Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Perhaps, but I do think our cognition has had a fairly big impact in our success as a species."
There's no perhaps about it. I mean, the point is certainly taken, cognition has been helpful; but blind, stupid chance is responsible for more miracles, more complex systems and more numerous codes of meaningful information in a single cell than we have produced in countless volumes of literature and computer systems. I believe it was Roger Penrose (though I could be wrong), no friend to theism, who said the measurement of the particular strong force is so precise for life that if it were altered by a degree of 10^10^123, the universe wouldn't be here. The proteins necessary for life occupy a positively miniscule portion of the vast numbers of possible proteins. It's quite frankly like a blind man searching an area larger than the known universe for a thimble, which he happens to find each time, no matter where we hide it. Or, to borrow an analogy from you, it is rather like guessing the value thrown by a billion dice without knowing the number of sides or the configuration of the dots. I mean, maybe you could get so lucky once in 13 billion years, but to get so lucky repeatedly in so many ways? Magicians perform far less impressive feats, and we assume there's something up their sleeve. And there's not even a magician in this case...
"Depends, we don't know anything about anything outside of our universe. Time itself could not exist at all there, or function in a loop, we honestly have no idea. Ergo, an infinite regress is not presently necessary to explain extra-universal events. At some point, the forces in the universe colluded to produce the first star, we would not argue that because stars aren't past-eternal we need some special super-sentient agent to make the first one from scratch."
Actually, according to Hawking and Penrose, along with Vilenkin and P.C.W. Davies, the Big Bang must represent a temporal and spacial edge. One cannot reasonably extend the continuum beyond that point, in either a looping fashion or a straight line. I can give you bunches of info about this, but Hawking explicitly states, "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago." And no, we wouldn't necessarily need a first-star creator in that specific instance (though the Bible does say God made the first ones directly), but the point is that we do need something to explain the chain of causation.
"This brings up more problems, as we do not actually know enough about the "creation" to know what is necessary to "create" it."
My inferences are self-evident. I'm not arguing for the tools used in building the house. I wouldn't know the first thing about that. But what I am saying is that I can reasonably infer that whoever builds a house exists independently of the house. The cause of the universe cannot be expected to be bound to the things which it created, such as time or space.
"The latter part includes any states or conditions beyond this universe, sentient or not."
Clearly.
"We have been known to make decisions based on numbers. So the immaterial motivates and causes us to behave differently than a purely materialistic universe might."
Us making a decision based on numbers is a whole lot different than a number making a decision. I could make a decision based on lots of things that would certainly not be capable of decision making. It doesn't necessarily follow from this that abstractions are capable of causing and choosing.
"Hard to say. I do think there is a spark of abstraction, call it divine if you will, in us that allows us to FEEL and make choices based on those subjective a turbulent emotions. Hopefully that clarified my position a little bit more, as philosophically slipshod as I generally tend to be, I can never be too sure."
This is fascinating to me. I wouldn't say you are necessarily slipshod, just imprecise. The presence of choice in an otherwise closed system is intriguing, no?
"There's no perhaps about it. I mean, the point is certainly taken, cognition has been helpful; but blind, stupid chance is responsible for more miracles, more complex systems and more numerous codes of meaningful information in a single cell than we have produced in countless volumes of literature and computer systems."
I am not a fan of the conflation of two different types of information as if they were the same, as they are very different in form and function. Volumes of literature and computer systems do not appear to reproduce with variation, so unlike any cell you are likely to study, they are not a product of natural reproduction. The "language" of a cell is also much different than that of your examples, as it is basically chemical reactions that are determined by natural laws, and not inscribed by an author. The human cell is a product of sexual reproduction, and is a synthesis of two sets of DNA with some subtle variation due to a flawed translation process, and not an authored novel or program. However, let us humor your assertion for a moment.
Let me calculate the amount real quick:
6×10^9 base pairs/diploid genome x 1 byte/4 base pairs = 1.5 Gigabytes. I could fit about 24 of them on my smallest flash drive. I think you may be overstating your case here, just a bit. It isn't unimpressive, but not exactly mind-blowing either. A single sperm has around 37.5MB of information in it, which effectively means that an average ejaculation represents a download of about 1,587.5TB of data using your logic. I wouldn't want to be the poor bastard that had to determine the MTU packet loss of THAT transfer, ha.
"I believe it was Roger Penrose (though I could be wrong), no friend to theism, who said the measurement of the particular strong force is so precise for life that if it were altered by a degree of 10^10^123, the universe wouldn't be here."
He is off, by about a factor of a million. It would have to vary by about .5 percent for it cause a serious problem for atom formation. That would still be somewhat impressive, if not for the fact that it is also exactly what we would expect to find even if there was no god.
"The proteins necessary for life occupy a positively miniscule portion of the vast numbers of possible proteins."
Our periodic table only represents a small portion of all possible particle combinations, the others just don't occur naturally. Same here, the proteins necessary for our particular form of life happens to be the same as those that occurred naturally in the environment that appears to begat it. I would find it particularly more impressive if those necessary for us weren't so readily available we find them on comets.
"It's quite frankly like a blind man searching an area larger than the known universe for a thimble, which he happens to find each time, no matter where we hide it."
Except that it has only happened once, that we are aware of, so it has approximate probability of 1 if factoring frequency. If factoring pure probability, we can't, because we don't actually know about the formation of this one to assess any kind of accurate probability whatsoever.
"Or, to borrow an analogy from you, it is rather like guessing the value thrown by a billion dice without knowing the number of sides or the configuration of the dots."
If you throw a billion dice, without knowing any of that information, you will get a value. ANY single value you get will be statistically JUST AS PROBABLE as any other value. Afterword, the probability of you getting that value becomes 1, because you already have it. Arguments from probability are terrible arguments, the drastically improbable happens on a daily basis, that doesn't mean that they didn't happen.
"I mean, maybe you could get so lucky once in 13 billion years, but to get so lucky repeatedly in so many ways?"
So far, I haven't seen anything particularly less probable than a disembodied mind outside the universe interfering in it.
" Magicians perform far less impressive feats, and we assume there's something up their sleeve. And there's not even a magician in this case..."
Well, if you have a god there is, otherwise there isn't a need for one.
Looking over this next part, I can tell I need to once again call attention to a fact that ANY good physicist will state if asked. The measures and forces observed within our universe cannot be said or assumed to be the same outside of it, they only apply to our universe, and not one tick beyond.
"Actually, according to Hawking and Penrose, along with Vilenkin and P.C.W. Davies, the Big Bang must represent a temporal and spacial edge."
Indeed, to our universe, not any possible existence outside of it.
"One cannot reasonably extend the continuum beyond that point, in either a looping fashion or a straight line."
This means that the space-time our universe does not:
A. Loop back upon itself; nor
B. Extend into infinity.
That's it.
"I can give you bunches of info about this, but Hawking explicitly states, "Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago.""
Our universe and the time WITHIN it.
"And no, we wouldn't necessarily need a first-star creator in that specific instance (though the Bible does say God made the first ones directly), but the point is that we do need something to explain the chain of causation."
Indeed, but that doesn't necessitate a god, it only implies the existence of something beyond our universe. It could be anything, from another universe to a gaggle of fairies, but some hypotheses are better than others.
"My inferences are self-evident."
I think I gave a pretty good case that they actually aren't.
"I'm not arguing for the tools used in building the house."
You actually kind of are, when you are arguing a necessary sufficient cause, you actually have to demonstrate that it is both necessary and sufficient. You haven't yet done either.
"I wouldn't know the first thing about that. But what I am saying is that I can reasonably infer that whoever builds a house exists independently of the house."
I didn't dispute that, I actually provided for it, and you are still calling god a necessity when it clearly isn't.
"The cause of the universe cannot be expected to be bound to the things which it created, such as time or space."
This only holds true if you assume that the only space and time that exists happens to do so in our bubble of space-time, even Hawking doesn't do that, he actually states that there are probably universes outside of our own. This means that there is space and even time outside of our particular bubble we call the universe.
"Us making a decision based on numbers is a whole lot different than a number making a decision. I could make a decision based on lots of things that would certainly not be capable of decision making. It doesn't necessarily follow from this that abstractions are capable of causing and choosing."
They are capable of making US cause and choose, as intermediaries, literally allowing us a certain amount of agency we otherwise COULD not have.
"This is fascinating to me. I wouldn't say you are necessarily slipshod, just imprecise. The presence of choice in an otherwise closed system is intriguing, no?"
Indeed, that is why humans have been fascinated with trying to falsify it for over two millennia, but it would be nice to figure it all out.
I'd just throw in that these kinds of probability arguments (stemming from fine tuning physical constants) rely on the assumption that the values of these constants are independent of each other. That is a rather sketchy assumption, IMO.
Additionally, many of them contain the assumption that carbon based life as we know it is the only kind possible; another somewhat sketchy assumption, IMO.
True, both of those assumptions are probably false. I would be surprised if carbon based life is the only life in the universe, and if the strong nuclear force wasn't dependent on the charge of quantized particles(like gluons). That does effect the probabilities quite a bit, as water the shape of a glass would be fucking strange, if not for the glass.
Well, God would not be carbon based, and I believe there is a living part of man that is not carbon based... But whether or not God is "in the universe" is sort of a semantic difficulty.
what do you mean, that you can put genetic information, genes, non genes, and nucleotides on an electronic device such as a flash drive, Travis??
If you translated it into code, you can fit the information in a genome on a flash drive. There are two values in a base pair, a byte contains 8 bits(0 or 1), so I could fit the data in four base pairs on one byte. We have about 6 trillion base pairs. That divides to 1.5 trillion bytes, or 1.5 Gigabytes. The smallest flash drive I own is 32 GB, so I did actually make a mistake, it would have been 21 of them instead of 24.
Does that help you understand what I was saying?
not really, travis. "translating" acgt into code just means assigning byte values to them so you can reverse engineer them later. My question has more to do with how to store the actual nucleotides on an electrical format
He didn't say he was going to store the 'actual nucleotides' electronically he said he was going to store the information. Now I can't remember the details exactly, but I think there are 4 'building blocks' for each pair, but if you know the 'left hand' block, then the right hand block is determined. I think all 4 blocks can be used on the left hand side that mean you got 4 unique entries, so that is 2 bits of information per pair; which is the same result Travis got. There may be other constraints I don't know about, but they would only reduce the amount of information.
You can't store chemicals on an electronic device, but you can store bits that hold the information sequence of them. You can't store an apple on a hard drive, but you can store over a million books and pictures of them, if you like.
ImagoDei - "is so precise for life that if it were altered by a degree of 10^10^123, the universe wouldn't be here."
Uhh that is not very precise at all :P
Haha, sorry. That is certainly not precise. And I was partly mistaken in my statement. It was Penrose who said it, but the numbers come when you factor in things like the precision of the strong force, electromagnetism, the speed of the universe's expansion and its density, the homogeneity of the universe, and the isotropy of overall temperature. The probably that our universe exists at all given these conditions is 1 in 10^10^123. And from all evidence, there were no physical constraints on these fundamental forces at the moment of creation. Somehow, every point was stumbled onto blindly. One has to wonder why our luck hasn't run out, when it normally fails quite rapidly according to our experience.
"I am not a fan of the conflation of two different types of information as if they were the same, as they are very different in form and function. Volumes of literature and computer systems do not appear to reproduce with variation, so unlike any cell you are likely to study, they are not a product of natural reproduction. The "language" of a cell is also much different than that of your examples."
It seems to be a common enough metaphor among some of the most prominent biologists even today. I supposed I assumed they would be knowledgeable about such things. For example:
"There is enough information capacity in a single human cell to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica, all 30 volumes of it, three or four times over. ... There is enough storage capacity in the DNA of a single lily seed or a single salamander sperm to store the Encyclopaedia Britannica 60 times over. Some species of the unjustly called ‘primitive’ amoebas have as much information in their DNA as 1,000 Encyclopaedia Britannicas." - Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, pp 116-117.
One cell’s worth of genetic information approximates 4,000 books of printed information, each with 500 pages and 300 words per page. - Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, p. 25
My apologies for borrowing their analogy.
"He is off, by about a factor of a million. It would have to vary by about .5 percent for it cause a serious problem for atom formation. That would still be somewhat impressive, if not for the fact that it is also exactly what we would expect to find even if there was no god."
I'm not sure if you read my followup post there... I was mistaken. Technically the strong force could be altered by as much as 2% before atoms would for sure not be around. Penrose's number comes from taking this, along with the totality of other precise factors at the inception of the universe, like gravity, electromagnetism, and isotropy. These factors taken in sum, the odds of our particular "Big Bang" occurring as they did were 1 in 10^10^123. You can check out his math if you want, right here:
http://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~duchamp/Books&more/Penrose/Road_to_Reality-...(RAND)(2004).pdf
It's all Greek to me, but the calculations used to formulate his number are, as he puts it, "well within the scope of firmly established physical theory," which is not hard to believe given his credentials. His full discussion of the probability begins about 726. As for whether or not it's what we'd expect from a God, I don't know how we'd know that. God is free to do as He pleases if He does exist...
"They are capable of making US cause and choose, as intermediaries, literally allowing us a certain amount of agency we otherwise COULD not have."
Nothing I said contradicts this, and nothing here refutes anything I said... Numbers still don't choose anything. People do. Yes, they choose based on lots of factors like number maybe, but the ultimate choice lies within us somewhere, which is something quite apart from pure abstract concepts. And I believe, from what we've said, we both agree on this. Perhaps I'm mistaken though. We may be able to move on from here, unless I've misread your point.
"I think I gave a pretty good case that they actually aren't."
I mean, maybe I'm missing your case then, but it seems to me that whatever is the cause of the universe is necessarily outside of the universe. Therefore there exists something that is independent of our time, space, and material laws. How are these inferences not self-evident? Something can't create something else and be bound by the thing it created. That's all I'm trying to say here. Call it God or whatever you want. However, when theorizing about what "it" is, we need not multiply undue causes or explanations to ourselves.
I consequently also must ask: are you an agnostic or do you positively assert the nonexistence of God? Maybe I should have asked that at the beginning.
"It seems to be a common enough metaphor among some of the most prominent biologists even today. I supposed I assumed they would be knowledgeable about such things."
It is a metaphor that has problems because of the philosophical baggage it carries with it, if we ignored that baggage, it wouldn't be a terrible metaphor. I should also point out, as a matter of public disclosure, there has been a silent kind of good-natured ribbing between physicists and biologists for years. They are generally bad at math, and we are generally bad at explaining things, so we tend to elbow each other and crack jokes.
"My apologies for borrowing their analogy."
No worries.
"I'm not sure if you read my followup post there... I was mistaken. Technically the strong force could be altered by as much as 2% before atoms would for sure not be around."
If we were talking about ALL atoms, yes. However, it would only take a variance of about .5 percent before most of the periodic table would be too unstable to create common molecules. It would be rather difficult to have things like rocks or life without complex compounds, so .5 percent is a better estimate to a physicist.
"Penrose's number comes from taking this, along with the totality of other precise factors at the inception of the universe, like gravity, electromagnetism, and isotropy. These factors taken in sum, the odds of our particular "Big Bang" occurring as they did were 1 in 10^10^123. You can check out his math if you want, right here:
http://lipn.univ-paris13.fr/~duchamp/Books&more/Penrose/Road_to_Reality-...(RAND)(2004).pdf
It's all Greek to me, but the calculations used to formulate his number are, as he puts it, "well within the scope of firmly established physical theory," which is not hard to believe given his credentials. His full discussion of the probability begins about 726."
I got a 404 error, but I am familiar with his calculation. It relies on two separate assumptions:
A. That the four foundation forces of the universe caused the universe, and weren't caused by the universe; and:
B. Any single combination of values for these forces are possible and equally likely.
Most physicists do not hold these positions, we actually believe(like you) that the foundational forces are caused by the universe(not the cause of the universe), and we do not believe that all possible values are possible. Can you see why we have a problem with it?
"As for whether or not it's what we'd expect from a God, I don't know how we'd know that. God is free to do as He pleases if He does exist..."
Ah, but I love a moving goalpost, it makes things so fun. We can't expect to see any sign or evidence that there is a god in the universe, so if we don't, that is just proof of a god... I find that kind of reasoning to be somewhat less than satisfying =P
"Nothing I said contradicts this, and nothing here refutes anything I said... Numbers still don't choose anything. People do. Yes, they choose based on lots of factors like number maybe, but the ultimate choice lies within us somewhere, which is something quite apart from pure abstract concepts. And I believe, from what we've said, we both agree on this. Perhaps I'm mistaken though. We may be able to move on from here, unless I've misread your point."
My only point is that when we base our actions on the immaterial and unpredictable, our actions can become unpredictable.
"I mean, maybe I'm missing your case then, but it seems to me that whatever is the cause of the universe is necessarily outside of the universe."
Didn't dispute it. The cause is outside of this universe.
"Therefore there exists something that is independent of our time, space, and material laws."
Yep, but if they exist in a separate state, condition, or universe; it is dependent on the time, space, and material laws of that. Those laws may be completely different from ours, for all we know.
"How are these inferences not self-evident? Something can't create something else and be bound by the thing it created. That's all I'm trying to say here."
I understand your point, though I wouldn't have used "bound by" but "contingent upon" as we can be bound by things we create, but not contingent upon them. Not a terribly important distinction, but I would caution you about it, because some people will argue it interminably.
"Call it God or whatever you want."
Why call it anything but the unknown then? If we don't KNOW what it is, we don't KNOW, full stop. We don't continue with a "...but it must have been..." without proving that it actually MUST have been.
"However, when theorizing about what "it" is, we need not multiply undue causes or explanations to ourselves."
What is god, if not an undue cause and explanation? It is an "it" that requires its own assumed existence, then is defined by what it "...must have been..." to do what it is simply assumed to have done, then argued as if it were a fact. You can't find a more poisonous logical fruit than that...
"I consequently also must ask: are you an agnostic or do you positively assert the nonexistence of God? Maybe I should have asked that at the beginning."
I am an agnostic atheist, most of us are, as we know the limits of our knowledge. There are only a few gnostic atheists kicking around, due to the fact that a deistic god is utterly unfalsifiable, so we can only really show that it isn't likely; not that it cannot exist.
"Most physicists do not hold these positions, we actually believe (like you) that the foundational forces are caused by the universe (not the cause of the universe), and we do not believe that all possible values are possible. Can you see why we have a problem with it?"
I'm not perfectly clear on what is meant by the forces being caused by the universe, so I'm not really able to speak to that, but maybe I can comment on the second point.
There are three possible reasons for the fine-tuning of the universe. Either the universal constants and quantities were set the way they are due to physical necessity, to chance, or to design. I believe you are in some sense appealing to the first option here, that there was only a specific range the universe could have fallen under, or that the universe could not very well have been otherwise. But when it comes to the fundamental constants and quantities, like the strong force and the gravitational constant, we find that the values are independent of any known physical laws. There is nothing, by way of evidence, that we can say constrains the constants to be set at such a specific value. In fact, using extrapolations from string theory, Stephen Hawking surmised that the number of possible universes governed by the same physical laws as our universe could well be 10^500, due to the allowed changes in the fundamental constants. Clearly, there is a huge range of possibilities that could have been brought about. Perhaps not infinite, but an enormous number. However, of these, only a minute amount would be permit life of any kind. The vast majority would be destroyed rapidly, or would not permit the formation of atoms, etc. This doesn't tell us why ours should be the one created at all. Further attempts at finding a necessary reason for the universe to be the way it is by way of some physical law have been largely unfruitful. This leaves us with either chance or design.
A couple of arguments have been made for chance. Some have said, like you, that the improbable happens every day. Every entry in the lottery has a miniscule chance of winning, but someone always does. So also with the universe. It had to be something, and we were it. However, this is a misrepresentation of the problem. Yes, any universe is as unlikely as any other, but universes that support life of any kind are vastly more unlikely than any other kind. Imagine a lottery where a contestant is asked to draw one black ping-pong ball out of billions and billions of white ones. If he chooses the black one, he will live. If he chooses a white one, he will be shot. Sure, every ball has the same chance of being picked, but it is vastly more likely that the ball chosen will be a white one. If he does manage to pick the black ball, he will consider himself enormously lucky, especially if the lottery is repeated multiple times. The chances are so stacked against it that they can't be reasonably faced.
Some, to rectify this, have proposed that there is multiverse made up of an infinite number of universes, some kind of World Ensemble, and given enough universes, eventually one will be created like ours. However, there's no evidence for a World Ensemble, and important work by Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde show that a universe with continual expansions cannot be extrapolated infinitely into the past, but must itself have been a singularity. This means there are only a finite number of created universes, and why such an improbable universe as our own exists is still not answered. Chance is just not reasonable as a mechanism for producing something so impossible.
This leaves design.
"What is god, if not an undue cause and explanation? It is an "it" that requires its own assumed existence."
1) Everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a sufficient cause.
If you wish to continue stating that the conclusion is an unfounded assumption, you will have to deny one of the premises. If they are true premises, the existence of a sufficient cause is necessitated, not assumed.
"defined by what it "...must have been..." to do what it is simply assumed to have done"
Assumed to have done? We're talking about the cause of the universe. It is not an assumption to say that the cause of the universe caused the universe. That is a merely a definitional statement that must be true. It is reasonably inferential that such an entity must be spaceless and timeless and immaterial.
Now IF you wish to say that there is in fact matter beyond the universe, I would have to ask what laws govern the matter out there. If it is governed by entirely different laws than we know, then we have absolutely no standard of judging one theory against another, and the idea of a mind creating things is just as probable as anything else. Your assertion that God is an unjustified assumption is itself unjustified since we have no way of weighing the options. If it is governed by the same laws as our own universe, it is subject to a degree of scrutiny, since we can judge what kind of material "universe factories" are permitted under our current system. This is the common practice among physicists today, who are constantly seeking new theories of how the universe came to be, and are judging them based on their practicality under our knowledge of physics and mathematics.
"Ah, but I love a moving goalpost, it makes things so fun. We can't expect to see any sign or evidence that there is a god in the universe, so if we don't, that is just proof of a god... I find that kind of reasoning to be somewhat less than satisfying =P"
I have never claimed that a lack of evidence for God is a proof for God. Not sure where you read that. My statement was that if there were a God, we'd just have to live under whatever universe He created. That says nothing about whether or not He exists...
I know this is a huge jump back, but returning to the issue of morality: if I am a king reigning as an absolute monarch with all the power of enforcement at my disposal, do you believe that there are any moral injunctions placed upon me independently of whether or not I believe they are there?
"1) Everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a sufficient cause."
1 is almost surely wrong, 2 might be wrong. And if all 3 are true, you got a huge gap between them and 4)God is this cause.
"I'm not perfectly clear on what is meant by the forces being caused by the universe, so I'm not really able to speak to that, but maybe I can comment on the second point."
What it means, quite simply, is that the fundamental forces of nature in our universe began with this universe, so could not have caused this universe.
"There are three possible reasons for the fine-tuning of the universe. Either the universal constants and quantities were set the way they are due to physical necessity, to chance, or to design. I believe you are in some sense appealing to the first option here, that there was only a specific range the universe could have fallen under, or that the universe could not very well have been otherwise."
A misconception, I did not say the universe could not be otherwise, I said that it is not otherwise. I also said that it is nearly impossible to know whether it could be otherwise or not, or what range there is, so can't even assess any kind of an accurate probability to it without talking out our butt.
"But when it comes to the fundamental constants and quantities, like the strong force and the gravitational constant, we find that the values are independent of any known physical laws. There is nothing, by way of evidence, that we can say constrains the constants to be set at such a specific value."
I think I read this wrong. It seemed like you were arguing that the constants in our universe weren't in any way dependent on the physical laws inside of it, that would be incorrect. However, I think you mean that there is nothing that demands that they must have been that way at the cause of the universe. While we don't actually know for sure, either way, on that mark. Truthfully, it all rather depends on the cause, as not all causes would likely be capable of causing a wide variety of universes. That being the case, if the cause cannot produce a wide array of universes, but this configurations is within that array; then the probability isn't all that bad.
This is the problem with presumptive reasoning, it is impossible to say exactly how good or bad the odds are, without knowing the cause and its capabilities.
"In fact, using extrapolations from string theory, Stephen Hawking surmised that the number of possible universes governed by the same physical laws as our universe could well be 10^500, due to the allowed changes in the fundamental constants. Clearly, there is a huge range of possibilities that could have been brought about. Perhaps not infinite, but an enormous number."
Could well be. COULD. It is a possibility, it is also a possible that the number of possible universes is much lower, depending on what the cause is. Without a comprehensive understanding of that cause, it is impossible to say how many are possible. If we do a calculation of the possible universes created by a quantum vacuum model, the only universes possible become those with a total sum energy/mass of zero, substantially lowering the number of possibilities to a few hundred. Now, I could then claim that this universe is one of only a few hundred possible ones, but that would be dishonest because it is assuming a particular cause.
A probability, or number of possibilities, requires assumptions that are not completely justifiable.
"However, of these, only a minute amount would be permit life of any kind."
The number depends on your assumed cause.
"The vast majority would be destroyed rapidly, or would not permit the formation of atoms, etc."
The number depends on your assumed cause.
"This doesn't tell us why ours should be the one created at all."
No scientific theory will ever tell you that. Science can only tell you the mechanisms behind something, at best, not a philosophical purpose behind it. It is possible that one day we will be able to tell you the cause of the universe, but we won't be able to give you a philosophical why.
"Further attempts at finding a necessary reason for the universe to be the way it is by way of some physical law have been largely unfruitful. This leaves us with either chance or design."
Well, then we know the better option. Design requires the assumption of a necessary and sufficient designer, without scientific justification, and that would violate the null hypothesis.
"A couple of arguments have been made for chance. Some have said, like you, that the improbable happens every day."
It does. If we tallied up every event and pairing necessary for YOU to be born, you would probably be about as likely as the universe.
"Every entry in the lottery has a miniscule chance of winning, but someone always does."
Not in my state, sometimes no one wins.
"So also with the universe. It had to be something, and we were it."
More likely that it is something, and this is it. It would be far more impressive if you were asking this question in a universe where we couldn't naturally exist.
"However, this is a misrepresentation of the problem."
Not really, no.
"Yes, any universe is as unlikely as any other, but universes that support life of any kind are vastly more unlikely than any other kind."
How do you know? I don't, and I had to study this crap for a living.
"Imagine a lottery where a contestant is asked to draw one black ping-pong ball out of billions and billions of white ones. If he chooses the black one, he will live. If he chooses a white one, he will be shot. Sure, every ball has the same chance of being picked, but it is vastly more likely that the ball chosen will be a white one. If he does manage to pick the black ball, he will consider himself enormously lucky, especially if the lottery is repeated multiple times. The chances are so stacked against it that they can't be reasonably faced."
Incorrect analogy. Imagine a contestant asked to select one ball out of an unknown number of balls, that there are an unknown number of colors of balls, and you have no idea what number of each color there are nor what color would kill you. How probable would you be to pick the ball that saves/kills you? You don't know, you can't know, because you don't have enough information to know.
"Some, to rectify this, have proposed that there is multiverse made up of an infinite number of universes, some kind of World Ensemble, and given enough universes, eventually one will be created like ours. However, there's no evidence for a World Ensemble, and important work by Vilenkin, Guth, and Borde show that a universe with continual expansions cannot be extrapolated infinitely into the past, but must itself have been a singularity. This means there are only a finite number of created universes, and why such an improbable universe as our own exists is still not answered. Chance is just not reasonable as a mechanism for producing something so impossible."
"The definition of “singularity in the past” is not really the same as “had a beginning” — it means that some geodesics must eventually come to an end. (Others might not.) Most importantly, I don’t think that any result dealing with classical spacetimes can teach us anything definitive about the beginning of the universe. The moment of the Big Bang is, if anything is, a place where quantum gravity is supremely important. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin results are simply not about quantum gravity. " - Sean Carrol.
In other words, WLC has misused the theory very badly, by extending it beyond our universe and assuming that commanded a beginning. It actually does not, in Vilenkin's own words.
"This leaves design."
The worst of all options, as it requires both an infinite and a creation ex nihilo.
"1) Everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a sufficient cause."
This argument actually has problems:
https://youtu.be/8KvZGauAmo8
"If you wish to continue stating that the conclusion is an unfounded assumption, you will have to deny one of the premises. If they are true premises, the existence of a sufficient cause is necessitated, not assumed."
Even if I grant all of your premises, which I actually am quite willing to do, you have not moved even a single inch closer to proving your god is either necessary or sufficient. That is the point.
"Assumed to have done? We're talking about the cause of the universe."
Yes, god is defined as having caused the universe, so it is being defined by what it is assumed to have done.
"It is not an assumption to say that the cause of the universe caused the universe."
No, it is a tautology. By making god synonymous with "cause of the universe" you are literally defining it into existence, because no matter what winds up having created the universe, it will be god.
"That is a merely a definitional statement that must be true. It is reasonably inferential that such an entity must be spaceless and timeless and immaterial."
You are assuming these properties because you assume the cause of the universe must have them, what if it doesn't? If there is space, time, and material outside of this universe; the cause of this universe doesn't have to be so.
"Now IF you wish to say that there is in fact matter beyond the universe, I would have to ask what laws govern the matter out there."
If matter exists, material laws.
"If it is governed by entirely different laws than we know, then we have absolutely no standard of judging one theory against another, and the idea of a mind creating things is just as probable as anything else."
Then inter-dimensional fairies are just as likely as a god.
"Your assertion that God is an unjustified assumption is itself unjustified since we have no way of weighing the options."
Sorry, if all options are unjustified, that does not automatically make your assumption more justified. It doesn't work that way.
"If it is governed by the same laws as our own universe, it is subject to a degree of scrutiny, since we can judge what kind of material "universe factories" are permitted under our current system."
Possibly, possibly not, depends on the universe.
"This is the common practice among physicists today, who are constantly seeking new theories of how the universe came to be, and are judging them based on their practicality under our knowledge of physics and mathematics."
That is because not all premises are created equal, some require a heck of a lot more assumptions than others.
"I have never claimed that a lack of evidence for God is a proof for God. Not sure where you read that. My statement was that if there were a God, we'd just have to live under whatever universe He created. That says nothing about whether or not He exists..."
It is kind of implied when I mentioned that we have no scientific basis to assume a god, then you pretty much said that we can't expect to find any if god doesn't want us to... That is less than inspiring.
"I know this is a huge jump back, but returning to the issue of morality: if I am a king reigning as an absolute monarch with all the power of enforcement at my disposal, do you believe that there are any moral injunctions placed upon me independently of whether or not I believe they are there?"
No. Morality is a kind of belief. The only reason morality exists at all is because we individually and collectively believe in it, without that, it would not exist. The only moral injunctions that can be placed on a being, are those they accept, or those that can be enforced upon them.
You wrote:
"1) Everything that begins to exist has a sufficient cause.
2) The universe began to exist.
3) The universe has a sufficient cause."
There should also be:
4) We don't know the sufficient cause of beggining of the universe. Full Stop.
"I have never claimed that a lack of evidence for God is a proof for God. Not sure where you read that. My statement was that if there were a God, we'd just have to live under whatever universe He created. That says nothing about whether or not He exists..."
but it should be:
Because we don't know if there is a god, we just have to live under whatever universe there is. And that really says nothing about whether or not any god exists.
And we should wait to assume there was a god-cause or "universe He created" when there will be sufficient cause for that assumption.
The argument on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality provides an insufficient spectrum of analysis on the issue. Morality is, most broadly, a human framework of differing social consensuses on distinctions between right and wrong behaviours, but there's more to homosexuality than just what people tend to think of its rightness (usually an argument that only comes about by religious instigation; most nonreligious are happy to live and let live). There are also the genetic and biological factors. Homosexuality is essentially biological (like heterosexuality) so, in that regard, it's fair to say that homosexuality is a genuine natural predisposition.
As for the wider moral question, I think to ask "are morals created or discovered" is to pose a false dichotomy, partly because there are other ideologies besides creation or discovery that deal with the genesis of morality, but also because the two words can be semantically murky. For instance, I could say that I discovered in a moment a hitherto unrecognized thought within myself that gave me cause to conclude that homosexuality is right, and then I propagated my discovery. Did humanity, through me, discover that moral conclusion as though it were some previously existent cosmic fact that had been hitherto obscured, but had now been imparted upon us; or did I in fact create that moral argument by imparting it on the populace? Or was it a bit of both? At any rate, I tend to dislike any notion that there is an exterior will that has finally found me. Such a view is arrogant. Rationale is innate, really. That's how I view it.
It does get very woolly when we bring things down to the individual and start to think about cognitive processes and the genesis of thought (and of course, morality is a function of a communicative society and thought, since it is necessary for communication, is most definitely an intrinsic part of moral genesis). The better question to ask is "what fundamental risk, which is not already posed, does consensual adult homosexuality, in and of itself, pose to our society?"
I would argue that there is none. The argument regarding lack of conception is puerile: the world is already overpopulated and there are lots of straight people who choose not to have kids. Contrawise, the argument about not letting gay people get married and have kids is also puerile: many children already grow up without a mother (or indeed a father) and turn out just fine. The argument about "spreading" homosexuality by condoning it is perhaps the most puerile of the lot. As Ricky Gervais put it "if being gay is a choice, then why don't you go and try it? Have a go. Go on. See how easy it is".
I can't think of any substantial, credible, proper reason why homosexuality should be opposed. I can, however, think of dozens of reasons why it shouldn't be, the most prominent in mind being that people will be attracted to the same sex whether you allow them to be or not. There is no monopoly on free thought and there is no intrinsic damage caused by consensual homosexual relationships which is not already caused by heterosexual ones.
I really had no intention of debating the issue of homosexuality specifically, but since you brought it up, I'll make a couple of quick comments...
"The better question to ask is "what fundamental risk, which is not already posed, does consensual adult homosexuality, in and of itself, pose to our society?""
What you've proposed here is a system to derive ethical behavior based on the answer to a question. (What risk does X pose to society?) My question back to you would be: is this a system of ethics that you would like to see enforced on all people? If so, on what authority could you do so? If not, under what circumstances can you enforce such a standard on me?
"People will be attracted to the same sex whether you allow them to be or not. There is no monopoly on free thought and there is no intrinsic damage caused by consensual homosexual relationships which is not already caused by heterosexual ones."
Allow me to clarify my own position here. I believe that there is one possible way to express oneself sexually that pleases God: a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman after marriage. So I'm not coming down on general homosexual behavior any more than I am coming down on heterosexual sins. Any deviancy from the above standard would be sinful on the same grounds.
Second, my grounds for denying homosexual marriage are not immediately drawn from a belief that same-sex attraction is wrong. I draw it from the teaching that a man-woman marriage is a component of the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and so to deviate from this would be marring that image. That's also why I wouldn't allow polygamy.
Now, that being said...
Being born with heterosexual lusts that draw me strongly away from the standard set by God, I can at least understand what it is to have a constitution that wires me away from pleasing God in my sexual life. But my constitution or my natural inclinations do not determine what is right. God's Word does. In this way, I find that my nature is in great need of the help of God if I am to please Him effectively. If He can help me to hedge in my heterosexual lusts to bring my nature to such a place as it would desire to please Him, I believe that He can do the same for any other lust. And as a Christian, I believe that this comes through the cross-work of Jesus Christ.
So I take homosexuality to be a mere symptom of the deeper problem of sin, which is found affecting our very natures and inclinations.
ImagoDei - "I believe that there is one possible way to express oneself sexually that pleases God: a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman after marriage."
Kind of funny the bible gives all kind instructions on the maintenance of multiple wives.
"It is nearly impossible to know whether it could be otherwise or not, or what range there is, so [we] can't even assess any kind of an accurate probability to it without talking out our butt. Truthfully, it all rather depends on the cause, as not all causes would likely be capable of causing a wide variety of universes. That being the case, if the cause cannot produce a wide array of universes, but this configurations is within that array; then the probability isn't all that bad."
First of all, while I don't claim scholarship in this are, this seems to be strongly countered by immense amounts of study and work by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, and statements by Hawking and David Deutsch, who consistently imply that the probability of the universe is indeed surprising. This in turn implies that something can be known of its probability. Indeed, Deutsch stated that "if anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has [in reference to these finely-tuned constants and quantities], he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely."
Second: You are simply restating, not countering, my argument. We should indeed expect and even hope to find a cause that counterbalances the otherwise miniscule chance of a random selection of our universe out of the myriad of life-prohibiting possibilities. There are three possbilities before us: Physical necessity, chance, or design. You seem to want to argue that there is a physical reason which renders the existence of a life-permitting universe necessary or at least probable, I'd ask you to build a case for your proposed mechanism. IF proposing a theory is impossible since there could be no justifiable ways to prove or to counter any of them, then we will have to leave the discussion as is, and agree that we both hold equally likely explanations given our current information.
"[Design is] the worst of all options, as it requires both an infinite and a creation ex nihilo."
Assuming that whatever caused the universe is unknowable and is governed by unknowable laws, it's impossible to defend the claim that these are unmanageable requirements.
"Sorry, if all options are unjustified, that does not automatically make your assumption more justified. It doesn't work that way."
No indeed. In fact, it renders a bunch of scientific inquiry like brane cosmology, vacuum fluctuation models, and oscillating models completely equal and void.
"No, it is a tautology. By making god synonymous with "cause of the universe" you are literally defining it into existence, because no matter what winds up having created the universe, it will be god."
I think there's a confusion of terms. Your reasoning here would imply that the proposition "Da Vinci is the cause of the Mona Lisa" defines Da Vinci into existence because it arbitrarily defines him as the cause of the existent Mona Lisa. What I am arguing is that a transcendent cause must be in place to explain the existence of the universe. Such a cause would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and powerful to the degree of universe creation. Such an entity, in classical philosophy, is indeed labeled "God" but I'd be happy to simply call it "the entity," if that's too distracting for you. The entity's existence is not definitionally based, but is conceptually analyzed based on what it must mean to be a cause of the universe. Of course, Anselm would have more to say to all of this, but it's midnight and my brain hurts.
I'd like to move into the previous discussion a bit more still. If an absolute monarch with all the power of enforcement murdered your family for the sheer pleasure of doing so, would you have any grounds for making a moral case against him? And if you felt inclined to murder, weighing the personal pleasure you would derive from the murder to be greater than the price of civil punishment, is there any sense in which you had trespassed a moral absolute? If you did not believe yourself to be morally culpable for the act, do you think there is any sense in which you would be anyway?
Lastly, who is your favorite author and why?
"First of all, while I don't claim scholarship in this are, this seems to be strongly countered by immense amounts of study and work by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, and statements by Hawking and David Deutsch, who consistently imply that the probability of the universe is indeed surprising. This in turn implies that something can be known of its probability."
Except that, as you have probably noticed by now, the probabilities of different people often vary wildly. Why? Because in every single instance, it was calculated differently, using assumptions that the different people decided where important based on personal ideas concerning the origin of the universe. Take the personal ideas concerning the origin of the universe away, and there are no longer any data points to assess and calculate a probability, making it impossible to calculate. In every single instance of a probability for the universe being given, the probability is only correct if that persons assumptions as to the cause of the universe are TRUE, how confident are you that they are?
"Indeed, Deutsch stated that "if anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features the universe has [in reference to these finely-tuned constants and quantities], he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features are surprising and unlikely.""
Considering I don't find Hawking's arguments for his model to be sufficient cause to conclude his probability has to be correct, what makes you think I would find Deutsch's arguments any more convincing?
"Second: You are simply restating, not countering, my argument. We should indeed expect and even hope to find a cause that counterbalances the otherwise miniscule chance of a random selection of our universe out of the myriad of life-prohibiting possibilities. There are three possbilities before us: Physical necessity, chance, or design. You seem to want to argue that there is a physical reason which renders the existence of a life-permitting universe necessary or at least probable, I'd ask you to build a case for your proposed mechanism."
I gave you an example of a current and popular hypothesis called quantum vacuum. It would only be capable of creating a few hundred different universes, due to the low energy used, and the sum total of mass/energy equaling zero. Of the few hundred universes capable of coming from such a scenario, fully around a quarter of them should be capable of sustaining life, if not producing it. So I don't really see how I haven't given you proposal that met your requirements.
"IF proposing a theory is impossible since there could be no justifiable ways to prove or to counter any of them, then we will have to leave the discussion as is, and agree that we both hold equally likely explanations given our current information."
While it is impossible to say with certainty if any of the competing hypotheses are correct, or if any of them are, that does not automatically make a god hypothesis more likely. It contains MAJOR flaws, not the least of which being that it proposes NO actual mechanism or method for your god to do such a thing. How does your god actually create the universe, give me specifics, or your hypothesis can't even be reasonably considered as an actual explanation for the origin of our universe.
"Assuming that whatever caused the universe is unknowable and is governed by unknowable laws, it's impossible to defend the claim that these are unmanageable requirements."
Given that you, yourself, have argued against such requirements; I find your statement somewhat confounding...
"No indeed. In fact, it renders a bunch of scientific inquiry like brane cosmology, vacuum fluctuation models, and oscillating models completely equal and void."
I would avoid the term "void", they are still possibilities, but unproven hypotheses. Meanwhile, every single one of them have models and mathematical proofs to show how they could be possible, has anyone done such a thing for a god?
"I think there's a confusion of terms. Your reasoning here would imply that the proposition "Da Vinci is the cause of the Mona Lisa" defines Da Vinci into existence because it arbitrarily defines him as the cause of the existent Mona Lisa."
True. But we can actually establish with veritable certainty that Da Vinci is the cause of the Mona Lisa, something we cannot do and never has adequately been done for a god. It would also be a rather piss-poor argument to state that the Mona Lisa is the proof that Da Vinci must have existed, considering the evidence of his existence is rather more vast and prodigious than merely that specific creation. According to another religion, while on his way to the garden of the Hesperides on the island of Erytheia, Hercules had to cross the mountain that was once Atlas. Instead of climbing the great mountain, Hercules used his superhuman strength to smash through it. By doing so, he connected the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterranean Sea and formed the Strait of Gibraltar. Should I believe the mere existence of the Strait of Gibraltar is evidence that Hercules existed? He supposedly created it, right, so he must have existed. Not to mention, even if we could prove how the universe was caused, and it was not a god; believers would attribute the cause of the cause to god. Then the cause, of the cause, of the cause to god. Then the cause, of the cause, of the cause, of the cause, to god. Ad Infinitum.
"What I am arguing is that a transcendent cause must be in place to explain the existence of the universe."
All transcendent really means, in this context, is that it is beyond our space-time. That doesn't mean ALL space-time in a multiverse, just ours, and people need to accept that.
"Such a cause would be immaterial, spaceless, timeless and powerful to the degree of universe creation."
Not necessarily. There could be material universes outside of our own, with both space and time. So assuming that the cause HAD to be immaterial, spaceless, and timeless is completely bogus at the outset. Furthermore, in a quantum fluctuation model, very little energy/force/power is actually needed to set the ball rolling. That is its MAIN component that makes some physicists seem to favor it in the first place.
"Such an entity, in classical philosophy, is indeed labeled "God" but I'd be happy to simply call it "the entity," if that's too distracting for you."
That is quite a deal better, considering an entity could be anything from a quark to a planet. Entities do not require any specific properties other than existence, it is the perfect word for the cause of this universe.
"The entity's existence is not definitionally based, but is conceptually analyzed based on what it must mean to be a cause of the universe."
Considering no single person knows "what it must mean to be the cause of the universe", that is an incoherent way to define anything. Better to leave it as an unknown, as we don't know anything about it, and call it a day at that.
"Of course, Anslem would have more to say to all of this, but it's midnight and my brain hurts.
Understood, it is now almost midnight where I am, so I can empathize.
"I'd like to move into the previous discussion a bit more still."
Feel free, it was the original discussion, and we have rather driven this poor thread recklessly and wildly wherever we could think to go. Whenever people like me get into a conversation they like and enjoy, we tend to strain the patience of everybody around us. I hope I haven't driven anyone away.
"If an absolute monarch with all the power of enforcement murdered your family for the sheer pleasure of doing so, would you have any grounds for making a moral case against him?"
Depends on whose morality you built that case on.
"And if you felt inclined to murder, weighing the personal pleasure you would derive from the murder to be greater than the price of civil punishment, is there any sense in which you had trespassed a moral absolute?"
No. There are no absolutes to trespass, though you may have trespassed on a social moral value, and be punished for it.
"If you did not believe yourself to be morally culpable for the act, do you think there is any sense in which you would be anyway?
If I did not believe I was morally culpable for an act, and I couldn't be convinced, then not as far as I am concerned. If other people find me morally culpable for that act, and punish me for it, they are enforcing moral culpability onto me. I know that it isn't satisfying to think of morality as a mental construct, but it is, it just happens to be shared socially.
"Lastly, who is your favorite author and why?"
My favorite authors are largely scifi/fantasy authors. I don't really read books by atheists, but I have a few by Christian apologists. I generally don't read much nonfiction, as I find myself often disagreeing with other atheists and physicists for making claims they cannot support.
@ImagoDei
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________
-- I really had no intention of debating the issue of homosexuality specifically, but since you brought it up, I'll make a couple of quick comments...
"The better question to ask is "what fundamental risk, which is not already posed, does consensual adult homosexuality, in and of itself, pose to our society?""
What you've proposed here is a system to derive ethical behavior based on the answer to a question. (What risk does X pose to society?) My question back to you would be: is this a system of ethics that you would like to see enforced on all people? If so, on what authority could you do so? If not, under what circumstances can you enforce such a standard on me? ---
Response____________________________________________________________________________________________
I didn't derive an entire system of ethics from a question, no. I posed a question that is pertinent to the issue, which I believe to be a much more important, relevant and contextual one than "are ethics created or discovered?". I have not created an entire system of ethics, I have used a specific approach to homosexuality, which I, in all honesty, don't even consider to be a moral dilemma: being gay is not wrong in my opinion. As far as I am concerned it hurts nobody, nor does it take away from any non-gay citizen's personal liberties or securities, unlike enforced religious deontological moralities do. In my opinion, your religion poses a higher risk to society than homosexuality. If you should like to eradicate homosexual marriage, I should like to eradicate your religion.
Regardless of the strawman, you ask me if I would like to see a system of ethics based on the question "what risk does X pose to society?" Actually, I would say such a question is a large part of why we have the laws we have at all. I would say that the assessment of an action's, or behaviour's, risk to society already is one of the central moral questions upon which laws and social moral codes are built.
ImagoDei_________________________________________________________________________________________
"People will be attracted to the same sex whether you allow them to be or not. There is no monopoly on free thought and there is no intrinsic damage caused by consensual homosexual relationships which is not already caused by heterosexual ones."
Allow me to clarify my own position here. I believe that there is one possible way to express oneself sexually that pleases God: a monogamous relationship between an man and a woman after marriage. So I'm not coming down on general homosexual behavior any more than I am coming down on heterosexual sins. Any deviancy from the above standard would be sinful on the same grounds.
Response___________________________________________________________________________________________
Sin is a created concept and your God does not exist. I and everyone else here refuse to live by your creeds, for you would take away our personal liberties. I'd die first.
ImagoDei_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Second, my grounds for denying homosexual marriage are not immediately drawn from a belief that same-sex attraction is wrong. I draw it from the teaching that a man-woman marriage is a component of the image of God (Genesis 1:27) and so to deviate from this would be marring that image. That's also why I wouldn't allow polygamy.
Response_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Thankfully it is not your decision. It is free society's decision.
ImagoDei_____________________________________________________________________________________________
Now, that being said...
Being born with heterosexual lusts that draw me strongly away from the standard set by God, I can at least understand what it is to have a constitution that wires me away from pleasing God in my sexual life. But my constitution or my natural inclinations do not determine what is right. God's Word does. In this way, I find that my nature is in great need of the help of God if I am to please Him effectively. If He can help me to hedge in my heterosexual lusts to bring my nature to such a place as it would desire to please Him, I believe that He can do the same for any other lust. And as a Christian, I believe that this comes through the cross-work of Jesus Christ.
So I take homosexuality to be a mere symptom of the deeper problem of sin, which is found affecting our very natures and inclinations.
Response________________________________________________________________________________________
That's fantastic. I like Humpty-Dumpty, myself.
"In every single instance of a probability for the universe being given, the probability is only correct if that persons assumptions as to the cause of the universe are TRUE, how confident are you that they are?"
If the probabilities are not able to be judged by a standard of probability other than the proposed cause itself, how do we weigh any of these options against another? There must be an outside way to judge probability for every cause, or else we couldn't have these discussions.
"I gave you an example of a current and popular hypothesis called quantum vacuum. It would only be capable of creating a few hundred different universes, due to the low energy used, and the sum total of mass/energy equaling zero. Of the few hundred universes capable of coming from such a scenario, fully around a quarter of them should be capable of sustaining life, if not producing it. So I don't really see how I haven't given you proposal that met your requirements."
You had indeed proposed this. My apologies. Vacuum fluctuation models are at best not well-understood. In fact, Brout and Spindel, who pioneered a lot of the work in this area, have begun looking for other models because they see the math behind universe-producing quantum vacuums as "flimsy at best." Others, like Charles Isham, see the theory as largely having been abandoned because of certain "fairly lethal" problems. There is simply very little consensus regarding the feasibility of such a model. One of the more prominent questions that have yet to be satisfied is that even if there were only a few hundred kinds of universes possible, there still doesn't appear to be a constraint on the overall number of universes that could be produced. In fact, there would seem to be a non-zero probability of a such a fluctuation occurring at any point in the larger space at any time. Given this, why are we not seeing evidence of the other universe created within the vacuum? If the vacuum is an eternal entity, then there should be an infinite amount of zero-energy universes created, which should have collided with ours if they have been expanding forever as per the predictions of a zero-energy universe. This could be resolved if the larger space were itself expanding, but that would make it not past-eternal, and we're back to the initial problem.
"It contains MAJOR flaws, not the least of which being that it proposes NO actual mechanism or method for your god to do such a thing. How does your god actually create the universe, give me specifics, or your hypothesis can't even be reasonably considered as an actual explanation for the origin of our universe."
It is true that I cannot give you the specifics of "how" it happened other than to say that God created by His will and His power. I'm simply not given much more than that, and I haven't done a full analysis of the issue. However, to propose such a mechanism is not necessarily inherent in my claims. I mean, the specific mechanisms behind vacuum fluctuation models are far from realized, since we have no experience with universes being born out of quantum vacuums. Particles maybe - but our universe does not seem to hold any properties of the particles we find appearing in quantum fields. I'm curious about one thing that may clear some of this up: when you say that there may be space and time beyond our universe, are you positing that there is an entirely other space and time out there, governed by different properties, or are you extending space and time beyond the Bang, and saying that our universe is just an expansion of one localized portion of the larger space-time manifold?
"Given that you, yourself, have argued against such requirements; I find your statement somewhat confounding..."
I think there may also be confusion of terms here too. When I argue against an ex nihilo creation, I am arguing against the notion that the universe sprang into existence uncaused. The ex nihilo I advocate simply means that God created the universe from no pre-existing material. Also, I have been arguing FOR the infinity of some entity preceding ours, or else we're left with a truly ex nihilo creation at some point or an infinite regress. Neither of these are palatable in my estimation.
"I know that it isn't satisfying to think of morality as a mental construct, but it is, it just happens to be shared socially."
I commend you for your honesty. Along with all of this, do you believe that reason is a construct of the human mind like morality?
"My favorite authors are largely scifi/fantasy authors. I don't really read books by atheists, but I have a few by Christian apologists. I generally don't read much nonfiction, as I find myself often disagreeing with other atheists and physicists for making claims they cannot support."
Haha, again, thanks for your honesty. I find similar issues with many Christian authors, who are often guilty of trying to counter theories that they do not understand, and they end up doing more damage than their well-intentioned good. Which is why I enjoy dialogue like this.
"If the probability of every proposed cause is not able to be judged by a standard of probability other than itself, how do we weigh any of these options against another?"
You hit the nail of the problem right on the head, about the only standard we have to judge these hypotheses by is their internal consistency and the calculated result. Other than that, we don't have any way to judge them at all, and yet to find any legitimate way to probabilistically determine which, if any, actually caused the universe.
"There must be an outside way to judge probability for every cause, or else we couldn't have these discussions."
Nope, it is all internal, but we can still have these discussions because we can deal in such abstractions. Something doesn't even have to be possible, or even likely, for us to discuss it.
"You had indeed proposed this. My apologies. Vacuum fluctuation models are at best not well-understood."
Most models proposed for the cause of the universe aren't well understood, they rely on the internal physics of the thing being caused, and that is part of the problem. All models make at least a few basic assumptions as to the physics at play outside of our universe, as a physicist I understand the desire and motive to do so, but I think it is still a failure to understand the full scope of the situation. All assumed physical laws outside of the universe, are just that, assumptions; and cannot be assumed to be correct.
"In fact, Brout and Spindel, who pioneered a lot of the work in this area, have begun looking for other models because they see the math behind universe-producing quantum vacuums as "flimsy at best." Others, like Charles Isham, see the theory as largely having been abandoned because of certain "fairly lethal" problems. There is simply very little consensus regarding the feasibility of such a model. One of the more prominent questions that have yet to be satisfied is that even if there were only a few hundred kinds of universes possible, there still doesn't appear to be a constraint on the overall number of universes that could be produced."
Indeed. Only a few hundred different kinds would be possible, but of those kinds, there could be millions of universes other than our own. Not really much of a problem, though.
"In fact, there would seem to be a non-zero probability of a such a fluctuation occurring at any point in the larger space at any time."
Last time I checked the probability of such a fluctuation occurring in the larger quantum vacuum at any given time would be much higher than zero. Still not much of a problem.
"Given this, why are we not seeing evidence of the other universe created within the vacuum?"
Because to detect any evidence would require the ability to detect things beyond our own universe, a feat we have yet to achieve on any apparent level.
"If the vacuum is an eternal entity, then there should be an infinite amount of zero-energy universes created, which should have collided with ours if they have been expanding forever as per the predictions of a zero-energy universe."
That would actually depend on a number of factors, such as the size of the vacuum, and whether it itself is even eternal. Not to mention, though a quarter of the possible types would be habitable, just over a half of the possible universe would ever manage to expand at all.
"This could be resolved if the larger space were itself expanding, but that would make it not past-eternal, and we're back to the initial problem."
Not really, if we were able to figure out the specifics of that space, they might be different enough that time and space do not have the same meaning. A looping macrocosm of universes, for instance, though unpalatable would render infinite regressions meaningless.
"It is true that I cannot give you the specifics of "how" it happened other than to say that God created by His will and His power."
So. There was a something in a nothing, that something did something to that nothing, and that nothing became everything except that something...
Hmm...tough sell.
"I'm simply not given much more than that, and I haven't done a full analysis of the issue. However, to propose such a mechanism is not necessarily inherent in my claims."
Yes, in fact, a demonstration that it could even possibly cause the universe is generally considered a baseline for considering a model even plausible. Otherwise you might as well just say it was an eternal cosmic fart, it would be just as explanatory.
"I mean, the specific mechanisms behind vacuum fluctuation models are far from realized, since we have no experience with universes being born out of quantum vacuums. Particles maybe - but our universe does not seem to hold any properties of the particles we find appearing in quantum fields."
Except, perhaps, that we live in a quantized universe that could not work without a universal quantum field.
"I'm curious about one thing that may clear some of this up: when you say that there may be space and time beyond our universe, are you positing that there is an entirely other space and time out there, governed by different properties, or are you extending space and time beyond the Bang, and saying that our universe is just an expansion of one localized portion of the larger space-time manifold?"
Both. Our universe could be an expansion of another unknown manifold that may have different laws, or it could have been caused in a larger macrocosm beyond our understanding. Either way there is no reason to simply assert that there is no space-time outside our own, and when you throw in special relativity on the scale of a macrocosm, even eternities become but a product of an inertial frame of reference.
"I think there may also be confusion of terms here too. When I argue against an ex nihilo creation, I am arguing against the notion that the universe sprang into existence uncaused."
I don't recall arguing there was no cause...
"The ex nihilo I advocate simply means that God created the universe from no pre-existing material."
First, you don't need matter but energy, for matter actually can be created and destroyed. See:
http://web.pdx.edu/~egertonr/ph311-12/pair-p&a.htm
It covers Pair Production and Annihilation, particles are created and destroyed routinely. Both mass to energy AND energy to mass conversions exist. Add to that a universe with an energy equivalence of zero, and you could actually get a universe such as ours with VERY LITTLE input. Perhaps we should wade into this, because I think if there is any possible way for theists to propose a means by which a god could create the universe, this is where they should start. The ONLY starting requirement is a small input of a photon or a neutral boson.
"Also, I have been arguing FOR the infinity of some entity preceding ours, or else we're left with a truly ex nihilo creation at some point or an infinite regress. Neither of these are palatable in my estimation."
Infinite regress assumes that time beyond our universe functions as a ray(never-ending line) as it seems to in our own, there is little reason to assume that that must actually be the case.
"I commend you for your honesty. Along with all of this, do you believe that reason is a construct of the human mind like morality?"
Absolutely. Logic, math, science, language. They are all constructs of a sentient mind.
"Haha, again, thanks for your honesty. I find similar issues with many Christian authors, who are often guilty of trying to counter theories that they do not understand, and they end up doing more damage than their well-intentioned good. Which is why I enjoy dialogue like this."
We agree then, we can love a good story, but when discussing something we find interesting and important we prefer more interactive media.
Sorry for the delay!
I'm sensing that we will get nowhere very quickly. Given my lack of deep knowledge about physics, I'm basically going off of my research here. And given the lack of consensus among experts, I could pretty much keep finding people whose studies lead them to very different conclusions than yours, and you could do the same back to me. I think we need to leave the realm of the science behind mechanisms that we don't fully understand, and delve into the realm of internal consistency, as you say. If you'd be willing to... Besides, my goal in discussion is not to convince you that there is a God. That would only do marginal good, as far as I'm concerned, and may have no effects whatsoever in the long run. As James says, even the devil believes in God. Not calling you a devil by any means - just setting priorities. :)
"So. There was a something in a nothing, that something did something to that nothing, and that nothing became everything except that something..."
I suppose God may have remained a kind of "something" if He had not made Himself as fully known as He has. Given revelation, we know very much about Him. But yes, I'll grant that it is a tough sell. In fact, it was Christ who said it was easier for camels to fit through the eye of a needle than for some to turn to God, and Paul said that the great thinkers in his day saw the truth as utter foolishness. But again, the point of Scripture is not to inform us with the "how" of creation, but with the implications of it.
"We agree then, we can love a good story, but when discussing something we find interesting and important we prefer more interactive media."
I'm not sure I get your full meaning, but I suppose so, yes... If you mean I enjoy dialogue, absolutely.
"Absolutely. Logic, math, science, language. They are all constructs of a sentient mind."
I see. Then do you subject these to the same rule of subjectivity that you do for morality?
I hope you don't think of this as a mean question, but I'm curious about something. Suppose God unveiled Himself to the world right now. Just stepped in and said that He was the God of the Bible, that He was real, and the time had come to end this world. And then suppose that He commanded you to bow down and worship Him, and in exchange, He would offer you an eternity in Heaven. If not, He would punish you forever in Hell. What would you do? I realize such a hypothetical might be a little obtuse, but just going with your gut... What would be your reaction?
"I'm sensing that we will get nowhere very quickly. Given my lack of deep knowledge about physics, I'm basically going off of my research here. And given the lack of consensus among experts, I could pretty much keep finding people whose studies lead them to very different conclusions than yours, and you could do the same back to me. I think we need to leave the realm of the science behind mechanisms that we don't fully understand, and delve into the realm of internal consistency, as you say. If you'd be willing to..."
Sure, it is also difficult though, as consistency only shows if something could happen and not if it did.
"Besides, my goal in discussion is not to convince you that there is a God. That would only do marginal good, as far as I'm concerned, and may have no effects whatsoever in the long run. As James says, even the devil believes in God. Not calling you a devil by any means - just setting priorities. :)"
I don't think you have specifically tried to convince me personally of a god, only attempted to address the specific problems I had with the concept. If we abandon the more unjustifiable claims about a god, and consider it more of an unknown quatum-locked space or state, then a good physicist could created a model based on it that could be consistent.
"I suppose God may have remained a kind of "something" if He had not made Himself as fully known as He has."
It is far from fully known. In fact, most of the most important bits of information a physicist needs to understand something are completely missing. What is god made of? How does it interact with this universe? Also, it is a something just like everything else, if it exists. The only things that aren't a something are things that do not exist. If it exists, it is a something.
"Given revelation, we know very much about Him."
Not the kinds of thing we need to know to really understand it.
"But yes, I'll grant that it is a tough sell. In fact, it was Christ who said it was easier for camels to fit through the eye of a needle than for some to turn to God, and Paul said that the great thinkers in his day saw the truth as utter foolishness. But again, the point of Scripture is not to inform us with the "how" of creation, but with the implications of it."
Well, I am not a philosopher so can't speak to the implications that you are talking about, but it surely doesn't give a physicist much to work with to establish the scientific implications of it.
"I'm not sure I get your full meaning, but I suppose so, yes... If you mean I enjoy dialogue, absolutely."
That is what I meant, we enjoy a good conversations with someone with a differing perspective more than a book or documentary. Not to dismiss such books or documentaries, but a conversation is usually more organic and feels more interesting and exciting.
"I see. Then do you subject these to the same rule of subjectivity that you do for morality?"
They aren't quite as subjective, because they adhere to STRICT rules. Morality doesn't appear to have the same kind of strict rules as math or logic. It is a lot like language, which changes with usage and evolves with a society.
"I hope you don't think of this as a mean question, but I'm curious about something."
Given the quality of the exchange thus far, it seems to me that you would not be mean intentionally, so I don't worry about that. I would NEVER condemn someone for being curious.
"Suppose God unveiled Himself to the world right now. Just stepped in and said that He was the God of the Bible, that He was real, and the time had come to end this world. And then suppose that He commanded you to bow down and worship Him, and in exchange, He would offer you an eternity in Heaven. If not, He would punish you forever in Hell. What would you do? I realize such a hypothetical might be a little obtuse, but just going with your gut... What would be your reaction?"
I would attempt to learn more about it, and determine if it was telling the truth. For if your devil existed, he might do that too. Secondly, I would attempt to determine if it were worthy of my worship. Just because it existed, that would not automatically mean it was worthy of such worship.
"Sure, it is also difficult though, as consistency only shows if something could happen and not if it did."
Granted. Given that we both love dialogue AND a good story, I'm looking forward to heading down this path. Discussing worldview and narrative consistency is always enlightening.
"It is far from fully known. In fact, most of the most important bits of information a physicist needs to understand something are completely missing. What is god made of? How does it interact with this universe? Also, it is a something just like everything else, if it exists. The only things that aren't a something are things that do not exist. If it exists, it is a something ... Not the kinds of thing we need to know to really understand it ... Well, I am not a philosopher so can't speak to the implications that you are talking about, but it surely doesn't give a physicist much to work with to establish the scientific implications of it."
For sure, God is something. Wasn't trying to twist that. I just wanted to be sure we kept the distinction we had previously made between conscious beings and non-beings, and give the claim its appropriate place within that distinction.
And I think my point was more that God is not presently interested in telling us things like what He's made of or how He behaves on a scientific level. Much like you said, the laws that govern the things beyond the universe are sort of beyond our reach. If I could say anything about it, I'd say God seems more governed by the laws of His character than anything else, but that's mostly because that's what He's told us the most about. At present, He seems vastly more interested in dialogue with us about what He's like as a Person and how He interacts emotionally and cognitively with the universe. Although even these are lacking complete explanation. We've been given what we need to know to complete our redemption and enjoy the beginnings of a relationship based on personal connection rather than scientific knowledge. At present, the philosophical implications are more pressing I would say. The "face-to-face" interaction is promised at a later time to those who receive Him. I'm looking forward to getting the answers to these questions then!
"They aren't quite as subjective, because they adhere to STRICT rules. Morality doesn't appear to have the same kind of strict rules as math or logic. It is a lot like language, which changes with usage and evolves with a society."
Hmm... So would you say that the rules of reasoning and logic hold true regardless of what we think about them? Or are they also products of our perception?
"I would attempt to learn more about it, and determine if it was telling the truth. For if your devil existed, he might do that too. Secondly, I would attempt to determine if it were worthy of my worship. Just because it existed, that would not automatically mean it was worthy of such worship."
I see. Since we're being hypothetical, suppose that you determined He was indeed God, but also determined that He would not be worthy of worship. Would that matter enough for you to lose eternal happiness over? Would you really choose Hell on personal principles that wouldn't be remembered by anyone except yourself anyway? Also, would you consider His act of creating all things and allowing you to enjoy the blessings of your family to be worthy of at least a short "thank you"?
"Granted. Given that we both love dialogue AND a good story, I'm looking forward to heading down this path. Discussing worldview and narrative consistency is always enlightening."
Indeed. We can start wherever you wish.
"For sure, God is something. Wasn't trying to twist that. I just wanted to be sure we kept the distinction we had previously made between conscious beings and non-beings, and give the claim its appropriate place within that distinction."
Well, your god specifically is described as definitely conscious, so we should talk about it as it is claimed to be. More generally, though, deistic gods don't require either consciousness or even agency. Deistic gods are somewhat noncognitive in definition, so vague as to be almost anything. That is part of the reason some of what I say may seem like it was lost in translation, I speak very generally about the concept of god when talking about it, and you are specifically talking about the god of your religion.
"And I think my point was more that God is not presently interested in telling us things like what He's made of or how He behaves on a scientific level. Much like you said, the laws that govern the things beyond the universe are sort of beyond our reach. If I could say anything about it, I'd say God seems more governed by the laws of His character than anything else, but that's mostly because that's what He's told us the most about. At present, He seems vastly more interested in dialogue with us about what He's like as a Person and how He interacts emotionally and cognitively with the universe. Although even these are lacking complete explanation. We've been given what we need to know to complete our redemption and enjoy the beginnings of a relationship based on personal connection rather than scientific knowledge. At present, the philosophical implications are more pressing I would say. The "face-to-face" interaction is promised at a later time to those who receive Him. I'm looking forward to getting the answers to these questions then!"
I have always found myself more interested in how things happen, which is part of the reason I was attracted to science from a young age. I am a fine detail kind of person, and I find theists are generally more into the big picture. This both allows me to ask more questions and find more information in small pieces of things, and doesn't always allow me to necessarily appreciate the whole as much as the individual parts.
"Hmm... So would you say that the rules of reasoning and logic hold true regardless of what we think about them? Or are they also products of our perception?"
Difficult question. If no conscious mind ever existed, would math or logic? Probably not, but neither would the theory of gravity... If we(conscious minds) stopped existing tomorrow, would the theory of gravity still exist? I would argue that while the theory would no longer exist, the phenomena would. I think it is similar with math and logic, those systems would cease to be, but what they were created to describe would not...
Morality and Language, however, require conscious minds for their description. Morality only seems to apply to the behavior of such conscious beings, and language is communication between beings conscious enough to do so, so the existence of what they even describe depends on conscious minds.
"I see. Since we're being hypothetical, suppose that you determined He was indeed God, but also determined that He would not be worthy of worship. Would that matter enough for you to lose eternal happiness over?"
Yes. Also, it wouldn't matter. Let us say I was CONVINCED that your god existed but was not worthy of worship, even if I chose to pretend to, it would hypothetically know that I didn't really worship it. So either way, I would be damned. Might as well be damned for telling the truth, than damned for lying and compounding my own "sins", no?
"Would you really choose Hell on personal principles that wouldn't be remembered by anyone except yourself anyway?"
Personal principles only ever matter to the person, so yes, and it wouldn't really matter if anyone else remembered it.
"Also, would you consider His act of creating all things and allowing you to enjoy the blessings of your family to be worthy of at least a short "thank you"?"
A thank you is not worship. I am grateful for such a good conversation, and respect you, but that doesn't mean I worship you. It is possible to be thankful, to care, and even love something without worshiping it.
Pages