.

1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

So there must be some law that is uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial. Why a being? I call it the laws of physics.


It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes.

Again this relies on some unproved assumptions, as I told you. And of course saying this relies on the fact that you can say something with certain, despite the fact that this is still an unsolved problem.




It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

Yes. So these laws of physics must be timeless and changeless.


Moreover, I would argue, it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.

A? How is this paragraph supposed to explain why god loves humans more than anything else in this universe?


There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.



I have already said this 4 times, but I will keep repeating it.
During the last 40 years or so, scientists have discovered that the existence of intelligent life depends upon a complex and delicate balance of initial conditions given in the Big Bang itself. Scientists once believed that whatever the initial conditions of the universe, eventually intelligent life might evolve. But we now know that our existence is balanced on a knife's edge. The existence of intelligent life depends upon a conspiracy of initial conditions which must be fine-tuned to a degree that is literally incomprehensible and incalculable.

This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, you find appearing in them certain constants, like the gravitational constant. These constants are not determined by the laws of nature. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for these constants. Second, in addition to these constants there are certain arbitrary quantities which are just put in as initial conditions on which the laws of nature operate, for example, the amount of entropy or the balance between matter and anti-matter in the universe. Now all of these constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants or quantities to be altered by a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed and life would not exist.

For example, the physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that a change in the strength of gravity or of the atomic weak force by only one part in 10100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. The cosmological constant which drives the inflation of the universe and is responsible for the recently discovered acceleration of the universe's expansion is inexplicably fine-tuned to around one part in 10120. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the Big Bang's low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 10 (123). Penrose comments, "I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010 (123)."5 And it's not just each constant or quantity which must be exquisitely finely-tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely-tuned. So improbability is multiplied by improbability by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

Therefore it is not unreasonable to think this being has a special concern for us.

We live in a very improbable universe. Ok, so what? If it wasn't like this, just as you said it, we would not be living at all. Or in another sense, we could not have observed a different universe, because the vast majority of them (the most probable) could not sustain human beings.


I know your playing dumb but I'll repeat yet again :
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

There are three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.
If you wish to dispute (1) then you must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.

BEING as in personal. That is, God is the kind of being who is conscious and enjoys some kind of awareness of his surroundings (in God's case, that would be everything). Second (though not second in importance), a person has loves and hates, wishes and desires; she approves of some things and disapproves of others; she wants things to be a certain way. We might put this by saying that persons have affections. A person, third, is a being who has beliefs and, if fortunate, knowledge. We human beings, for example, believe a host of things... Persons, therefore, have beliefs and affections. Further, a person is a being who has aims and intentions; a person aims to bring it about that things should be a certain way, intends to act so that things will be the way he wants them to be... Finally, persons can often act to fulfill their intentions; they can bring it about that things are a certain way; they can cause things to happen. To be more technical (though not more insightful or more clear), we might say that a person is a being who can actualize states of affairs. Persons can often act on the basis of what they believe in order to bring about states of affairs whose actuality they desire. ¶ So a person is conscious, has affections, beliefs, and intentions, and can act... First, therefore, God is a person. But second, unlike human persons, God is a person without a body. He acts, and acts in the world, as human beings do, but, unlike human beings, not by way of a body. Rather, God acts just by willing: he wills that things be a certain way, and they are that way. (God said "Let there be light"; and there was light.)

HOWEVER, if you have a more probable theory based on what we know, and dispute premise 1 or 2, please do so.
I already told you that I don't have to. I don't blame my lack of knowing everything on god. I don't think I know the answer to currently unsolved problems in physics.
And again, there is no difference between a god that made the universe and the laws of the physics that made the universe. This thread is about a god that supposedly loves us.

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1575708]So you claim that multiple universes is indeed an unsolved problem yet you say that you know it can't be. How is that an unsolved problem to you?

I'll just be cut and pasting my answers from now on since I've answered all this.

I claim the evidence contradicts the multiple universe theory at present.


But wasn't our existence based on some very improbable constants? If so, we could not have lived in the universes that are more probable.

True, IF indeed everything is random. While measuring a system you'll always have an indeterminacy, that does not mean the system does not follow a determinate path. In this case, while the universe seems to follow the secons law of thermodynamics very well, in a few billion years the entire universe could collapse back because that is how it's meant to be. This Bohm interpretation, although just like any other theory, fails to explain everything, is still debated.

Again, I've already explained why this is untenable, I repeat :
The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

Ironically, Hawkings even commented that this theory sees so desperate, that he thinks the people who were trying to make it work were doing so for psychological reasons to avoid the implications of the Big Bang!


Yet we can only observe such rare universes. Why does our universe exist? Nobody knows.

"Why" presupposes meaning, as children are taught in 3rd grade science, so this is outside the purview of science.


If horses would pop into and out of existence and if perpetual machines would exist, then most likely we would not be alive right now to talk about it. Plus this is being subjective. We find our planet to lack such abnormal events because we define normal as our own world.

I presume your making reference to WAP -The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

The answer to the question "Why is the universe isotropic?" given by Collins and Hawking, ". . . the isotropy of the Universe is a consequence of our existence," is simply irresponsible and brings the Anthropic Philosophy into undeserved disrepute, for literally taken, such an answer would require some form of backward causation whereby the conditions of the early universe were brought about by us acting as efficient causes merely by our observing the heavens.
But WAP neither asserts nor implies this; rather WAP holds that we must observe the universe to possess certain features (not that the universe must possess certain features) and the Anthropic Philosophy says that therefore these features ought not to surprise us or cry out for explanation. The self-selection effect affects our observations, not the basic features of the universe itself. If the Anthropic Philosophy held that the basic features of the universe were themselves brought about by our observations, then it could be rightly dismissed as fanciful.
But the Anthropic Philosophy is much more subtle: it does not try to explain why the universe has the basic features it does, but contends that no explanation is needed, since we should not be surprised at observing what we do, our observations of those basic features being restricted by our own existence as observers.

But does the Anthropic Philosophy follow from the Anthropic Principle, as Barrow and Tipler claim? Let us concede that it follows from WAP that

3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.
For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that

4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.
For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie16): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.

The reason the falsity of (7) does not follow from (3) is that subimplication fails for first order predicate calculus. For (3) may be schematized as

3'. ~S: (x) ([Fx × ~Cx] É ~Ox)
where "S:" is an operator expressing "we should be surprised that" and "F" is "is a feature of the universe," "C" is "is compatible with our existence," and "O" is "is observed by us." And (7) may be schematized as

7'. S: ($x) (Fx × Cx × Ox)
It is clear that the object of surprise in (7') is not equivalent to the object of surprise in (3'); therefore the truth of (3') does not entail the negation of (7').17

Therefore, the attempt of the Anthropic Philosophy to stave off our surprise at the basic features of the universe fails. It does not after all follow from WAP that our surprise at the basic features of the universe is unwarranted or inappropriate and that they do not therefore cry out for explanation. But which features of the universe should thus surprise us? --those which are necessary conditions of our existence and which seem extremely improbable or whose coincidence seems extremely improbable. Thus, we should amend (7) to read

7*. We should be surprised that we do observe basic features of the universe which individually or collectively are excessively improbable and are necessary conditions of our own existence.


So if space and time have no meaning before the universe creation, why would a god do? Why not some laws that exist before the universe, just like some god would?

As I have said, I'll repeat - laws of physics are not personal.
It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.


So how is a universe made out of nothing by a god supposed to be a better explanation that a universe made out of nothing without a god?

What is the explanation for the creation of the Universe without God that is more probable based on what we now know (premise 3)?


So there must be some law that is uncaused, changeless, timeless and immaterial. Why a being? I call it the laws of physics.

Laws of physics are personal and intelligent? Ok.
It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.


Again this relies on some unproved assumptions, as I told you. And of course saying this relies on the fact that you can say something with certain, despite the fact that this is still an unsolved problem.

I know you have trouble reading. Will it help if a repeat AND underline?
Actually I never claimed it was due to God, I claimed, with what we know now, it is the most probable answer. I know I keep repeating this, but you will not accept it. This far, you have not given a more probable answer.


Yes. So these laws of physics must be timeless and changeless.

A? How is this paragraph supposed to explain why god loves humans more than anything else in this universe?

It doesn't, only that it is not an unreasonable belief that God has a special concern for humans.


We live in a very improbable universe. Ok, so what? If it wasn't like this, just as you said it, we would not be living at all. Or in another sense, we could not have observed a different universe, because the vast majority of them (the most probable) could not sustain human beings.

i repeat -
I presume your making reference to WAP -The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
The answer to the question "Why is the universe isotropic?" given by Collins and Hawking, ". . . the isotropy of the Universe is a consequence of our existence," is simply irresponsible and brings the Anthropic Philosophy into undeserved disrepute, for literally taken, such an answer would require some form of backward causation whereby the conditions of the early universe were brought about by us acting as efficient causes merely by our observing the heavens.
But WAP neither asserts nor implies this; rather WAP holds that we must observe the universe to possess certain features (not that the universe must possess certain features) and the Anthropic Philosophy says that therefore these features ought not to surprise us or cry out for explanation. The self-selection effect affects our observations, not the basic features of the universe itself. If the Anthropic Philosophy held that the basic features of the universe were themselves brought about by our observations, then it could be rightly dismissed as fanciful.
But the Anthropic Philosophy is much more subtle: it does not try to explain why the universe has the basic features it does, but contends that no explanation is needed, since we should not be surprised at observing what we do, our observations of those basic features being restricted by our own existence as observers.

But does the Anthropic Philosophy follow from the Anthropic Principle, as Barrow and Tipler claim? Let us concede that it follows from WAP that

3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.
For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that

4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.
For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie16): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.

The reason the falsity of (7) does not follow from (3) is that subimplication fails for first order predicate calculus. For (3) may be schematized as

3'. ~S: (x) ([Fx × ~Cx] É ~Ox)
where "S:" is an operator expressing "we should be surprised that" and "F" is "is a feature of the universe," "C" is "is compatible with our existence," and "O" is "is observed by us." And (7) may be schematized as

7'. S: ($x) (Fx × Cx × Ox)
It is clear that the object of surprise in (7') is not equivalent to the object of surprise in (3'); therefore the truth of (3') does not entail the negation of (7').17

Therefore, the attempt of the Anthropic Philosophy to stave off our surprise at the basic features of the universe fails. It does not after all follow from WAP that our surprise at the basic features of the universe is unwarranted or inappropriate and that they do not therefore cry out for explanation. But which features of the universe should thus surprise us? --those which are necessary conditions of our existence and which seem extremely improbable or whose coincidence seems extremely improbable. Thus, we should amend (7) to read

7*. We should be surprised that we do observe basic features of the universe which individually or collectively are excessively improbable and are necessary conditions of our own existence.


I already told you that I don't have to. I don't blame my lack of knowing everything on god. I don't think I know the answer to currently unsolved problems in physics.
And again, there is no difference between a god that made the universe and the laws of the physics that made the universe. This thread is about a god that supposedly loves us.

Saying "i don;t know" is not a more probable premise than the one I've given.

Well, this is 3rd grade stuff, but laws of physics are not personal nor intelligent.
I've already said this 4 times, but i will just keep repeating.
It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

[Ovi]

I'll just be cut and pasting my answers from now on since I've answered all this.

I claim the evidence contradicts the multiple universe theory at present.

In that case it's a solved problem to you. Not for the rest of the world.




Again, I've already explained why this is untenable, I repeat :
The ability of the universe to oscillate is dependent upon a certain critical mass. This critical mass is required to slow the expansion of the universe and force a contraction. If this total mass is not present, which seems likely, then the universe will continue to expand into eternity. Even if there were enough mass to cause the universe, the result of that collapse would be a "Big Crunch" as opposed to another Big Bang.
The reason that the universe would not "bounce" if it were to contract is that the universe is extremely inefficient (entropic). In fact, the universe is so inefficient that the bounce resulting from the collapse of the universe would be only 0.00000001% of the original Big Bang (see table above). Such a small "bounce" would result in an almost immediate re-collapse of the universe into one giant black hole for the rest of eternity.

No it woud not. The entropy can decrease to it's initial value if the universe it's determinist and that's how it's supposed to be.




"Why" presupposes meaning, as children are taught in 3rd grade science, so this is outside the purview of science.



I presume your making reference to WAP -The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.

The answer to the question "Why is the universe isotropic?" given by Collins and Hawking, ". . . the isotropy of the Universe is a consequence of our existence," is simply irresponsible and brings the Anthropic Philosophy into undeserved disrepute, for literally taken, such an answer would require some form of backward causation whereby the conditions of the early universe were brought about by us acting as efficient causes merely by our observing the heavens.
But WAP neither asserts nor implies this; rather WAP holds that we must observe the universe to possess certain features (not that the universe must possess certain features) and the Anthropic Philosophy says that therefore these features ought not to surprise us or cry out for explanation. The self-selection effect affects our observations, not the basic features of the universe itself. If the Anthropic Philosophy held that the basic features of the universe were themselves brought about by our observations, then it could be rightly dismissed as fanciful.
But the Anthropic Philosophy is much more subtle: it does not try to explain why the universe has the basic features it does, but contends that no explanation is needed, since we should not be surprised at observing what we do, our observations of those basic features being restricted by our own existence as observers.

But does the Anthropic Philosophy follow from the Anthropic Principle, as Barrow and Tipler claim? Let us concede that it follows from WAP that

3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.
For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that

4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.
For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie16): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.

The reason the falsity of (7) does not follow from (3) is that subimplication fails for first order predicate calculus. For (3) may be schematized as

3'. ~S: (x) ([Fx × ~Cx] É ~Ox)
where "S:" is an operator expressing "we should be surprised that" and "F" is "is a feature of the universe," "C" is "is compatible with our existence," and "O" is "is observed by us." And (7) may be schematized as

7'. S: ($x) (Fx × Cx × Ox)
It is clear that the object of surprise in (7') is not equivalent to the object of surprise in (3'); therefore the truth of (3') does not entail the negation of (7').17

Therefore, the attempt of the Anthropic Philosophy to stave off our surprise at the basic features of the universe fails. It does not after all follow from WAP that our surprise at the basic features of the universe is unwarranted or inappropriate and that they do not therefore cry out for explanation. But which features of the universe should thus surprise us? --those which are necessary conditions of our existence and which seem extremely improbable or whose coincidence seems extremely improbable. Thus, we should amend (7) to read

7*. We should be surprised that we do observe basic features of the universe which individually or collectively are excessively improbable and are necessary conditions of our own existence.

That does not prove that our universe is far more improbable that it would take for us to observe it




As I have said, I'll repeat - laws of physics are not personal.

You're confusing the universe god with the human god again. It doesn't take a human like god to make the universe.


It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make it better at all. Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.




What is the explanation for the creation of the Universe without God that is more probable based on what we now know (premise 3)?

I don't know how the universe got to be what it is. Nobody does. Except you of course. You have an answer for everything the rest of the world doesn't: God.




Laws of physics are personal and intelligent? Ok.
It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

It doesn't sound better at all. Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.




I know you have trouble reading. Will it help if a repeat AND underline?
Actually I never claimed it was due to God, I claimed, with what we know now, it is the most probable answer. I know I keep repeating this, but you will not accept it. This far, you have not given a more probable answer.

The most probable answer to an unsolved problem? If you say so...




It doesn't, only that it is not an unreasonable belief that God has a special concern for humans.

Wtf? Isn't that the paragraph you're repeating over and over again that explains how god loves us? Now it doesn't?




i repeat -
I presume your making reference to WAP -The observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable, but they take on values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.
The answer to the question "Why is the universe isotropic?" given by Collins and Hawking, ". . . the isotropy of the Universe is a consequence of our existence," is simply irresponsible and brings the Anthropic Philosophy into undeserved disrepute, for literally taken, such an answer would require some form of backward causation whereby the conditions of the early universe were brought about by us acting as efficient causes merely by our observing the heavens.
But WAP neither asserts nor implies this; rather WAP holds that we must observe the universe to possess certain features (not that the universe must possess certain features) and the Anthropic Philosophy says that therefore these features ought not to surprise us or cry out for explanation. The self-selection effect affects our observations, not the basic features of the universe itself. If the Anthropic Philosophy held that the basic features of the universe were themselves brought about by our observations, then it could be rightly dismissed as fanciful.
But the Anthropic Philosophy is much more subtle: it does not try to explain why the universe has the basic features it does, but contends that no explanation is needed, since we should not be surprised at observing what we do, our observations of those basic features being restricted by our own existence as observers.

But does the Anthropic Philosophy follow from the Anthropic Principle, as Barrow and Tipler claim? Let us concede that it follows from WAP that

3. We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our own existence.
For if the features of the universe were incompatible with our existence, we should not be here to notice it. Hence, it is not surprising that we do not observe such features. But it follows neither from WAP nor (3) that

4. We should not be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence.
For although the object of surprise in (4) might at first blush appear to be simply the contrapositive of the object of surprise in (3), this is mistaken. This can be clearly seen by means of an illustration (borrowed from John Leslie16): suppose you are dragged before a firing squad of 100 trained marksmen, all of them with rifles aimed at your heart, to be executed. The command is given; you hear the deafening sound of the guns. And you observe that you are still alive, that all of the 100 marksmen missed! Now while it is true that

5. You should not be surprised that you do not observe that you are dead,
nonetheless it is equally true that

6. You should be surprised that you do observe that you are alive.
Since the firing squad's missing you altogether is extremely improbable, the surprise expressed in (6) is wholly appropriate, though you are not surprised that you do not observe that you are dead, since if you were dead you could not observe it. Similarly, while we should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe which are incompatible with our existence, it is nevertheless true that

7. We should be surprised that we do observe features of the universe which are compatible with our existence,
in view of the enormous improbability that the universe should possess such features.

The reason the falsity of (7) does not follow from (3) is that subimplication fails for first order predicate calculus. For (3) may be schematized as

3'. ~S: (x) ([Fx × ~Cx] É ~Ox)
where "S:" is an operator expressing "we should be surprised that" and "F" is "is a feature of the universe," "C" is "is compatible with our existence," and "O" is "is observed by us." And (7) may be schematized as

7'. S: ($x) (Fx × Cx × Ox)
It is clear that the object of surprise in (7') is not equivalent to the object of surprise in (3'); therefore the truth of (3') does not entail the negation of (7').17

Therefore, the attempt of the Anthropic Philosophy to stave off our surprise at the basic features of the universe fails. It does not after all follow from WAP that our surprise at the basic features of the universe is unwarranted or inappropriate and that they do not therefore cry out for explanation. But which features of the universe should thus surprise us? --those which are necessary conditions of our existence and which seem extremely improbable or whose coincidence seems extremely improbable. Thus, we should amend (7) to read

7*. We should be surprised that we do observe basic features of the universe which individually or collectively are excessively improbable and are necessary conditions of our own existence.

That does not prove that our universe is far more improbable that it would take for us to observe it




Saying "i don;t know" is not a more probable premise than the one I've given.

Of course it is. Again, I'm not the one 'explaining' stuff that is still a mystery by using god!



Well, this is 3rd grade stuff, but laws of physics are not personal nor intelligent.

They don't have to be personal, nor intelligent.


I've already said this 4 times, but i will just keep repeating.
It must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.
Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.

Plus, in order to calculate the probability of a universe of being similar to our own, you would need to know all the possible values that the variables can take. What those values can be is another assumption...

Now this is a long thread...

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1575853]In that case it's a solved problem to you. Not for the rest of the world.

How is it solved? This is how science works - there are things called hypothesis or "theories" some support evidence better then others/
"Evidence" is data that one has at the present.
Now, the "theory" that most supports the "evidence" is the most PROBABLE theory.


No it woud not. The entropy can decrease to it's initial value if the universe it's determinist and that's how it's supposed to be.

I have no idea what the universe is "suppose" to be. I'm telling you what we know it is. And we know entropy will not reverse.
If you challenge this you must act like a big boy and provide "reasons."
A "reason" is how an adult decides what is logically probable.


That does not prove that our universe is far more improbable that it would take for us to observe it

This is a good opportunity for me. I've never met anyone as stupid as you, I keep answering your questions and you keep ignoring the answers.
Uh no, the reason the universe is so improbable is the following, which I'll repeat yet again :

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,
“Through my scientific work I have come to believe more and more strongly that the physical universe is put together with an ingenuity so astonishing that I cannot accept it merely as a brute fact.”9 Similarly, Fred Hoyle remarks, “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics.”


You're confusing the universe god with the human god again. It doesn't take a human like god to make the universe.

Well Ovi, are physics personal? Are they intelligent? The answer is no Ovi. Therefore, even though it is obvious even to small children, and you keep missing this, I am not confusing the two.
Why? Well, remember Ovi - we should said physics are not intelligent or personal.
Do you know what physics are?
Here is the definition :
Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.


Repeating yourself over and over again doesn't make it better at all. Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.

A sheep can be special to God. And I've shown how God can be reasonably believed to have special concern for us, considering it seems as if the entire universe was set up for us.


I don't know how the universe got to be what it is. Nobody does. Except you of course. You have an answer for everything the rest of the world doesn't: God.

I don't know. This is not how science works. I have given a "theory." Do you remember what a "theory" is Ovi?
I claim it is the most probable answer, you do not understand this. A probable "theory" only means it is the most likely explanation based on the facts.
Do you understand? This is how "Science" works.


It doesn't sound better at all. Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.

Well, this entire thread is about the likelihood of God existing. And you kept asking me questions about the universe.

To answer this question, I would talk of historical evidence, philosophy, and theology, but not science.

I'll tell you what "science" is, because I know your a bit slow.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Now does that mean science can prove someone's love? No, you must have a personal relationship first and then subjectively decide that yrself.

One way to have a relationship with God is through prayer and church.


The most probable answer to an unsolved problem? If you say so...

I did not say this Ovi. You are making believe, at a certain age people stop playing make believe when they wish to have big boy conversations.


Wtf? Isn't that the paragraph you're repeating over and over again that explains how god loves us? Now it doesn't?

No Ovi, I never said it proves God loves us. You are playing make believe with one of yr imaginary friends.
I said it is a reason that one can reasonably think that God has a special concern for us.


That does not prove that our universe is far more improbable that it would take for us to observe it

I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.


Of course it is. Again, I'm not the one 'explaining' stuff that is still a mystery by using god!

You think "I don't know" is a premise. Are you fucking with me?

Here is the definition of a premise Ovi :

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.


They don't have to be personal, nor intelligent.

Oh? Again Ovi, in a big boy conversation we must give reasons. I gave reasons WHY they do need to be personal and intelligent.
SO, AGAIN, how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?


Again how is the universe creator special to us and not to a sheep? This is what I'm interested in, not in your theory on universe creation.

What in my premise gave you the idea that a sheep is not "special" to God?
What drugs are you on?


Plus, in order to calculate the probability of a universe of being similar to our own, you would need to know all the possible values that the variables can take. What those values can be is another assumption...

Now this is a long thread...

No, it is not an assumption. Obviously, in "science" we can only work with the data we have. And we have a lot of data In fact, scientists have done this. In fact Mr. Stephen Hawking has given one, and I quoted him.

[Ovi]

What in my premise gave you the idea that a sheep is not "special" to God?
What drugs are you on?

You are the one who said that God is special to us. Now he's not? As someone already said, keep talking those pills and ... about your private message ... fuck off you dickweed!

[Ovi]

I have no idea what the universe is "suppose" to be. I'm telling you what we know it is. And we know entropy will not reverse.
If you challenge this you must act like a big boy and provide "reasons."
A "reason" is how an adult decides what is logically probable.

No. The entropy can decrease to it's initial value if the universe it's determinist and if that's how it's supposed to be. I'm not saying I believe in that, but it is a possibility.



This is a good opportunity for me. I've never met anyone as stupid as you, I keep answering your questions and you keep ignoring the answers.
Uh no, the reason the universe is so improbable is the following, which I'll repeat yet again :

The answer is that the chances that the universe should be life-permitting are so infinitesimal as to be incomprehensible and incalculable. For example, Stephen Hawking has estimated that if the rate of the universe’s expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed into a hot fireball. P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least.
He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10 (100) would have prevented a life-permitting universe. There are a number of such quantities and constants present in the big bang which must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. So improbability is multiplied by improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers.

I say how is the universe more improbable than it should be from all the probabilities of life existence, you show me that life existence is improbable.


There is no physical reason why these constants and quantities should possess the values they do. The former agnostic physicist Paul Davies comments,



Well Ovi, are physics personal? Are they intelligent? The answer is no Ovi. Therefore, even though it is obvious even to small children, and you keep missing this, I am not confusing the two.

Why? Well, remember Ovi - we should said physics are not intelligent or personal.
Do you know what physics are?
Here is the definition :
Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.

You're the only person on this planet that requires the laws of physics to be intelligent. I don't




A sheep can be special to God. And I've shown how God can be reasonably believed to have special concern for us, considering it seems as if the entire universe was set up for us.



I don't know. This is not how science works. I have given a "theory." Do you remember what a "theory" is Ovi?
I claim it is the most probable answer, you do not understand this. A probable "theory" only means it is the most likely explanation based on the facts.
Do you understand? This is how "Science" works.

Your theory is this: science can't explain, thus there is a god; How scientific.




Well, this entire thread is about the likelihood of God existing. And you kept asking me questions about the universe.

To answer this question, I would talk of historical evidence, philosophy, and theology, but not science.

I'll tell you what "science" is, because I know your a bit slow.

Science (from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge") is in its broadest sense to any systematic knowledge-base or prescriptive practice that is capable of resulting in a prediction or predictable type of outcome. Science is a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method, and to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.

Now does that mean science can prove someone's love? No, you must have a personal relationship first and then subjectively decide that yrself.

One way to have a relationship with God is through prayer and church.



I did not say this Ovi. You are making believe, at a certain age people stop playing make believe when they wish to have big boy conversations.



No Ovi, I never said it proves God loves us. You are playing make believe with one of yr imaginary friends.
I said it is a reason that one can reasonably think that God has a special concern for us.

So your conclusion is that god loves us (you believe in that), yet you don't. Keep talking those pills...




I have no idea what this sentence is supposed to mean.



You think "I don't know" is a premise. Are you fucking with me?

Here is the definition of a premise Ovi :

In logic, an argument is a set of one or more declarative sentences (or "propositions") known as the premises along with another declarative sentence (or "proposition") known as the conclusion.



Oh? Again Ovi, in a big boy conversation we must give reasons. I gave reasons WHY they do need to be personal and intelligent.
SO, AGAIN, how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?

What the fuck does that have to do with intelligence. How does that shitty argument proves that the universe was created by an intelligent being? Keep repeating yourself over and over again and maybe even you will believe it.

So do you even know some basic physics? I doubt you could solve an elementary problem in physics (such as calculating the spectra of an atom?) yet you know the mysteries of the universe. Don't forget to take your pills again.

[mikelepore]

However, since we KNOW the universe had a beginning, it does need a cause.

You might want to type "cyclic universe" into Google.

[spiltteeth]

You might want to type "cyclic universe" into Google.

Ekpyrotic cyclic models, is subject to the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem and so is admitted to involve a beginning of the universe.

Somewhere along the line there had to be a first universe and the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that THAT universe required a definitive space / time boundary, a singularity, a Big Bang Creation event. Because of that, neither cyclical nor inflationary models, chaotic or otherwise are workable counter arguments.

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1576025]No. The entropy can decrease to it's initial value if the universe it's determinist and if that's how it's supposed to be. I'm not saying I believe in that, but it is a possibility.

I still don't know what you mean by "supposed to be" according to what or whom? But I'm telling you what it actually IS.


I say how is the universe more improbable than it should be from all the probabilities of life existence, you show me that life existence is improbable.

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tippler calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

Do you know what the word "improbable" means?

Here's the definition Ovi, : unlikely to be true or to occur.


You're the only person on this planet that requires the laws of physics to be intelligent. I don't

Acually, I gave you the very definition of "physics" and "science" to show you that the laws of "physics" cannot be intelligent or personal.

Did you forget? Do you need daddy to remind you?

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.


Your theory is this: science can't explain, thus there is a god; How scientific.

Is this what one of your friends in one of the "multiple universes" told you? Because I have never made such an assertion.


So your conclusion is that god loves us (you believe in that), yet you don't. Keep talking those pills...

As I keep saying, I think its a reasonable conclusion that God has special concern for us.
And yet you can't say why this is an unreasonable conclusion...


What the fuck does that have to do with intelligence. How does that shitty argument proves that the universe was created by an intelligent being? Keep repeating yourself over and over again and maybe even you will believe it.

A shitty argument? And yet you can't answer it at all.
I'm sorry, did you have an alternative for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
I don't see any counter argument? Is it in another universe?


So do you even know some basic physics? I doubt you could solve an elementary problem in physics (such as calculating the spectra of an atom?) yet you know the mysteries of the universe. Don't forget to take your pills again.

I totally schooled you.

[spiltteeth]

You are the one who said that God is special to us. Now he's not? As someone already said, keep talking those pills and ... about your private message ... fuck off you dickweed!

As I keep saying, I have provided scientific evidence from which I say it is reasonable to conclude God has a special concern for us.
I'll repeat this indefinitely until you form a counter argument.

I'm not going to "fuck off" either.

[Ovi]

John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tippler calculate the odds against the assembly of a human genome at between 4-[180(110,000)] and 4-[360(110,000)]

Do you know what the word "improbable" means?

Here's the definition Ovi, : unlikely to be true or to occur.

You're the only self proclaimed 'scientist' that suggests the entire genome was made by random chemical reactions.





Acually, I gave you the very definition of "physics" and "science" to show you that the laws of "physics" cannot be intelligent or personal.

Did you forget? Do you need daddy to remind you?

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.

.

Is this what one of your friends in one of the "multiple universes" told you? Because I have never made such an assertion.

Actually you did like 20 times.
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.



As I keep saying, I think its a reasonable conclusion that God has special concern for us.
And yet you can't say why this is an unreasonable conclusion...


I am not supposed to prove that there is no god that loves us. You're the god believer you prove that he loves us. You can't.



A shitty argument? And yet you can't answer it at all.
I'm sorry, did you have an alternative for how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
I don't see any counter argument? Is it in another universe?

What does a timeless cause have to do with a human loving god? Your "science" makes absolutely no sense. You could try to think a bit before copy-pasting some info from the internet though.




I totally schooled you.
The universe is improbable, thus there is a god is not the best physical explanation. At theology? I agree. I am baffled by your faith in god.

As I keep saying, I have provided scientific evidence from which I say it is reasonable to conclude God has a special concern for us.
I'll repeat this indefinitely until you form a counter argument.

I'm not going to "fuck off" either.
You're only person that could think an argument like timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe means there is a god is scientific

[spiltteeth]

=Ovi;1576329]You're the only self proclaimed 'scientist' that suggests the entire genome was made by random chemical reactions.

I make no such suggestions, indeed, the opposite.


Actually you did like 20 times.
From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe.

Actually I didn't. A being is not a law of physics Ovi.
Remember - I have 3 time given you the definition of what physics is?

Well, here it is again - and notice the word 'BEING' is not there :

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.


I am not supposed to prove that there is no god that loves us. You're the god believer you prove that he loves us. You can't.

I have given scientific evidence that it is reasonable to believe God has a special concern for us. Thus far you have said nothing to contradict this.


What does a timeless cause have to do with a human loving god? Your "science" makes absolutely no sense. You could try to think a bit before copy-pasting some info from the internet though.

I repeat : how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe if not personal?


The universe is improbable, thus there is a god is not the best physical explanation. At theology? I agree. I am baffled by your faith in god.

And yet so far you have not given a BETTER explanation. Why keep this wonderful theory to yourself. Share it Ovi! What is the best explanation?


You're only person that could think an argument like timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe means there is a god is scientific

And yet you can give no alternative answer. It's not the answer with the most explanatory power? Then what is Ovi! I keep asking. Why not share this theory? I have expanded and given quite a bit of evidence on my end.

I'll even repeat myself ONCE AGAIN as to WHY it is the best answer :

it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.

[Ovi]

I make no such suggestions, indeed, the opposite.

You 'prove' how we were created by a god by saying that the odds of the assembly of the human genome are so small and now you don't? Pathetic once again :D



Actually I didn't. A being is not a law of physics Ovi.
Remember - I have 3 time given you the definition of what physics is?

Well, here it is again - and notice the word 'BEING' is not there :

Physics (Greek: physis – φύσις meaning "nature") is a natural science; it is the study of matter and its motion through spacetime and all that derives from these, such as energy and force. More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the world and universe behave.

Call them what you want. I call them the laws of physics. You call them god.




I have given scientific evidence that it is reasonable to believe God has a special concern for us. Thus far you have said nothing to contradict this.

If that makes you fell better...:laugh:




I repeat : how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe if not personal?

You're like this: the sky is blue, the grass is green, fire is hot, thus god exists. OK




And yet so far you have not given a BETTER explanation. Why keep this wonderful theory to yourself. Share it Ovi! What is the best explanation?

You have very short memory. I already told you that I don't have to know. Stephen Hopkins doesn't have the answer either..That doesn't invalidate physics, but, for now, it just makes it incomplete.
Or as RIchard Feynman said it, God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand .




And yet you can give no alternative answer. It's not the answer with the most explanatory power? Then what is Ovi! I keep asking. Why not share this theory? I have expanded and given quite a bit of evidence on my end.

The caveman didn't know what a star is, yet his "theory" about stars, the most probable with the knowledge that he possessed, was fortunately abandoned. Your "theory" is just like the caveman's theory: foolish and assuming that we must know right now the answer to all the questions of the universe.


I'll even repeat myself ONCE AGAIN as to WHY it is the best answer :

it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were a mechanically operating set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. For example, the cause of water's freezing is the temperature's being below 0˚ Centigrade. If the temperature were below 0˚ from eternity past, then any water that was around would be frozen from eternity. It would be impossible for the water to begin to freeze just a finite time ago. So if the cause is permanently present, then the effect should be permanently present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. For example, a man sitting from eternity could freely will to stand up. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal Creator.
I tell you that it doesn't make any sense, you write it down again. You're like a broken record saying the same thing over and over again.

[spiltteeth]

=Ovi;1576543]You 'prove' how we were created by a god by saying that the odds of the assembly of the human genome are so small and now you don't? Pathetic once again :D

No Ovi, yr confused again my boy. You said I suggest
the entire genome was made by random chemical reactions.

My whole argument is against this. All those numbers and facts must be confusing you.


Call them what you want. I call them the laws of physics. You call them god.

It's not what I WANT to call it, words are thing with "definitions"

Remember I gave you the definition of "physics" and "Science" ?

Remember that the word "being" or "personal" was not in those definitions?

So you think scientific laws are "personal beings." Thats fine Ovi. Thats not what they are though.


If that makes you fell better...:laugh:

No. "Science" and "facts" are neutral Ovi.

Did you forget what "science" is? Let me know.


You're like this: the sky is blue, the grass is green, fire is hot, thus god exists. OK

I never said that at all. Can you quote me? Are you hallucinating?

I told you my answer. Yet you cannot say why it is wrong!


You have very short memory. I already told you that I don't have to know. Stephen Hopkins doesn't have the answer either..That doesn't invalidate physics, but, for now, it just makes it incomplete.
Or as RIchard Feynman said it, God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand .

So you know my theory is not the best one, but you don't know what the best one is?

If you say mine is not the best one than what is the best one?

If you know which one is best why are you stalling Ovi? Let us know!

And yr wrong about Dr. Hawkings.
Stephen Hawking wrote an incredibly famous book called "a brief history of time" which everyone but you apparently knows about positing the Hawkings-Hurtle theory which is quite famous yet you claim to be a physics student and apparently have never heard of it.

If not physics or theory what the hell do they teach you?


The caveman didn't know what a star is, yet his "theory" about stars, the most probable with the knowledge that he possessed, was fortunately abandoned. Your "theory" is just like the caveman's theory: foolish and assuming that we must know right now the answer to all the questions of the universe.

I do not make the assumption.
It's foolish? Once again Ovi this is a big boy conversation and remember what I said about big boy conversations? We must give reasons.

You say its foolish YET you can't say why!


I tell you that it doesn't make any sense, you write it down again. You're like a broken record saying the same thing over and over again.

Yes you say it does not make sense but you cannot say WHY it does not make sense.

Is it a secret? Why won't you share this big secret with us Ovi?

Remember what I said about big boy conversations? We must give REASONS. What is the reason it does not make sense? Premise 1, 2, or 3? And why?

[Ovi]

No Ovi, yr confused again my boy. You said I suggest

My whole argument is against this. All those numbers and facts must be confusing you.

That probability was about such a thing but you failed to read that part. Believe and do not research is so specific for every one of you.


It's not what I WANT to call it, words are thing with "definitions"

Remember I gave you the definition of "physics" and "Science" ?

Remember that the word "being" or "personal" was not in those definitions?

So you think scientific laws are "personal beings." Thats fine Ovi. Thats not what they are though.

Again, I don't require and intelligent creator. You do.




No. "Science" and "facts" are neutral Ovi.

Did you forget what "science" is? Let me know.



I never said that at all. Can you quote me? Are you hallucinating?

I told you my answer. Yet you cannot say why it is wrong!

it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
or
it must also be personal. For how else is the sky blue, grass green and fire hot?
are the same thing.




So you know my theory is not the best one, but you don't know what the best one is?

If you say mine is not the best one than what is the best one?

If you know which one is best why are you stalling Ovi? Let us know!

I'm not supposed to know moron! This is a thing that you will never understand. I don't have to pick the best theory that "explains" a currently unexplained thing in physics.


And yr wrong about Dr. Hawkings.
Stephen Hawking wrote an incredibly famous book called "a brief history of time" which everyone but you apparently knows about positing the Hawkings-Hurtle theory which is quite famous yet you claim to be a physics student and apparently have never heard of it.

If not physics or theory what the hell do they teach you?


You should first learn to read. Thinking that you know the answer to a problem (you) doesn't mean you actually do.



I do not make the assumption.
It's foolish? Once again Ovi this is a big boy conversation and remember what I said about big boy conversations? We must give reasons.

You say its foolish YET you can't say why!


Because it doesn't explain shit. The best explanation to an unsolved problem is god.



Yes you say it does not make sense but you cannot say WHY it does not make sense.

Is it a secret? Why won't you share this big secret with us Ovi?

Remember what I said about big boy conversations? We must give REASONS. What is the reason it does not make sense? Premise 1, 2, or 3? And why?
The sky is blue, the grass is green, fire is hot, thus god exists. What's to say? It's stupid.
So is using our lack of physical knowledge your only way to "prove" god? That's it? Pathetic

[spiltteeth]

Ovi;1576964]That probability was about such a thing but you failed to read that part. Believe and do not research is so specific for every one of you.

I've done extensive research. Notice all that "science" and "facts"


Again, I don't require and intelligent creator. You do.

Not me, Ovi, the facts require an intelligent creator.


it must also be personal. For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
or
it must also be personal. For how else is the sky blue, grass green and fire hot?
are the same thing.

No. In fact I'll explain to you why the sky is blue, grass green, and fire hot, and notice none of the explanations require an intelligent creator or personal being. I feel like I'm talking to a small child but....

WHY IS THE SKY BLUE?

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.
As you look closer to the horizon, the sky appears much paler in color. To reach you, the scattered blue light must pass through more air. Some of it gets scattered away again in other directions. Less blue light reaches your eyes. The color of the sky near the horizon appears paler or white.

Why is grass green?
Grass and most other plants are green because they contain a pigment
known as chlorophyll. The chlorophyll is used in the process of
photosynthesis where a plant produces sugar in the presence of
sunlight. In fact the word 'photosynthesis' means literally to
synthesize or 'make' from light.

Why is fire hot?

Fire is hot because of the oxidation reactions going on which produce heat (and light).
This all has to do with the energy shells of the atoms, when the valance electron of the oxygen atom takes in energy in the form of heat (the logs are producing it through a combustion reaction) when the electron gains energy it moves up to a higher energy shell.

The thing is atoms always try to be in their least excited state. The least excited state is when all of the electrons are in the lowest shells possible.

So the excited electron in the oxygen atom will try to drop down to a lower empty energy shell. In order to do this it has to release energy, the high energy electron will release its extra energy in the form of a photon (electronmagnetic radiation), the photon is the fire we see.

The energy the electron is given determines the energy of the photon that will be released.
Now the reason why fire is hot, is the same reason as to why we see it. As you see from the diagram, the energy is not limited to what we can see. We can also FEEL this energy. We are feeling the photons that are in the infrared, ('infra' meaning 'before' or 'below', and 'red' indicating the colour) this sensation is what we interpret as heat, thus fire is hot. Our bodies are gaining energy from the fire.


I'm not supposed to know moron! This is a thing that you will never understand. I don't have to pick the best theory that "explains" a currently unexplained thing in physics.

First, you must pick a another theory if you wish to contradict me. Second, in "science" you must pick the theory that best answers the evidence, this is how science works; or else you can say "I don't believe in science."

Third, I have given you an explanation, and thus far toy have not said WHY it doesn't explain the evidence!


You should first learn to read. Thinking that you know the answer to a problem (you) doesn't mean you actually do.

Right, thats why I gave all that "science" and "facts."

And again, you still can't tell me why I'm wrong!


Because it doesn't explain shit. The best explanation to an unsolved problem is god.

AND YET YOU CAN'T SAY WHY IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN SHIT! :laugh:


The sky is blue, the grass is green, fire is hot, thus god exists. What's to say? It's stupid.
So is using our lack of physical knowledge your only way to "prove" god? That's it? Pathetic

You are a dull boy Ovi. I did THE OPPOSITE. I used all our enormous knowledge of physics, science, and math (which you don't believe in) to come to said conclusion.

I have answered why the sky is blue etc

However that is not an actual comparison, as premise 1, 2, does not compel one to reach the conclusion. Do you know what logic is?
Some things which you appear not to understand:
Among the important properties that logical systems can have:
Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Soundness, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise. If a system is sound and its axioms are true then its theorems are also guaranteed to be true.
Completeness, which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system.

[Havet]

Not me, Ovi, the facts require an intelligent creator.


How so?

You claim:


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Given the truth of the two premises, the conclusion necessarily follows.

From the very nature of the case, this cause must be an uncaused, changeless, timeless, and immaterial being which created the universe. It must be uncaused because we've seen that there cannot be an infinite regress of causes. It must be timeless and therefore changeless—at least without the universe—because it created time. Because it also created space, it must transcend space as well and therefore be immaterial, not physical.

You explain why such cause must be uncaused

You explain why such cause must be changeless

You explain why such cause must be immaterial

But you don't explain why it must be a being? Why? How do you know? You cannot claim you ruled out every other possibility, because you haven't even considered it. There is no way to know right now, with our current technological development.

That doesn't mean we might not now in the future, and more importantly, that doesn't mean that just because we don't know we should assume it was God.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1577186]How so?

You claim:



You explain why such cause must be uncaused

You explain why such cause must be changeless

You explain why such cause must be immaterial

But you don't explain why it must be a being? Why? How do you know? You cannot claim you ruled out every other possibility, because you haven't even considered it. There is no way to know right now, with our current technological development.

But in fact I have considered many, many possibilities, and have concluded it must also be personal.
Recall yr insistence on Okhams razor? For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were eternally present, then the effect would be eternally present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal a creator.


That doesn't mean we might not now in the future, and more importantly, that doesn't mean that just because we don't know we should assume it was God.

Of course we ought not to assume, we must look at the known evidence and (of which the universe is only one) and pick the best theory. I do recall your insistence of using Ockams razor.
We will never, ever, ever have ALL the information. This is what Global Warming deniers say - "we don't have ALL the information."
This is what fundamentalist Christians say "Evolution might be disproved in 100 yrs" True, but unlikely.

Do you deny either premise is untrue?
The science is also in the consistent finding of the scientific method of inquiry – observation and verification. In this case it is consistently observed and consistently verified:

What ever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

All scientific observation and verification confirms the validity to these two premises.

IF you are interested in truth The object of the game is to roll with the evidence, not to speculate on how to avoid it.

If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING. You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science. We’re in the 21st century now. The infinite universe is dead. The progress of science killed it.

This is a serious game. Not make-believe. If you can name a counter-example to the premise, do so. Otherwise, the deductive argument goes through on modus ponens, backed by the science.

Future knowledge is actually LESS likely to prove it false, as well as evolution, since everything we've learned in the past 60 yrs seems to confirm it more and more.

[Ovi]

I've done extensive research. Notice all that "science" and "facts"



Not me, Ovi, the facts require an intelligent creator.

Yeah, your "facts".



No. In fact I'll explain to you why the sky is blue, grass green, and fire hot, and notice none of the explanations require an intelligent creator or personal being. I feel like I'm talking to a small child but....

WHY IS THE SKY BLUE?

The blue color of the sky is due to Rayleigh scattering. As light moves through the atmosphere, most of the longer wavelengths pass straight through. Little of the red, orange and yellow light is affected by the air.

However, much of the shorter wavelength light is absorbed by the gas molecules. The absorbed blue light is then radiated in different directions. It gets scattered all around the sky. Whichever direction you look, some of this scattered blue light reaches you. Since you see the blue light from everywhere overhead, the sky looks blue.
As you look closer to the horizon, the sky appears much paler in color. To reach you, the scattered blue light must pass through more air. Some of it gets scattered away again in other directions. Less blue light reaches your eyes. The color of the sky near the horizon appears paler or white.

Why is grass green?
Grass and most other plants are green because they contain a pigment
known as chlorophyll. The chlorophyll is used in the process of
photosynthesis where a plant produces sugar in the presence of
sunlight. In fact the word 'photosynthesis' means literally to
synthesize or 'make' from light.

Why is fire hot?

Fire is hot because of the oxidation reactions going on which produce heat (and light).
This all has to do with the energy shells of the atoms, when the valance electron of the oxygen atom takes in energy in the form of heat (the logs are producing it through a combustion reaction) when the electron gains energy it moves up to a higher energy shell.

The thing is atoms always try to be in their least excited state. The least excited state is when all of the electrons are in the lowest shells possible.

So the excited electron in the oxygen atom will try to drop down to a lower empty energy shell. In order to do this it has to release energy, the high energy electron will release its extra energy in the form of a photon (electronmagnetic radiation), the photon is the fire we see.

The energy the electron is given determines the energy of the photon that will be released.
Now the reason why fire is hot, is the same reason as to why we see it. As you see from the diagram, the energy is not limited to what we can see. We can also FEEL this energy. We are feeling the photons that are in the infrared, ('infra' meaning 'before' or 'below', and 'red' indicating the colour) this sensation is what we interpret as heat, thus fire is hot. Our bodies are gaining energy from the fire.

:laugh: I'm asking how is your theory supposed to need a personal god, you start copy pasting info about how the sky is blue. Good job. Take your pills.




First, you must pick a another theory if you wish to contradict me. Second, in "science" you must pick the theory that best answers the evidence, this is how science works; or else you can say "I don't believe in science."

Third, I have given you an explanation, and thus far toy have not said WHY it doesn't explain the evidence!

I'm not expecting you to know anything about research but still you do realize how dumb it is to say: even if it's unexplained you are supposed to explain it. Keep praying to your dog splitteeth.




Right, thats why I gave all that "science" and "facts."

And again, you still can't tell me why I'm wrong!



AND YET YOU CAN'T SAY WHY IT DOESN'T EXPLAIN SHIT! :laugh:

God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand .
Every physicist knows that. You don't. God is not an explanation for the lack of knowledge.




You are a dull boy Ovi. I did THE OPPOSITE. I used all our enormous knowledge of physics, science, and math (which you don't believe in) to come to said conclusion.

I have answered why the sky is blue etc

However that is not an actual comparison, as premise 1, 2, does not compel one to reach the conclusion. Do you know what logic is?
Some things which you appear not to understand:
Among the important properties that logical systems can have:
Consistency, which means that no theorem of the system contradicts another.
Soundness, which means that the system's rules of proof will never allow a false inference from a true premise. If a system is sound and its axioms are true then its theorems are also guaranteed to be true.
Completeness, which means that there are no true sentences in the system that cannot, at least in principle, be proved in the system.
Right...So is our lack of knowledge your only "proof" of god?



Recall yr insistence on Okhams razor? For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe?
If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect.
If the cause were eternally present, then the effect would be eternally present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions.

You assume that this is only universe that exists right now. You assume that this is the only universe that has ever existed which is the dumbest thing you could say. A reasonable thought would be that there were always universes and we observe a highly unlikely one because human life can only exist in such a universe; if this was a different universe, we couldn't be here to observe it. Of course you'll start explaining on how grass is green and the sky is blue again...

[spiltteeth]

=Ovi;1577457]Yeah, your "facts".

These are not my facts, they are objective. Do you disagree with any of them?


:laugh: I'm asking how is your theory supposed to need a personal god, you start copy pasting info about how the sky is blue. Good job. Take your pills.

I explained it nine times Ovi, thus far you haven't been able to contradict it, only tell us you don;t know why the sky is blue.

ONCE AGAIN :
It must be personal, For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were eternally present, then the effect would be eternally present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal a creator.


I'm not expecting you to know anything about research but still you do realize how dumb it is to say: even if it's unexplained you are supposed to explain it. Keep praying to your dog splitteeth.

What is unexplained? I have given a theory, one which you won't tell us why it's wrong.


God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand .
Every physicist knows that. You don't. God is not an explanation for the lack of knowledge.

Right...So is our lack of knowledge your only "proof" of god?

No, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science


You assume that this is only universe that exists right now. You assume that this is the only universe that has ever existed which is the dumbest thing you could say.

No I don't assume anything Ovi. There is EVIDENCE :

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.


A reasonable thought would be that there were always universes and we observe a highly unlikely one because human life can only exist in such a universe; if this was a different universe, we couldn't be here to observe it. Of course you'll start explaining on how grass is green and the sky is blue again..

Ok. This is your counter argument. Now, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

Remember what I told you about big boy conversations? You keep forgetting - YOU MUST GIVE REASONS OR EVIDENCE.

Here is my evidence:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

Ovi, why do you hate science and facts?

[Ovi]

These are not my facts, they are objective. Do you disagree with any of them?



I explained it nine times Ovi, thus far you haven't been able to contradict it, only tell us you don;t know why the sky is blue.

ONCE AGAIN :
It must be personal, For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were eternally present, then the effect would be eternally present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal a creator.



What is unexplained? I have given a theory, one which you won't tell us why it's wrong.



No, atheists will say that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment.

I didn't say that. You dreamed it right after you prayed to your dog.


But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science



No I don't assume anything Ovi. There is EVIDENCE :

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

And these theories somehow prove that there were never any other universes. Aha. Are you sleep walking?


So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

Holly shit. Einstein, Feynman and all the other physicists have been against the progress of science?




Ok. This is your counter argument. Now, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?

Remember what I told you about big boy conversations? You keep forgetting - YOU MUST GIVE REASONS OR EVIDENCE.

Here is my evidence:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

That proves god? :laugh:
Those theories do not contradict anything I said and don't prove anything you said.

[spiltteeth]

=Ovi;1577482]I didn't say that. You dreamed it right after you prayed to your dog.

And these theories somehow prove that there were never any other universes. Aha. Are you sleep walking?

As I've said, a negative cannot be proved. No one can prove Santa clause does not exist. Maybe he lives in one of those other universes! However, in big boy conversations we must have reasons. WHY are other universes a tenable theory, even though all science contradicts it, as I've gone to extensive length and shown you?


Holly shit. Einstein, Feynman and all the other physicists have been against the progress of science?

No, they all affirm there is only one universe, and that it had a beginning, as I keep telling you.


That proves god? :laugh:
Those theories do not contradict anything I said and don't prove anything you said.

Remember what I keep telling you about big boy conversations? We must give REASONS.

WHY doesn't it "prove" anything I say?

I'll give you REASONS that they do, because I am a big boy.

1 Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe requires a cause

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference.

The form of the my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference.

(Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

Can you deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If you deny this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

“The universe began to exist”

If you deny this you are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

Saying that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

Now, there are several naturalistic attempts to evade the implications of the kalam argument.

I will list each one by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse (was named Discovery of the Year)
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

We need to make a decision today about how we are going to live. The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Those are the facts, and we must all choose what to do with them.

You choose to think they are all really wring and one day science will prove that. Therefore, you do not believe in science.

[Havet]

But in fact I have considered many, many possibilities, and have concluded it must also be personal.
Recall yr insistence on Okhams razor? For how else could a timeless cause give rise to a temporal effect like the universe? If the cause were an impersonal set of necessary and sufficient conditions, then the cause could never exist without the effect. If the cause were eternally present, then the effect would be eternally present as well. The only way for the cause to be timeless and the effect to begin in time is for the cause to be a personal agent who freely chooses to create an effect in time without any prior determining conditions. Thus, we are brought, not merely to a transcendent cause of the universe, but to its personal a creator.

How do you know that is the only way for a cause to be timeless?


Of course we ought not to assume, we must look at the known evidence and (of which the universe is only one) and pick the best theory. I do recall your insistence of using Ockams razor.
We will never, ever, ever have ALL the information. This is what Global Warming deniers say - "we don't have ALL the information."
This is what fundamentalist Christians say "Evolution might be disproved in 100 yrs" True, but unlikely.

Global Warming (wasn't it Climate change? :rolleyes:) skeptics usually refer to the fact that an observed correlation is not sufficient to draw a cause-effect conclusion from it. See my sig for further enlightenment.

In the case of fundamentalist Christians, as far as I'm aware, they usually only ask the “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” question as a way to corner evolutionary scientists. (Here's the reply to that question (http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/) by an eevolutionary scientist, if you're interested)


Do you deny either premise is untrue?
The science is also in the consistent finding of the scientific method of inquiry – observation and verification. In this case it is consistently observed and consistently verified:

What ever begins to exist has a cause

The universe began to exist

All scientific observation and verification confirms the validity to these two premises.

Well, so far the Big Bang theory indeed is the best hypothesis to explain the origin of the universe. But even the Big Bang theory does not explain everything, especially factors such as the horizon problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Horizon_problem), the flatness/oldness problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Flatness.2Foldness_problem), magnetic monopoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Magnetic_monopoles), baryon assymetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Baryon_asymmetry), globular cluster age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Globular_cluster_age), dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Dark_matter) and dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Dark_energy).



IF you are interested in truth The object of the game is to roll with the evidence, not to speculate on how to avoid it.

If you want to deny the premise, I need some reasons or some scientific data.

What have you got? Where is your evidence?


I'm not denying the premise. I'm ask you for evidence regarding the conclusions you draw from the premises.


The current best theory of cosmology is the standard big bang model, which posits the origin of matter, energy, space and time OUT OF NOTHING. You need to deal with the data we have today, not imagine alternative realities where untested speculations preserve your belief in atheism from falsification by the progress of science. We’re in the 21st century now. The infinite universe is dead. The progress of science killed it.

Sorry, but this is incorrect. The standard big bang model does not posit that the origin of matter, energy, space and time came out of nothing.

"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time) in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_note-2)), and continues to expand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) to this day."

So here are the things we agree on (based on the best evidence available, synthesized in a theory with the current best explanatory power):

The universe began to exist

The universe had a cause (from which the big bang theory starts)

Now to the tricky part.

What caused it?

The thing is, we cannot know yet. As i said above, there are limits to what the current big bang model can explain. Once it has addressed them, it will be possible to understand it better.

There has been some research on this area, and the current area of focus refers to the super string theory. You can read more about it here (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html).

We cannot just assume it was an eternal being. There has to be evidence of it. Either we find evidence that it was an eternal being, or that it was a property of physics yet unknown, or we continue to learn more.

[Ovi]

As I've said, a negative cannot be proved. No one can prove Santa clause does not exist. Maybe he lives in one of those other universes! However, in big boy conversations we must have reasons. WHY are other universes a tenable theory, even though all science contradicts it, as I've gone to extensive length and shown you?



No, they all affirm there is only one universe, and that it had a beginning, as I keep telling you.

Nope. there isn't anything that would suggest that this is the only universe that has ever existed.



So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.
So you say atheists are stupid. I ask you: Was Feynman stupid? You say: Feynman believed in the big bang. The sky is blue thus god exists. Keep going splitteeth.



Remember what I keep telling you about big boy conversations? We must give REASONS.

WHY doesn't it "prove" anything I say?

I'll give you REASONS that they do, because I am a big boy.

1 Whatever begins to exist requires a cause
2 The universe began to exist
3 Therefore, the universe requires a cause

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference.

The form of the my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference.

(Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

Can you deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If you deny this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

“The universe began to exist”

If you deny this you are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

Saying that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

Now, there are several naturalistic attempts to evade the implications of the kalam argument.

I will list each one by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse (was named Discovery of the Year)
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

We need to make a decision today about how we are going to live. The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Those are the facts, and we must all choose what to do with them.

You choose to think they are all really wring and one day science will prove that. Therefore, you do not believe in science.
It's stupid. If other universes already existed, then your theory of timeless non-material crap doesn't apply. There are other universes where time and matter exist.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1577866]How do you know that is the only way for a cause to be timeless?

Since I will never be omniscient, I do not know it is the only way.
Perhaps there is another way besides evolution that life has come to

What I do know is the facts, from which we draw conclusions.

If you have knowledge I don't please share.



Global Warming (wasn't it Climate change? :rolleyes:) skeptics usually refer to the fact that an observed correlation is not sufficient to draw a cause-effect conclusion from it. See my sig for further enlightenment.

Right, we don't have enough knowledge.


In the case of fundamentalist Christians, as far as I'm aware, they usually only ask the “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” question as a way to corner evolutionary scientists. (Here's the reply to that question (http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/) by an eevolutionary scientist, if you're interested)

As you know I'm sure, evolution does not explain everything, and fundamentalists I've spoken to clamp on to that, saying that we therefore don't have enough information to conclude evolution is a fact.


Well, so far the Big Bang theory indeed is the best hypothesis to explain the origin of the universe. But even the Big Bang theory does not explain everything, especially factors such as the horizon problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Horizon_problem), the flatness/oldness problem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Flatness.2Foldness_problem), magnetic monopoles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Magnetic_monopoles), baryon assymetry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Baryon_asymmetry), globular cluster age (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Globular_cluster_age), dark matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Dark_matter) and dark energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Dark_energy).

As far as I am aware there is no scientific hypothesis that explains everything. What criteria do you go by?


I'm not denying the premise. I'm ask you for evidence regarding the conclusions you draw from the premises.


Conclusions are drawn FROM evidence.
You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe.
This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.


Sorry, but this is incorrect. The standard big bang model does not posit that the origin of matter, energy, space and time came out of nothing.

"As used by cosmologists, the term Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the Universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_time) in the past (currently estimated to have been approximately 13.7 billion years ago[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#cite_note-2)), and continues to expand (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space) to this day."

P. C. W. Davies comments,


An initial cosmological singularity . . . forms a past temporal extremity to the universe. We cannot continue physical reasoning, or even the concept of spacetime, through such an extremity. . . . On this view the big bang represents the creation event; the creation not only of all the matter and energy in the universe, but also of spacetime itself.

The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,
"At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo."
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

All matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,
"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."

Anthony Kenny of Oxford University writes,
"A proponent of the Big Bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the universe came from nothing and by nothing."

Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.


So here are the things we agree on (based on the best evidence available, synthesized in a theory with the current best explanatory power):

The universe began to exist

The universe had a cause (from which the big bang theory starts)

Now to the tricky part.

What caused it?

The thing is, we cannot know yet. As i said above, there are limits to what the current big bang model can explain. Once it has addressed them, it will be possible to understand it better.

There has been some research on this area, and the current area of focus refers to the super string theory. You can read more about it here (http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/susskind03/susskind_index.html).

I will list each competing theory by name and explain the main problem with each.

The steady-state model: disproved by recent empirical observations of radio galaxy distributions, as well as red-shifting of light from distant galaxies moving away from us at increasing speeds
The oscillating model: disproved in 1998 by more empirical measurements of mass density which showed that the universe would expand forever, and never collapse (was named Discovery of the Year)
The vacuum fluctuation model: the theory allows for universes to spawn at every point in space and coalesce into one extremely old universe, which contradictions observations of our much younger universe
The chaotic inflationary model: does not avoid the need for an absolute beginning in the finite past
The quantum gravity model: makes use of imaginary time which cannot be mapped into a physical reality, it’s purely theoretical

I can expand on any of these as is necessary.

With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.


We cannot just assume it was an eternal being. There has to be evidence of it. Either we find evidence that it was an eternal being, or that it was a property of physics yet unknown, or we continue to learn more.

There are no assumptions.

It sounds like you're saying, once science gives a theory which disproves your theory, then we'll "really" know.

I've given a theory which explains all the evidence. We have an incredible amount of evidence.

It sounds like your denying the necessary conclusion. Are you familiar with logic?

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If Dr. Cooke wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.
Can you deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If you deny this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

“The universe began to exist”

If you deny this you are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

Saying that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

We need to make a decision today about how we are going to live. The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Those are the facts, and we must all choose what to do with them.

[Havet]

Since I will never be omniscient, I do not know it is the only way.
Perhaps there is another way besides evolution that life has come to

What I do know is the facts, from which we draw conclusions.

If you have knowledge I don't please share.

This is the point. There is knowledge we both don't share and know, so we cannot assume it was a God by lack of knowledge. We must wait until such knowledge appears.


Right, we don't have enough knowledge.

The problem I see is that the knowledge we have cannot be used to justify the particular conclusion that man-made CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) is causing the observed warming.


As you know I'm sure, evolution does not explain everything, and fundamentalists I've spoken to clamp on to that, saying that we therefore don't have enough information to conclude evolution is a fact.

The evolution theory certainly does not explain everything. The modern evolutionary synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis), implementing new concepts, such as genetics, comprise the theory with he best explanatory power so far. If any fundamentalist wants to challenge that, he must provide an even better theory.


As far as I am aware there is no scientific hypothesis that explains everything. What criteria do you go by?

I go by the scientific hypothesis which explains the most. If a new one comes out that explains more, or things that the previous couldn't, i'll go with that.

I have no illusions that we will ever have absolute knowledge on everything, but we can get pretty damn close, and that will be useful to everyone.


Conclusions are drawn FROM evidence.
You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Agreed so far.


Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe.
This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself.

The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_matter) is assuming the universe was a closed system. And we don't know that.

Some sources I was able to find regarding this subject (worth reading):


We infer that it is because we don't observe any interaction with any elsewhere. (We might be able to observe an interaction without being observing the elsewhere itself.)

But lots of smart people have compared our universe with a black hole, and we know that black holes evaporate over a time (http://www.alcyone.com/max/writing/essays/black-hole-evaporation.html).

Now, from the OUTSIDE the evaporation of a black hole looks like blackbody radiation. Hawking radiation has the same distribution in wavelength as blackbody radiation does, for the same equivalent temperature.

The question is: what would the evaporation of a black hole look like from the INSIDE? And, maybe, the answer is that energy is not quite conserved. Because of the size of our universe (M=2E53 kg), the associated evaporation time is about 1E144 years.

The average rate of mass loss, during all that time, from the whole universe, would be 2E-91 kg/year, or 2E-79 grams per billion years. From the whole universe, one electron or one positron, or photons adding up to about half an MeV, would be disappearing each 5E60 years. The present, instantaneous rate of mass loss would be much less than that, of course. And the universe is only 1.36E10 years old.

The point is, we would not be able to tell the laws of thermodynamics in our universe had an exception which was this small.

Source 1 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070330220539AAgW941)


When cosmologists speak of the universe as being "open" or "closed", they most commonly are referring to whether the curvature is negative or positive. These meanings of open and closed, and the mathematical meanings, give rise to ambiguity because the terms can also refer to a closed manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_manifold) i.e. compact without boundary, not to be confused with a closed set (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_set). With the former definition, an "open universe" may either be an open manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_manifold), i.e. one that is not compact and without boundary[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_universe#cite_note-2), or a closed manifold, while a "closed universe" is necessarily a closed manifold.

In the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann-Lema%C3%AEtre-Robertson-Walker) (FLRW) model the universe is considered to be without boundaries, in which case "compact universe" could describe a universe that is a closed manifold (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_manifold).

The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10-4. On the contrary in the case if the true value of the cosmological curvature parameter would be bigger than |Omk|>10-3 we would be able to distinguish between these 3 models even now. [4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_universe#cite_note-3)


Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_universe#Open_or_closed)

Source 3 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:0901.3354)


The standard Big Bang model thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover,--and this deserves underscoring--the origin it posits is an absolute origin ex nihilo. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity. As Barrow and Tipler emphasize,
On such a model the universe originates ex nihilo in the sense that at the initial singularity it is true that There is no earlier space-time point or it is false that Something existed prior to the singularity.

All matter and energy, even physical space and time themselves, came into being at the Big Bang. As the physicist P. C. W. Davies explains,

Anthony Kenny of Oxford University writes,

Vilenkin pulls no punches:



Philosopher of science Bernulf Kanitscheider remonstrates, "If taken seriously, the initial singularity is in head-on collision with the most successful ontological commitment that was a guiding line of research since Epicurus and Lucretius," namely, out of nothing nothing comes, which Kanitscheider calls "a metaphysical hypothesis which has proved so fruitful in every corner of science that we are surely well-advised to try as hard as we can to eschew processes of absolute origin." But if the universe began to exist, we are therefore driven to the second alternative: a supernatural agency beyond space and time.

First of all, the universe did not came out of nothing. "Supposedly" everything was condensed into a singular point, which then exploded (hence the big bang). So it was not "there was nothing before the big bang", but there was something, although very small.

And I think you are leaving out quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics).



Mostly, quantum events occur at the atomic level; we don't experience them in daily life. On the scale of atoms and molecules, the usual commonsense rules of cause and effect are suspended. The rule of law is replaced by a sort of anarchy or chaos (http://www.fortunecity.com/banners/interstitial.html?http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/2-worlds.html), and things happen spontaneously-for no particular reason. Particles of matter may simply pop into existence without warning, and then equally abruptly disappear again. Or a particle in one place may suddenly materialize in another place, or reverse its direction of motion. Again, these are real effects occurring on an atomic scale, and they can be demonstrated experimentally.

A typical quantum process is the decay of a radioactive nucleus. If you ask why a given nucleus decayed at one particular moment rather than some other, there is no answer. The event "just happened" at that moment, that's all. You cannot predict these occurrences. All you can do is give the probability-there is a fifty-fifty chance that a given nucleus will decay in, say, one hour. This uncertainty is not simply a result of our ignorance of all the little forces and influences that try to make the nucleus decay; it is inherent in nature itself, a basic part of quantum reality.

The lesson of quantum physics is this: Something that "just happens" need not actually violate the laws of physics. The abrupt and uncaused appearance of something can occur within the scope of scientific law, once quantum laws have been taken into account. Nature apparently has the capacity for genuine spontaneity.

It is, of course, a big step from the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of a subatomic particle-something that is routinely observed in particle accelerators-to the spontaneous and uncaused appearance of the universe. But the loophole is there. If, as astronomers believe, the primeval universe was compressed to a very small size, then quantum effects must have once been important on a cosmic scale. Even if we don't have a precise idea of exactly what took place at the beginning, we can at least see that the origin of the universe from nothing need not be unlawful or unnatural or unscientific. In short, it need not have been a supernatural (http://www.fortunecity.com/banners/interstitial.html?http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/ch5.html)event.

Source (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html) (feel free to read the rest)




With each successive failure of alternative cosmogonic theories, the Standard Model has been corroborated. It can be confidently said that no cosmogonic model has been as repeatedly verified in its predictions and as corroborated by attempts at its falsification, or as concordant with empirical discoveries and as philosophically coherent, as the Standard Big Bang Model. This does not prove that it is correct, but it does show that it is the best explanation of the evidence which we have and therefore merits our provisional acceptance.

Agreed


There are no assumptions.

It sounds like you're saying, once science gives a theory which disproves your theory, then we'll "really" know.

I apologize if that's what it appeared I was saying, because I don't believe that, as I stated above.


I've given a theory which explains all the evidence. We have an incredible amount of evidence.

It sounds like your denying the necessary conclusion. Are you familiar with logic?

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample. If Dr. Cooke wishes to dispute (1) then he must categorize the causal principle into one of the three classifications I have stated.
Can you deny that either or both of these premises are true?

“Whatever begins to exist requires a cause”
If you deny this premise, then they are denying a fundamental law of natural science, namely, that matter can neither be created or destroyed. That is natural law.

“The universe began to exist”

If you deny this you are denying the state of the art in modern cosmology.

Saying that the big bang is speculative physics that could change at any moment. But the trend is in favor of an absolute beginning out of nothing. We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars
So, insofar as atheists question these discoveries and the origin of the entire physical universe out of nothing, they are opposing the progress of science.

What came into being at the moment of creation?

You need to understand that the big bang theory states that space, time and matter were all created at the moment of creation.

There was no space causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no time causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
There was no matter causally prior to the universe beginning to exist
All of these things began to exist at the first moment.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.
So what could the cause be?
Well, we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“

This cause created the entire physical universe. The cause of this event is therefore supernatural, because it brings nature into being and is not inside of nature itself. The cause of the universe violates the law of conservation of matter is therefore performing a miracle.

We need to make a decision today about how we are going to live. The evidence available today supports the creation of the entire physical universe from nothing, caused by a supernatural mind with immense power. The progress of science has strengthened this theory against determined opposition from rival naturalistic theories.

Those are the facts, and we must all choose what to do with them.

The thing you keep insisting on is that you can make a logical argument proving God is the cause of the beginning of the Universe just because premises 1 and 2 are true. You can't. You can only conclude that is something outside of classical physics, or something we don't understand yet. That does not mean it's a God.

[mikelepore]

the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem proves that

I've read their paper. I hope you can explain the mathematics step by step. You have no doubt checked the steps already and confirmed them, since you accept their argument as being a proof. For starters, please explain why the Hubble constant is integrated with respect to the affine parameter and how this is related to the short wavelength limit. What did you get when you checked that? Did you find that the wave vector is tangential to the geodesic? In your own words.

[Ovi]

I've read their paper. I hope you can explain the mathematics step by step. You have no doubt checked the steps already and confirmed them, since you accept their argument as being a proof. For starters, please explain why the Hubble constant is integrated with respect to the affine parameter and how this is related to the short wavelength limit. What did you get when you checked that? Did you find that the wave vector is tangential to the geodesic? In your own words.
Don't worry, he'll google it.

[spiltteeth]

This is the point. There is knowledge we both don't share and know, so we cannot assume it was a God by lack of knowledge. We must wait until such knowledge appears.



The problem I see is that the knowledge we have cannot be used to justify the particular conclusion that man-made CO2 (and other greenhouse gas) is causing the observed warming.



The evolution theory certainly does not explain everything. The modern evolutionary synthesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis), implementing new concepts, such as genetics, comprise the theory with he best explanatory power so far. If any fundamentalist wants to challenge that, he must provide an even better theory.



I go by the scientific hypothesis which explains the most. If a new one comes out that explains more, or things that the previous couldn't, i'll go with that.

I have no illusions that we will ever have absolute knowledge on everything, but we can get pretty damn close, and that will be useful to everyone.



Agreed so far.



That (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_conservation_of_matter) is assuming the universe was a closed system. And we don't know that.

Some sources I was able to find regarding this subject (worth reading):



Source 1 (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070330220539AAgW941)



Source 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_universe#Open_or_closed)

Source 3 (http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:0901.3354)



First of all, the universe did not came out of nothing. "Supposedly" everything was condensed into a singular point, which then exploded (hence the big bang). So it was not "there was nothing before the big bang", but there was something, although very small.

And I think you are leaving out quantum mechanics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics).



Source (http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/big-bang.html) (feel free to read the rest)




Agreed



I apologize if that's what it appeared I was saying, because I don't believe that, as I stated above.



The thing you keep insisting on is that you can make a logical argument proving God is the cause of the beginning of the Universe just because premises 1 and 2 are true. You can't. You can only conclude that is something outside of classical physics, or something we don't understand yet. That does not mean it's a God.


The evolution theory certainly does not explain everything. The modern evolutionary synthesis, implementing new concepts, such as genetics, comprise the theory with he best explanatory power so far. If any fundamentalist wants to challenge that, he must provide an even better theory.


This is exactly what I say as concerns premise one. Thus far you have not provided any evidence for me to think otherwise, only evidence that the big bang model does not explain everything.
So far you have not presents a better theory.

[spiltteeth]

I've read their paper. I hope you can explain the mathematics step by step. You have no doubt checked the steps already and confirmed them, since you accept their argument as being a proof. For starters, please explain why the Hubble constant is integrated with respect to the affine parameter and how this is related to the short wavelength limit. What did you get when you checked that? Did you find that the wave vector is tangential to the geodesic? In your own words.

In my own words? So unless I personally give an answer it's not true? What the ... forget it.

This isn't personal. I hope you understand the big bang model is not MY theory.

I do not have a personal opinion, science has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

Dr. Lane Craig makes the point in the peer-reviewed paper in the Astrophysics and Space Science journal, that the chaotic inflationary model, if it were eventually confirmed somehow by experiments or observations, would still require a beginning.

He writes:

In 1994, however, Arvind Borde and Alexander Vilenkin showed that a universe eternally inflating toward the future cannot be geodesically complete in the past, so that there must have existed at some point in the indefinite past an initial singularity. They write,


A model in which the inflationary phase has no end . . . naturally leads to this question: Can this model also be extended to the infinite past, avoiding in this way the problem of the initial singularity?

. . . this is in fact not possible in future-eternal inflationary spacetimes as long as they obey some reasonable physical conditions: such models must necessarily possess initial singularities.

. . . the fact that inflationary spacetimes are past incomplete forces one to address the question of what, if anything, came before.

In response, Linde reluctantly concurs with the conclusion of Borde and Vilenkin: there must have been a Big Bang singularity at some point in the past.

I’ve got a quote from Borde and Vilenkin to back my assertion up.

A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, "Eternal Inflation and the Initial Singularity," Physical Review Letters 72 (1994): 3305, 3307.

Andrei Linde, Dmitri Linde, and Arthur Mezhlumian, "From the Big Bang Theory to the Theory of a Stationary Universe," Physical Review D 49 (1994): 1783-1826.

[Havet]

This is exactly what I say as concerns premise one. Thus far you have not provided any evidence for me to think otherwise, only evidence that the big bang model does not explain everything.
So far you have not presents a better theory.

That's because I (or anybody else for that matter) don't have evidence to present a better theory.

[Ovi]

Splitteeth, I already told you that there is no evidence that this is the only universe that has ever existed. So why do you still keep posting that timeless cause shit? It's not even valid in this case.

[spiltteeth]

As I say, when evidence for other universes comes up, like any rational person, I will adjust my world view accordingly, until then I only believe in things for which we have evidence.

[Havet]

As I say, when evidence for other universes comes up, like any rational person, I will adjust my world view accordingly, until then I only believe in things for which we have evidence.

So that means you'll stop believing in God?

[spiltteeth]

So that means you'll stop believing in God?

It would be disingenuous of me if I said yes, as I actually have a personal relationship with him!
It's like asking me if science absolutely confirmed that there's no free will would I stop loving my mother - no, but I would certainly look at things differently.

As I say, I have given but two arguments for God, added to ALL the other arguments, I think it warrants belief.

But yes, my idea of God would change. For instance, as a boy I used to think God could do anything. As I studied logic I realized this can't be true.
God can't do the logically impossible - make 2+2=5.

Also, with what we now know from physics, it seems impossible that God could actually have "seen" the future. His foreknowledge must come in another way.
Also that He indeed must exist in time and not "outside of time" which doesn't really make sense.

So as science teaches us new things I have indeed revised my conceptions of God, as I say, my criteria for truth is logical consistency.
It would be irrational if I ignored the science simply waiting for it to hopefully one day support my personal beliefs.

[Havet]

It would be disingenuous of me if I said yes, as I actually have a personal relationship with him!
It's like asking me if science absolutely confirmed that there's no free will would I stop loving my mother - no, but I would certainly look at things differently.

As I say, I have given but two arguments for God, added to ALL the other arguments, I think it warrants belief.

But yes, my idea of God would change. For instance, as a boy I used to think God could do anything. As I studied logic I realized this can't be true.
God can't do the logically impossible - make 2+2=5.

Also, with what we now know from physics, it seems impossible that God could actually have "seen" the future. His foreknowledge must come in another way.
Also that He indeed must exist in time and not "outside of time" which doesn't really make sense.

So as science teaches us new things I have indeed revised my conceptions of God, as I say, my criteria for truth is logical consistency.
It would be irrational if I ignored the science simply waiting for it to hopefully one day support my personal beliefs.

Dude, I just said that we, humans, don't have the evidence to present a better theory yet

And you claimed you will believe in things for which evidence exists.

How can you still believe in God? There is no evidence that supports your argument that he created the Big Bang.

Either you admit that there is no evidence and wait for it (or perhaps why not even actively engage in finding such evidence in scientific activities) or not.

Going in circles is intellectual dishonesty to yourself, foremost, and to everyone else who has been arguing with you.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1579758]Dude, I just said that we, humans, don't have the evidence to present a better theory yet

So, the existence of a personal, non-material, eternal, very intelligent if not omniscient, very powerful if not omnipotent, being, is presently the best theory to fit the evidence we do have, until another, better, theory comes out.


And you claimed you will believe in things for which evidence exists.

How can you still believe in God? There is no evidence that supports your argument that he created the Big Bang.

Either you admit that there is no evidence and wait for it (or perhaps why not even actively engage in finding such evidence in scientific activities) or not.

Going in circles is intellectual dishonesty to yourself, foremost, and to everyone else who has been arguing with you.

First I have several times responded just to you that I have no evidence, in fact this whole thing was started when you asked if I had evidence the soul exists, and I said no, yet most beliefs are justified without evidence.
The beliefs for which we have evidence for is slim, perhaps 10% of our beliefs are based hard evidence, the rest being deductive or basic. I have pointed out several beliefs which you hold for which there is no evidence (memories, axioms, free will, other minds ect) and you have instead given me arguments to justify them.
So I have given you one argument - out of about 30 - for my belief.
(A second argument is in the 2 reasons to believe in God thread)

For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

Thus far you have not refuted the premise, or given me a more logical explanation for the evidence.

And as I say, this is merely one reason.
I would point to perhaps 4 other core arguments, that, when taken cumulatively, produce a deductive, logically compelling, conclusion - that there is indeed good reason to think God exists.

[spiltteeth]

I'd also just like to point out you have given no cogent argument on behalf of Atheism, which would dissuade a theist.
You say there's no evidence.
I say it is a basic belief, most people's beliefs are not grounded in evidence, and there are several compelling arguments.

Ovi keeps asking for proof other universes don't exist etc, where is proof God doesn't exist? Either evidence or a compelling argument?

How can you defend you atheism?

Dr. William Craig, a Christian scientist writes:

In the absence of evidence for the existence of God, we should presume that God does not exist. So understood, such an alleged presumption seems to conflate atheism with agnosticism. When one looks more closely at how protagonists of the presumption of atheism use the term "atheist," however, one discovers that they are sometimes re-defining the word to indicate merely the absence of belief in God. Such a re-definition trivializes the claim of the presumption of atheism, for on this definition atheism ceases to be a view, and even infants count as atheists. One would still require justification in order to know either that God exists or that He does not exist.

Other advocates of the presumption of atheism use the word in the standard way but insist that it is precisely the absence of evidence for theism that justifies their claim that God does not exist. The problem with such a position is captured neatly by the aphorism, beloved of forensic scientists, that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." The absence of evidence is evidence of absence only in cases in which, were the postulated entity to exist, we should expect to have more evidence of its existence than we do. With respect to God's existence, it is incumbent on the atheist to prove that if God existed, He would provide more evidence of His existence than what we have. This is an enormously heavy burden of proof for the atheist to bear, for two reasons: (1) On at least Christian theism the primary way in which we come to know God is not through evidence but through the inner work of His Holy Spirit, which is effectual in bringing persons into relation with God wholly apart from evidence. (2) On Christian theism God has provided the stupendous miracles of the creation of the universe from nothing and the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, for which events there is good scientific and historical evidence—not to mention all the other arguments of natural theology. In this light, the presumption of atheism seems presumptuous, indeed!

[Havet]

So, the existence of a personal, non-material, eternal, very intelligent if not omniscient, very powerful if not omnipotent, being, is presently the best theory to fit the evidence we do have, until another, better, theory comes out.

It's not a theory because there is no evidence for it.

Theories, which derive from hypothesis, can only become "the best theory so far" if there is evidence to support them. You have not provided any evidence. We have argued and argued until we reached the beginning of the universe.

How far do you still want to go until you admit that there is no reasonable argument which can show us that God exists?


First I have several times responded just to you that I have no evidence, in fact this whole thing was started when you asked if I had evidence the soul exists, and I said no, yet most beliefs are justified without evidence.

Actually it was you who started with the whole "do you have proof that other minds exist? or souls" argument, not me.

How can a belief NOT be justified by evidence?

I have already proven to you, by using (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1559615&postcount=51) evidence (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558036&postcount=34), that your so called "basic beliefs" still require facts in order to be accurate.


The beliefs for which we have evidence for is slim, perhaps 10% of our beliefs are based hard evidence, the rest being deductive or basic. I have pointed out several beliefs which you hold for which there is no evidence (memories, axioms, free will, other minds ect) and you have instead given me arguments to justify them.


1)Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition) or premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) to be true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#cite_note-0)
2) Truth has to be in accord with a particular fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) or reality
3) A belief, in order to be true, has to be in accord with reality. This means it has to be proven by reality.

I have given you arguments and evidence to justify things such as memories, axioms, free will and other minds because they require evidence.


For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars

Thus far you have not refuted the premise, or given me a more logical explanation for the evidence.

How could I refute those things if they are based on scientific evidence?

The conclusions you are trying to derive from that evidence, however, is flawed. There is no reason to think there is a being who created the universe. Not even with scientific knowledge can we answer that question right now. There might be a chance it involves quantum mechanics, like I said, but that still isn't proven.

Until we find such evidence you should stick to theory with the best explanatory power.


Ovi keeps asking for proof other universes don't exist etc, where is proof God doesn't exist? Either evidence or a compelling argument?

We don't need to prove God doesn't exist. It was you (as in "Christians throughout times") who made the assertion, so it's up to you to back it up.

[spiltteeth]

hayenmill;1580000]It's not a theory because there is no evidence for it.

For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


Theories, which derive from hypothesis, can only become "the best theory so far" if there is evidence to support them. You have not provided any evidence. We have argued and argued until we reached the beginning of the universe.

For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


How far do you still want to go until you admit that there is no reasonable argument which can show us that God exists?

SO far I have given you one argument, you have not denied it.

All the rest was simply explaining very basic epistimology, how we 'know things' and what beliefs can be said to rationally be justified.
I domn't beleive you've contradicted me.


Actually it was you who started with the whole "do you have proof that other minds exist? or souls" argument, not me.

How can a belief NOT be justified by evidence?

If it is deduced by logically compelling arguments.


I have already proven to you, by using (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1559615&postcount=51) evidence (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1558036&postcount=34), that your so called "basic beliefs" still require facts in order to be accurate.


There is no evidence for your belief in other minds, etc etc

Most beliefs which you hold are either basic or deductive.

Since you like WIKI, and won't take my word for it, I've looked up a wiki page on basic beleifs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

and reformed epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

I draw yr attention to the following :


As a corollary to the defense of faith as rational, Reformed epistemology also concurs with the evidentialist objection to theistic belief that is sometimes endorsed by atheists and agnostics. The objection can be formulated as follows:
1 It is irrational or unacceptable to accept theistic belief without sufficient or appropriate evidence or reason.
2 There is not sufficient/appropriate evidence or reason for theistic belief.
3 Belief in God is irrational.

The conclusion is not that God does not exist but rather that it is irrational to believe that God does exist.

Reformed epistemologists, however, deny even the first premise — namely, that belief in God is irrational unless supported by sufficient evidence.
Reformed epistemologists instead contend that there are many justified beliefs that one must accept without sufficient evidence or argument (for example, belief in other minds or the past). Moreover, many perceptual beliefs are not formed upon arguments: one does not formulate an argument, "I'm being appeared to 'treely,' therefore I believe I am seeing a tree," but rather, upon seeing a tree, one simply believes one sees a tree. Such beliefs are properly basic and need no argument to substantiate them. Reformed epistemology therefore rejects as arbitrary the skeptic's requirement of an argument to prove the existence of God but not of other persons.


1)Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposition) or premise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Premise) to be true (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief#cite_note-0)
2) Truth has to be in accord with a particular fact (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact) or reality
3) A belief, in order to be true, has to be in accord with reality. This means it has to be proven by reality.

Nothing I've said contradicts this.


I have given you arguments and evidence to justify things such as memories, axioms, free will and other minds because they require evidence.

You have provided zero evidence axioms are true, other minds exist, free will is real, ect etc because no evidence exists. These are all deduced (from logical argument) or are basic.
At most you gave an argument, as have I.

As I have pointed out, several beliefs you have have no proof.


How could I refute those things if they are based on scientific evidence?

The conclusions you are trying to derive from that evidence, however, is flawed. There is no reason to think there is a being who created the universe. Not even with scientific knowledge can we answer that question right now. There might be a chance it involves quantum mechanics, like I said, but that still isn't proven.

NO REASON? Then I'll simple tell you the reasons, which is based on solid, proper logic, again.

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference. All of my argument can be broken down into logical propositions that use the standard laws of logical reasoning in order to force their conclusions deductively, so long as the premises are true.

The form of my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“


Until we find such evidence you should stick to theory with the best explanatory power.

Yes. That is my theory, you have yet to offer an alternative.


We don't need to prove God doesn't exist. It was you (as in "Christians throughout times") who made the assertion, so it's up to you to back it up.

Ah, so now you are an agnostic?
first, where is the evidence we made him up?
Did you read ,y last post?
From all the evidence we have, theism has explanatory power atheism doesn't?
If there is no God present an alternative theory of how the universe was created.

Atheism is incoherent and rationally untenable, 4 more breif arguments for God's existence :


The Cosmological Argument. Versions of this argument are defended by Alexander Pruss, Timothy O'Connor, Stephen Davis, Robert Koons, and Richard Swinburne, among others. A simple formulation of this argument is:

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.

This argument is logically valid, so the only question is the truth of the premises. Premise (3) is undeniable for any sincere seeker of truth, so the question comes down to (1) and (2).

Premise (1) seems quite plausible. Imagine that you're walking through the woods and come upon a translucent ball lying on the forest floor. You would find quite bizarre the claim that the ball just exists inexplicably. And increasing the size of the ball, even until it becomes co-extensive with the cosmos, would do nothing to eliminate the need for an explanation of its existence.

Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. Besides, (2) is quite plausible in its own right. For an external cause of the universe must be beyond space and time and therefore cannot be physical or material. Now there are only two kinds of things that fit that description: either abstract objects, like numbers, or else an intelligent mind. But abstract objects are causally impotent. The number 7, for example, can't cause anything. Therefore, it follows that the explanation of the universe is an external, transcendent, personal mind that created the universe—which is what most people have traditionally meant by "God."


The Teleological Argument. The old design argument remains as robust today as ever, defended in various forms by Robin Collins, John Leslie, Paul Davies, William Dembski, Michael Denton, and others. Advocates of the Intelligent Design movement have continued the tradition of finding examples of design in biological systems. But the cutting edge of the discussion focuses on the recently discovered, remarkable fine-tuning of the cosmos for life. This fine-tuning is of two sorts. First, when the laws of nature are expressed as mathematical equations, they contain certain constants, such as the gravitational constant. The mathematical values of these constants are not determined by the laws of nature. Second, there are certain arbitrary quantities that are just part of the initial conditions of the universe—for example, the amount of entropy in the universe.

These constants and quantities fall into an extraordinarily narrow range of life-permitting values. Were these constants and quantities to be altered by less than a hair's breadth, the life-permitting balance would be destroyed, and life would not exist.

Accordingly, we may argue:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is due either to physical necessity, chance, or design.

2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

3. Therefore, it is due to design.

Premise (1) simply lists the present options for explaining the fine-tuning. The key premise is therefore (2). The first alternative, physical necessity, says that the constants and quantities must have the values they do. This alternative has little to commend it. The laws of nature are consistent with a wide range of values for the constants and quantities. For example, the most promising candidate for a unified theory of physics to date, superstring theory or "M-Theory," allows a "cosmic landscape" of around 10 (500) different possible universes governed by the laws of nature, and only an infinitesimal proportion of these can support life.

As for chance, contemporary theorists increasingly recognize that the odds against fine-tuning are simply insurmountable unless one is prepared to embrace the speculative hypothesis that our universe is but one member of a randomly ordered, infinite ensemble of universes (a.k.a. the multiverse). In that ensemble of worlds, every physically possible world is realized, and obviously we could observe only a world where the constants and quantities are consistent with our existence. This is where the debate rages today. Physicists such as Oxford University's Roger Penrose lodge powerful arguments against any appeal to a multiverse as a way of explaining away fine-tuning.

The Moral Argument. A number of ethicists, such as Robert Adams, William Alston, Mark Linville, Paul Copan, John Hare, Stephen Evans, and others have defended "divine command" theories of ethics, which support various moral arguments for God's existence. One such argument:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

By objective values and duties, one means values and duties that are valid and binding independent of human opinion. A good many atheists and theists alike concur with premise (1). For given a naturalistic worldview, human beings are just animals, and activity that we count as murder, torture, and rape is natural and amoral in the animal kingdom. Moreover, if there is no one to command or prohibit certain actions, how can we have moral obligations or prohibitions?

Premise (2) might seem more disputable, but it will probably come as a surprise to most laypeople to learn that (2) is widely accepted among philosophers. For any argument against objective morals will tend to be based on premises that are less evident than the reality of moral values themselves, as apprehended in our moral experience. Most philosophers therefore do recognize objective moral distinctions.

Non-theists will typically counter the moral argument with a dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will something because it is good? The first alternative makes good and evil arbitrary, whereas the second makes the good independent of God. Fortunately, the dilemma is a false one. Theists have traditionally taken a third alternative: God wills something because he is good. That is to say, what Plato called the Good is the moral nature of God himself. God is by nature loving, kind, impartial, and so on. He is the paradigm of goodness. Therefore the Good is not independent of God. Moreover, God's commandments are a necessary expression of his nature. His commands to us are therefore not arbitrary but are necessary reflections of his character. This gives us an adequate foundation for the affirmation of objective moral values and duties.

The Ontological Argument. Anselm's famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.

3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.

5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.

6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.

7. Therefore, God exists.

Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2 7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God's existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God's existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it's impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn't appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God's existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

[mikelepore]

Certain phrases become popular among believers. I see that Overman's book "The Case for the Existence of God" - http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1XF5mXx5WEC cites the thesis of Borde, et. al., and also uses the word "proved" in conjunction with the statement that the universe "has a beginning and requires a nonphysical cause" [page 45]. A _nonphysical_ cause -- the same kind of language as what we have read here.

[spiltteeth]

Certain phrases become popular among believers. I see that Overman's book "The Case for the Existence of God" - http://books.google.com/books?id=Y1XF5mXx5WEC cites the thesis of Borde, et. al., and also uses the word "proved" in conjunction with the statement that the universe "has a beginning and requires a nonphysical cause" [page 45]. A _nonphysical_ cause -- the same kind of language as what we have read here.

Thanks I'll check it out. one of the reviews says the author
Overman is a member of the ISPE and Triple Nine Societies, organizations with monitored admission standards 20 times more restrictive than Mensa.
Sounds like a smart guy.

Pretty much any book on apologetics would have the argument I set out here.
The theory is a famous 1,200 yr ancient Islamic argument. It's been used for hundreds of years. The evidence science has provided makes it very appealing today.

As a physics buff I'm sure you know pretty much every physicist has wrestled with it, from Hawking to Vilenkin to Linde and on and on.

Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, Hawking has said many theorists have put forth absurd theories simply to avoid the nessesary conclusion of this argument (god)

I wish i had the quotes, but I remember when scientists at last accepted the idea that the universe indeed had a beginning they descibed the idea as "scandelous" and even "immoral"! They openly admited their extreme hostility simply due to its theological conclusions, saying they found the idea "disturbing"
You probably recall Carl Sagan on his Cosmos tv series propounding the oscillating model and reading from Hindu scriptures about cyclical Brahman years in order to illustrate the model, but hiding from his viewers all the difficulties attending this model.

I did find these quotes:
quantum cosmologist Christopher Isham,


"Perhaps the best argument in favor of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his/her theory"


As Jaki points out, Hoyle and his colleagues were inspired by "openly anti-theological, or rather anti-Christian motivations"


Martin Rees recalls his mentor Dennis Sciama's dogged commitment to the Steady State Model: "For him, as for its inventors, it had a deep philosophical appeal--the universe existed, from everlasting to everlasting, in a uniquely self-consistent state. When conflicting evidence emerged, Sciama therefore sought a loophole (even an unlikely seeming one) rather as a defense lawyer clutches at any argument to rebut the prosecution case" (Martin Rees, Before the Beginning, with a Foreword by Stephen Hawking

[Ovi]

Ovi keeps asking for proof other universes don't exist etc, where is proof God doesn't exist? Either evidence or a compelling argument?

Of course I do. Your entire theory of god is based on the lack of any other universes. But since you can't prove there aren't any other, you can't prove there is a god. So yes, it is you who should prove that there are no other universe, not me.

And even then that doesn't prove the existence of god since that is not an evidence for him, but one against a physical theory. If you want to prove god then show me direct evidence for him. Surely if he exists he would let us know. What is he playing, hide and seek?

[Havet]

For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars



For evidence to base my argument I have given the following :

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars



SO far I have given you one argument, you have not denied it.

All the rest was simply explaining very basic epistimology, how we 'know things' and what beliefs can be said to rationally be justified.
I domn't beleive you've contradicted me.



If it is deduced by logically compelling arguments.



There is no evidence for your belief in other minds, etc etc

Most beliefs which you hold are either basic or deductive.

Since you like WIKI, and won't take my word for it, I've looked up a wiki page on basic beleifs : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_belief

and reformed epistemology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reformed_epistemology

I draw yr attention to the following :





Nothing I've said contradicts this.



You have provided zero evidence axioms are true, other minds exist, free will is real, ect etc because no evidence exists. These are all deduced (from logical argument) or are basic.
At most you gave an argument, as have I.

As I have pointed out, several beliefs you have have no proof.



NO REASON? Then I'll simple tell you the reasons, which is based on solid, proper logic, again.

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference. All of my argument can be broken down into logical propositions that use the standard laws of logical reasoning in order to force their conclusions deductively, so long as the premises are true.

The form of my argument is valid because it allows for a modus ponens inference. (Here’s a primer on logical reasoning)

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

What can we infer about the cause?

So, space, time, and matter began to exist. What could have caused them to begin to exist?

Whatever causes the universe to appear is not inside of space, because there was no space causally prior to the creation event. The cause must therefore be non-physical, because physical things exist in space.
Whatever causes the universe to appear is not bound by time (temporal). It never began to exist. There was no passage of time causally prior to the big bang, so the cause of the universe did not come into being. The cause existed eternally.
And the cause is not material. All the matter in the universe came into being at the first moment. Whatever caused the universe to begin to exist cannot have been matter, because there was no matter causally prior to the big bang.

So what could the cause be? Craig notes that we are only familiar with two kinds of non-material realities:

Abstract objects, like numbers, sets and mathematical relations
Minds, like your own mind
Now, abstract objects don’t cause of any effects in nature. But we are very familiar with the causal capabilities of our own minds – just raise your own arm and see! So, by process of elimination, we are left with a mind as the cause of the universe. As Sherlock Holmes says, “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.“



Yes. That is my theory, you have yet to offer an alternative.



Ah, so now you are an agnostic?
first, where is the evidence we made him up?
Did you read ,y last post?
From all the evidence we have, theism has explanatory power atheism doesn't?
If there is no God present an alternative theory of how the universe was created.

Atheism is incoherent and rationally untenable, 4 more breif arguments for God's existence :


1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause.

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God.

3. The universe exists.

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God.


This is essentially a defintions game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation#Fallacious_reasoning), coupled with assumption that god exists.

Here's a step by step break down of the fallacy

1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. true (ish)

2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God1.

3. The universe exists. (true)

4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God2.


God 1 = the explanation for the universe

God 2 = magical sky daddy

This argument can use any definitions game. God is math. Math exists. God exists. God is love. Love exists. God exists.

If you aren't playing defintions and you are refering to God2 in both instances, tyou need to show that god exists before it can be the explanation. Otherwise all other steps are unneccesary, and all you sre saying is If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God2.


"nuclear fusion in stars are evidence for god".

Its classic non sequitir and theres no point arguing about it, because the preference for your belief comes first. Even if I could prove your beliefs wrong, you would move the goal posts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalpost)

In fact these bullshit arguments like "god is the first cause", "god is the greatest thing possible", are specifically designed so that no amount of evidence would ever matter.

Its a nice bullshit strategy. Pick something you can prove can exist, inherently link it to god without proving it, then use its existance.

Its great because no longer do we have to have to find god through an electron microscope or telescope, we can just point at any random shit, and say the fact that exists proves god exists.

"Nuclear fusion is proof of god. How do I know that? How else did it happen? God is energy. god is the greatest thing possible. God is creation.

<goal post moving>You want evidence for god? Look all around you. How did trees come to be? God made them. Now you say they evolved? They evolved on earth. God made the earth. Now you say he earth formed naturally from condensing hot matter? God made the matter.</goal post moving>

prove god didn't make the matter. how else was the matter made? You don't know? It must have been god."

When I put it like that, it seems so irrational that it does not seem to be worth bothering with, except I'm not trying to make it appear rational, christians are.

I'm sorry but I have no interest in arguing with someone who is willfully ignorant.

I try and show that you're being willfully ignorant and you won't care, you'll deny it. In fact you want me to argue with you, because that gives you lots of lovely cognitive dissonance that you actually have good reasons.

[spiltteeth]

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God

Is all I'm saying. If you deny this you deny that the universe has an explanation.

This is all logic 101. I gave you a primer.

I have no idea how I'm being willfully ignorant. These are old arguments, which every physicist has engaged in and written about. They are all famous examples of rigorous logic engaged in my logicians and math students, no fuzzy metaphysics here, no philosophy, simply rigorous logic. Ask ANY mathy or scientist.

The definition IS NOT God is math etc, as I have said again and again and again and again.

God is PERSONAL, a BEING, eternal, intelligent, nonmaterial, powerful - this is what most people think of as God.
So it is NOT - N O T - a definitions game.
What do you think people mean when they say God?


"Nuclear fusion is proof of god. How do I know that? How else did it happen? God is energy. god is the greatest thing possible. God is creation.

This is not an argument. This has no relation to what I posted. Yes, when it put it like that indeed it is incoherent.

I thought I explained what an an argument is :

The most important thing for you to realize is that nothing can be sustained in a debate unless it can be phrased as a valid argument according the rules of inference. All of my arguments can be broken down into logical propositions that use the standard laws of logical reasoning in order to force their conclusions deductively, so long as the premises are true.

if p is true, then q is true
p is true
therefore, q is true
That means that so long as premise 1 and 2 are true, the conclusion follows necessarily. This is the same form of argument (deductive) used by Sherlock Holmes in his cases.

If you deny the premise, please do so.

There are usually three basic reasons for rejecting a premise: (a) it is demonstrably false, (b) it lacks sufficient evidence or (c) it has at least one counterexample.

I find it incredible that I have used only science and rigorous logic, NO vague definitions, no philosophical argument (as you did for your belief in fee will!) and you accuse me of ignorance.

Logic exists so we can make a deductive conclusion, and not endlessly argue.
So
1) Reject the premise on proper grounds.
Or
2)concede.

[spiltteeth]

There are tons of things in nature for which science has yet to find an answer, and yet no Christian is positing that God is the answer. Look at the unpredictability of isotopes, dark matter, dark energy, the various phenomena you pointed out that the big bang model doesn't explain etc etc Why aren't theists saying "since science can't explain it - God did it" for all those things?

Because Christianity doesn't say trees grow because of God, or God is the cause of lightening etc
Plus, there are no compelling reasons that can be logically deduced to even lead one to posit God as an explanation.

In contrast to pantheistic or animistic religions, Christianity does not view the world as divine or as indwelt by spirits, but rather as the natural product of a transcendent Creator who designed and brought it into being.

One of the most notorious examples was the medieval Church’s condemnation of Galileo for his holding that the Earth moves around the sun rather than vice versa. On the basis of their misinterpretation of certain Bible passages like “The Lord has established the world; it shall never be moved,” medieval theologians denied that the Earth moved. Scientific evidence eventually falsified this hypothesis, and the Catholic Church finally came to admit its mistake.

Hawking says in his 1996 book The Nature of Space and Time, “almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.” But if the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then it is temporally finite and contingent in its existence and therefore neither eternal nor divine, as pantheistic religions had claimed.

The Bible begins with the words, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth”. The Bible thus teaches that the universe had a beginning. This teaching was repudiated by both ancient Greek philosophy and modern atheism. Then in 1929 with the discovery of the expansion of the universe, this doctrine was dramatically verified.

A second scientific verification of a religious belief is the claim of the great monotheistic faiths that the world is the product of intelligent design. Which I think science supports.

So science (and logic) can both falsify and verify claims of religion.

[Decolonize The Left]

If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God

Is all I'm saying. If you deny this you deny that the universe has an explanation.

This is all logic 101. I gave you a primer.

That's absolutely abysmal logic 101. Abysmal. Here's a 101 breakdown:

Your claim is not contingent because Y does not follow from X. In short, if the universe has an explanation for it's existence, that explanation need not necessarily be God. You have simply claimed that it is.

In fact, the explanation for the universe's existence would necessarily be the simplest, with the least possible room for assumption and error. Merely positing the existence of an all-powerful deity is so ripe with assumption that it ought be dismissed from the get-go.

Furthermore, I deny that the universe has an explanation for its existence. I further claim that we invent explanations for the existence of the universe, and that these explanations are either supported or nullified by material evidence.

- August

[spiltteeth]

That's absolutely abysmal logic 101. Abysmal. Here's a 101 breakdown:

Your claim is not contingent because Y does not follow from X. In short, if the universe has an explanation for it's existence, that explanation need not necessarily be God. You have simply claimed that it is.

In fact, the explanation for the universe's existence would necessarily be the simplest, with the least possible room for assumption and error. Merely positing the existence of an all-powerful deity is so ripe with assumption that it ought be dismissed from the get-go.

Furthermore, I deny that the universe has an explanation for its existence. I further claim that we invent explanations for the existence of the universe, and that these explanations are either supported or nullified by material evidence.

- August

I'm afraid if one denies a premise one needs a reason.
However, there are no assumptions, as I've explained.

Your denial that the universe needs an explanation is not a denial of God, but of the big bang model.

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


And God is the best simplest explanation for this data, but, as I say, you must give a reason to dismiss the premise.

[Decolonize The Left]

I'm afraid if one denies a premise one needs a reason.
However, there are no assumptions, as I've explained.

Your denial that the universe needs an explanation is not a denial of God, but of the big bang model.

We have had a string of solid, recent scientific discoveries that point in a definite direction, as follows:

Einstein’s theory of general relativity, and the scientific confirmation of its accuracy
the cosmic microwave background radiation
red-shifting of light from galaxies moving away from us
radioactive element abundance predictions
helium/hydrogen abundance predictions
star formation and stellar lifecycle theories
the second law of thermodynamics applied to nuclear fusion inside stars


And God is the best simplest explanation for this data, but, as I say, you must give a reason to dismiss the premise.

Clever avoidance of my primary argument against your claim - note how I first argued that your claim was not contingent, and only later denied your premise entirely. So I'll let you return to how your claim is contingent before I explain how I can deny your premise.

Hopefully you've explained yourself, now onto my denial.


If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God

Is all I'm saying. If you deny this you deny that the universe has an explanation.



Furthermore, I deny that the universe has an explanation for its existence. I further claim that we invent explanations for the existence of the universe, and that these explanations are either supported or nullified by material evidence.

The universe has no objective explanation for its existence - all explanations are subjective, and can be correlated with other subjective explanations to form cohesive subjective claims. For the sake of common sense, I will accept that only this definition applies to the term 'objective.'

I then claim that we "invent" explanations - which is obviously true.

We continue:

Your denial that the universe needs an explanation is not a denial of God, but of the big bang model.
I'm not sure how you can actually say this.
Both god, and the big bang model, are explanations for the existence of the universe. Furthermore, you posit that god caused the big bang (another explanation which you have invented).

My denial that the universe needs an explanation is logically valid - it doesn't need anything, it's the universe. You need an explanation.

- August

[spiltteeth]

It sounds like you are simply refuting science. All explanations are subjective? Even ones with objective data?

The first law of thermodynamics states that everything that is created needs a cause.
You are saying the universe has no cause? How does it not need a cause? We know it had a beginning.

I guess nothing 'needs' an explanation. We can simply accept everything. However, it does need a cause.

Also, the premise is NOT that the universe needs an explanation, it is IF it has an explanation etc
So, even if the universe does not need or have an explanation, the premise stands.

[Decolonize The Left]

It sounds like you are simply refuting science. All explanations are subjective? Even ones with objective data?

You are beginning to troll.

Here's what I said, one post ago:

The universe has no objective explanation for its existence - all explanations are subjective, and can be correlated with other subjective explanations to form cohesive subjective claims. For the sake of common sense, I will accept that only this definition applies to the term 'objective.'

Read it. Now read what you just wrote. Then read it again.


The first law of thermodynamics states that everything that is created needs a cause.
You are saying the universe has no cause? How does it not need a cause? We know it had a beginning.

For some reason I thought you were a physics student - perhaps you failed physics 101? Here's the first law of thermodynamics:

The first law of thermodynamics, an expression of the principle of conservation of energy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy), states that energy can be transformed (changed from one form to another), but cannot be created or destroyed.

Where, in that definition, is "everything that is created needs a cause?"

Nowhere.


I guess nothing 'needs' an explanation. We can simply accept everything. However, it does need a cause.

No, it doesn't. Determinism is not scientific fact. I will offer you a simple explanation.

An observer watches an event and sees that A leads to B which leads to C. The observer then concludes that A determined B which determined C. Yet we know that while we observe time as linear, it is not. Given that time is not linear, the chain of causality can run backwards: C leads to B which leads to A. Or, from another perspective, one could include D and Z into the equation and note that chain of causality is further skewed. One can also continue to change perspective until one notes that causality is bound by perspective - i.e. one's perspective determines causality. This is to say that the perspective one occupies determines how one views the causal links in an event.

So you can see that the event is, it's time is not linear or passing, it has no actual chain of causality, though once one occupies a perspective on this event one is viewing a set of causal reactions.


Also, the premise is NOT that the universe needs an explanation, it is IF it has an explanation etc
So, even if the universe does not need or have an explanation, the premise stands.

I have already argued that the universe does not need an explanation - you do. It is also clear that the universe does not have an explanation - we do (in fact, have many).

- August

[spiltteeth]

=AugustWest;1582424]You are beginning to troll.

Here's what I said, one post ago:


Read it. Now read what you just wrote. Then read it again.

Yes, again I ask for an explanation, if one exists. I think I get what your saying though. I think your saying explanations, in the way yr using it, are not objective, they are "invented" for us humans.

However, even if the universe has no explanation, the premise is not denied, so this is off the topic, perhaps we should drop it?


For some reason I thought you were a physics student - perhaps you failed physics 101? Here's the first law of thermodynamics:


Where, in that definition, is "everything that is created needs a cause?"

Nowhere.

First, to deny this means you believe things just pop into existence, which must be a frightening way to live.
I thought this was common knowledge, because matter is neither created nor destroyed, it can't just pop into existence but needs a cause. For something to begin to exist, it must have a cause.
The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances.
One of the logical outcomes of this law is that there is no new matter or energy appearing anywhere in the universe, nor is there any matter being annihilated. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved. Consequently, this law is often referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Although matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can be converted from one state to another, i.e. from a liquid to a gas, liquid to solid, solid to gas.
In effect, the First Law states that you and I can neither create nor destroy matter. Therefore, it follows that if something which exists (you and I) cannot create matter, then something which doesn't exist cannot create it either.
Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause.6 Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle


No, it doesn't. Determinism is not scientific fact. I will offer you a simple explanation.

An observer watches an event and sees that A leads to B which leads to C. The observer then concludes that A determined B which determined C. Yet we know that while we observe time as linear, it is not. Given that time is not linear, the chain of causality can run backwards: C leads to B which leads to A. Or, from another perspective, one could include D and Z into the equation and note that chain of causality is further skewed. One can also continue to change perspective until one notes that causality is bound by perspective - i.e. one's perspective determines causality. This is to say that the perspective one occupies determines how one views the causal links in an event.

So you can see that the event is, it's time is not linear or passing, it has no actual chain of causality, though once one occupies a perspective on this event one is viewing a set of causal reactions.

You are denying casualty? For the chain to run backwards (and it could) entropy would have to be reversed (the 2nd law)
And how do you know time is not linear in our current universe?


I have already argued that the universe does not need an explanation - you do. It is also clear that the universe does not have an explanation - we do (in fact, have many).

- August[/QUOTE]

I think the way yr using these words, I agree; one would have to say 'the explanation for the universe for people' etc

Regardless, this does not deny the premise, which is simply IF the universe has an explanation etc

I have never said the universe needs an explanation.

I have said it needs a cause.

[Decolonize The Left]

First, to deny this means you believe things just pop into existence, which must be a frightening way to live.
I thought this was common knowledge, because matter is neither created nor destroyed, it can't just pop into existence but needs a cause. For something to begin to exist, it must have a cause.
The First Law of Thermodynamics asserts that matter or its energy equivalent can neither be created nor destroyed under natural circumstances.
One of the logical outcomes of this law is that there is no new matter or energy appearing anywhere in the universe, nor is there any matter being annihilated. All matter and energy in the universe is conserved. Consequently, this law is often referred to as the Law of Conservation of Mass and Energy. Although matter can neither be created nor destroyed, it can be converted from one state to another, i.e. from a liquid to a gas, liquid to solid, solid to gas.
In effect, the First Law states that you and I can neither create nor destroy matter. Therefore, it follows that if something which exists (you and I) cannot create matter, then something which doesn't exist cannot create it either.
Matter cannot create itself and, in the real world, cannot arise from nothing. Within the bounds of natural law all effects must have a cause.6 Because of this fact, the spontaneous appearance of hydrogen atoms out of nothing (ex nihilo creation) is a definite breach of the First Law of Thermodynamics which asserts that matter, under natural circumstances, can neither be created nor destroyed. Therefore, since it is not a natural event, it is by definition a supernatural event-a miracle

Wow.

All laws of thermodynamics apply to our universe, as it exists. Given that the universe emerged out of one infinitely dense point, the laws of thermodynamics were not in existence, nor could they be, within this point.

The early moments of the universe were not subject to the laws of thermodynamics nor any laws what-so-ever. Likewise, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to singularities (like black holes).


You are denying casualty? For the chain to run backwards (and it could) entropy would have to be reversed (the 2nd law)

I am denying hard determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Arguments).


And how do you know time is not linear in our current universe?

Ah, I already explained this.

Time appears to be linear due to our perspective (spacial reference frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference)). We perceive the arrow of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) to be moving in a clear direction (past-present-future). Yet it is possible that from another perspective, this arrow could move backwards.

In other words:

The problem of the direction of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) arises directly from two contradictory facts. First, the fundamental physical laws are time-reversal invariant (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invariant). In other words, anything that can happen moving forward through time is just as possible moving backwards in time. Or, put in another way, through the eyes of physics, there will be no distinction, in terms of possibility, between what happens in a movie if the film is run forward, or if the film is run backwards. Second, our experience of time, at the macroscopic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic) level, is not time-reversal invariant. Glasses fall and break all the time, but shards of glass do not put themselves back together and fly up on tables. We have memories of the past, and none of the future. We feel we can't change the past but can influence the future.


I think the way yr using these words, I agree; one would have to say 'the explanation for the universe for people' etc

Regardless, this does not deny the premise, which is simply IF the universe has an explanation etc

I have never said the universe needs an explanation.

I have said it needs a cause.

Well if the premise is "if the universe has an exaplanation," why are you insisting on a cause?

And I have denied your claim that it needs a cause by challenging the notion of cause-effect and linear time.

- August

[spiltteeth]

AugustWest;1583215]Wow.

All laws of thermodynamics apply to our universe, as it exists. Given that the universe emerged out of one infinitely dense point, the laws of thermodynamics were not in existence, nor could they be, within this point.

The early moments of the universe were not subject to the laws of thermodynamics nor any laws what-so-ever. Likewise, the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to singularities (like black holes).

Indeed, which is why God could have created matter before the big bang, but nothing could after matter and energy already came into existence.
P. C. W. Davies explains,
"the coming into being of the universe, as discussed in modern science . . . is not just a matter of imposing some sort of organization . . . upon a previous incoherent state, but literally the coming-into-being of all physical things from nothing."


Vilenkin pulls no punches:


It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning

Physicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler, speaking of the beginning of the universe, explain,
“At this singularity, space and time came into existence; literally nothing existed before the singularity, so, if the Universe originated at such a singularity, we would truly have a creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).”

Stephen Hawking says in his 1996 book The Nature of Space and Time,
“almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the big bang.”

But if the universe came into being at the Big Bang, then it is temporally finite and contingent in its existence

The laws do not only apply to our universe as they exist, but in all the past (which you do not believe in) right up until the big bang, which you also do not believe in.


I am denying hard determinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism#Arguments).



Ah, I already explained this.

Time appears to be linear due to our perspective (spacial reference frame (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inertial_frame_of_reference)). We perceive the arrow of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time) to be moving in a clear direction (past-present-future). Yet it is possible that from another perspective, this arrow could move backwards.

In other words:




Well if the premise is "if the universe has an exaplanation," why are you insisting on a cause?

I am insisting on a cause because the 1st law of thermodynamics compels me to. Everything that begins to exist needs a cause.

I do not see how another perspective would see time reversed at all, unless the universe were contracting, which it is not, or that person were traveling faster than the speed of light, which we are not.


And I have denied your claim that it needs a cause by challenging the notion of cause-effect and linear time.

- August

That's fine. So if I were to say Abraham Lincoln was shot BEFORE he was born, you would accept this. I wonder if you really believe this - live out this premise, never planning for the "future."

In any case, I see nothing to contradict the idea that our experience of is not time-reversal invariant. Because of entropy, and the expansion of the universe, there is an arrow of time in a specific direction.
IF the universe were to contract, this would be reversed, however, this is not the case, so I don't see your point.
George Schlesinger points out:


"The relations 'before' and 'after' have generally been acknowledged as being the most fundamental temporal relations, which means that time deprived of these relations would cease to be time."

Observationally, I can say time, although relative, exists in a linear one way direction.