Question about god and science?

[Seraph]

It most certainly does apply to ANY type of multi-verse too. ANY universe with ANY laws of physics that has ANY chance of being anthropic (for ANY type of life) MUST be an expanding universe with ANY fractional expansion rate that is greater than zero. That is precisely what the BVG theorem postulates and no one has been able to put any holes in that theorem yet. It is unlikely that they ever will because the alternative is spontaneous, instantaneous creation of eternal life. Try to wrap your head around that one.

It seems that an expansion rate must apply to universes that have a chance of giving rise to life, but not all universes in a multiverse model need to give rise to life. It only has to be one that emerges out of an infinite amount in the course of infinity. There might've been/might still be trillions and trillions of parallel universes that emerged with slightly different physical laws and weren't suitable for life, and ours which was able to give rise to life. Another thing to consider is that our universe may not be the only type of universe suitable for life. Perhaps through a different process, methane-based life was able to form somewhere else, or maybe in a universe that contained more anti-matter than matter, anti-matter based life was able to form. Perhaps in a wacky universe where matter can't even exist, purely energy and radiation based life was able to somehow come about.

Robert Spitzer to me appears to be arguing for a fine tuned universe that cannot deviate in only one part of a million out of millions of factors, which is definately true but doesn't address whether it's fine tuned because it's designed by God or because it was the universe that got it right after an infinite amount of time of randomly generated universes.

Do we have evidence for these other proposed universes? What makes us think physical law wouldn't be the same? Where did the other universes come from? If the chances of nothing creating something are 0 and we have X number of other universes, doesn't this make the whole scenario even more impossible?

Sure, I don't think there's any evidence of it and I don't think one ought to accept it as true. But considering the theory on it's own without saying if it's supported by science or not, I think it does make philosophical sense and have a remote possibility of being true, and if it is true I think it would be able to explain our highly fine tuned universe without the need of a supernatural creator designing and creating it. Because of this, even if God is in fact the first cause and creator of the universe, it doesn't seem to me that God is necessarily the first cause and creator, even though I believe that He is. So because of this I don't really think that saying that the first cause principle proves our God's existence really works. There are other possible explanations.

Interesting Seraph, without using some sort of cosmological argument, how do you present a good case for God's existence both for your own faith and to help convince nonbelievers? Do you adhere to other popular arguments such as the fine tuning, design, ontological, and moral arguments? Or do you go a completely different route? Just curious.

That's a bit of an area of concern for me right now. Right now I kind of feel like I don't have much of a leg to stand on because I feel that various arguements for the existence of God seem to break down when you really dig deep enough and approach it honestly, and many of the arguements in favor of the Bible only work if you already accept the Bible as true.

This post is starting to look kind of dark so I should probably point out that I don't arrive at these conclusions because I have an agenda to become an Atheist or disprove Christianity but quite the opposite. I'm trying to be as intellectually honest as possible, even if it means being skeptical towards arguements in favor of what I already believe in. If I find arguements for God that stand up against criticism, then I would better be able to answer the questions about the existence of God that I commonly come across, like the ones posed in the opening post.

[Byblos]

This post is starting to look kind of dark so I should probably point out that I don't arrive at these conclusions because I have an agenda to become an Atheist or disprove Christianity but quite the opposite. I'm trying to be as intellectually honest as possible, even if it means being skeptical towards arguements in favor of what I already believe in. If I find arguements for God that stand up against criticism, then I would better be able to answer the questions about the existence of God that I commonly come across, like the ones posed in the opening post.

I wanted to address this first to say I am in no way questioning your motives nor do you have to explain them. I simply feel very strongly about the cosmological argument and wouldn't want you to dismiss it (not that you are out of hand, just sayin').

It most certainly does apply to ANY type of multi-verse too. ANY universe with ANY laws of physics that has ANY chance of being anthropic (for ANY type of life) MUST be an expanding universe with ANY fractional expansion rate that is greater than zero. That is precisely what the BVG theorem postulates and no one has been able to put any holes in that theorem yet. It is unlikely that they ever will because the alternative is spontaneous, instantaneous creation of eternal life. Try to wrap your head around that one.

It seems that an expansion rate must apply to universes that have a chance of giving rise to life, but not all universes in a multiverse model need to give rise to life. It only has to be one that emerges out of an infinite amount in the course of infinity. There might've been/might still be trillions and trillions of parallel universes that emerged with slightly different physical laws and weren't suitable for life, and ours which was able to give rise to life.

That is exactly right Seraph but that's the contention we're addressing, universes capable of producing some kind, any kind of life so there's no point in pointing out the number of universes that are incapable of producing life, however seemingly infinite they are. When you look closely at the improbability of low entropy, coupled with the improbability of the anthropic principle (I won't couple in the cosmological constants since you may argue they are constants for carbon-based life only, although that is not true at all but for the sake of argument, let's leave them out for now). With low entropy and anthropic principle alone, the probability for a life-, any kind of life-producing universe is infinity-to-1, irrespective of the number of universes postulated.

Another thing to consider is that our universe may not be the only type of universe suitable for life. Perhaps through a different process, methane-based life was able to form somewhere else, or maybe in a universe that contained more anti-matter than matter, anti-matter based life was able to form. Perhaps in a wacky universe where matter can't even exist, purely energy and radiation based life was able to somehow come about.

That's also exactly right but according to the BVG theorem such a universe capable of producing a methane-based life or anti-matter based life or any other kind of quote unquote life you could think of, such a universe would have to have an average Hubble expansion rate of greater than zero. And if it does have an expansion rate greater zero then it must have had a beginning.

Robert Spitzer to me appears to be arguing for a fine tuned universe that cannot deviate in only one part of a million out of millions of factors, which is definately true but doesn't address whether it's fine tuned because it's designed by God or because it was the universe that got it right after an infinite amount of time of randomly generated universes.

When using physics arguments only, of course he wouldn't want to argue a designer because once a designer is invoked then you've crossed from physics into metaphysics. He does, however, absolutely argue against an infinite number of universes having the probability to produce an anthropic universe. For one thing he uses Roger Penrose's probability for low entropy calculated on the order of 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents). That is as close to infinity-to-1 probability as any number can get, and again, that is irrespective of the number of universes.

[DRDS]

Interesting Seraph, without using some sort of cosmological argument, how do you present a good case for God's existence both for your own faith and to help convince nonbelievers? Do you adhere to other popular arguments such as the fine tuning, design, ontological, and moral arguments? Or do you go a completely different route? Just curious.

That's a bit of an area of concern for me right now. Right now I kind of feel like I don't have much of a leg to stand on because I feel that various arguements for the existence of God seem to break down when you really dig deep enough and approach it honestly, and many of the arguements in favor of the Bible only work if you already accept the Bible as true.

This post is starting to look kind of dark so I should probably point out that I don't arrive at these conclusions because I have an agenda to become an Atheist or disprove Christianity but quite the opposite. I'm trying to be as intellectually honest as possible, even if it means being skeptical towards arguements in favor of what I already believe in. If I find arguements for God that stand up against criticism, then I would better be able to answer the questions about the existence of God that I commonly come across, like the ones posed in the opening post.[/quote]


You mean to tell me that ALL arguments or all traditional evidential arguments for God's existence break down under closer examination? Can you actually demonstrate this?? I mean, have you examined all of them? Like the fine tuning, design, moral, ontological, transcendental, and resurrection arguments? By the way, have you ever read The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology? William Lane Craig and JP Moreland make a lot of contributions to this book. It's even regarded by many atheists as one of the most powerful defenses to Christian Theism ever produced. It has many of the arguments that I just listed along with other ones. So before you give up your faith, I would greatly look into this book along with several others that were given to you above from the other posters.

[cubeus19]

Hey! I've got that book, the Blackwell theology book. I have it in electronic format as a matter of fact. If you would like a copy Seraph, send me your e-mail address and I'll send you a copy!

Cubeus19@aol.com

[Maytan]

Just an honest question, why does the multiverse need to have had a cause?

WLC argues that, in-order to be uncaused, a thing needs to exist necessarily. That is to say, it must be impossible for it not to exist.

In response to the question, "Why can't the universe be uncaused, and exist necessarily?" Craig argues that there isn't anything in the universe that can be considered necessarily existent, and that the universe is entirely contingent. The multiverse would only push this back a step.

That's not the best iteration of his argument, though. My memory is rather poor. I would suggest his 'The Existence of God' podcast series, it's still on-going too. I don't think you've dug into the defenses of the Cosmological Argument or of the KCA much, no offense. :p

[Seraph]

No offense taken.

I understand the Cosmological Arguement, but I still think it makes an illogical leap, even with WLCs modernized version of it. It does succeed in proving that the universe must have a cause since it's finite and contingent, but it does not prove that the cause is God. Every version I read looks something like this:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.


Number 4 is hasty and isn't supported. Why does the reason need to be God? Because He is uncaused? Why can it not be an uncaused noncontingent multiverse? If uncaused things are necessary by their very existence, why doesn't an uncaused multiverse necessarily exist and not require an explanation for it's existence?

Finally, if uncaused things require no explanation, shouldn't any uncaused thing we can think of exist necessarily? If I proposed that there was interdimensional bowling ball that has existed for all eternity soaring between universes and never had a cause for existence, it should exist by it's definition.

[Maytan]

but it does not prove that the cause is God.

Well, of course, he goes on to include that God seems to be the best explanation for the beginning of the universe.

I do believe he has touched down on the rest of your objections, though I'm not sure. I'm still researching this myself, so I'm in no position to be critiquing you. I just thought you may be dismissing the argument's power a bit fast.

[CeT-To]

No offense taken.

I understand the Cosmological Arguement, but I still think it makes an illogical leap, even with WLCs modernized version of it. It does succeed in proving that the universe must have a cause since it's finite and contingent, but it does not prove that the cause is God. Every version I read looks something like this:

(1) Everything that exists contingently has a reason for its existence.
(2) The universe exists contingently.
Therefore:
(3) The universe has a reason for its existence.
(4) If the universe has a reason for its existence then that reason is God.
Therefore:
(5) God exists.


Number 4 is hasty and isn't supported. Why does the reason need to be God? Because He is uncaused? Why can it not be an uncaused noncontingent multiverse? If uncaused things are necessary by their very existence, why doesn't an uncaused multiverse necessarily exist and not require an explanation for it's existence?

Finally, if uncaused things require no explanation, shouldn't any uncaused thing we can think of exist necessarily? If I proposed that there was interdimensional bowling ball that has existed for all eternity soaring between universes and never had a cause for existence, it should exist by it's definition.

Uncaused "things" do have an explanation for its existance ... remember WLC says that everything has an explanation for its existance either by a cause or by the necessity of its own nature. Well, no about the bowling ball because bowling balls are destructible and are made by people... its a bad analogy which doesnt make sense lol

Any universe that is expanding must have a beginning so if the multiverse is expanding like wise it isnt a necessary. Further more if that were true that the multiverse is uncaused it leads to other philosophical problems such as how can the impersonal create the personal? how can the non-conscious create conscious beings? Or how can it use non conscious materials to make a conscious being? LOL It cant ... because the multi-verse doesn't think or make decisions.. it only makes universes with random degrees of the laws we have in our universe.

This is why God is the best explanation for the cause of the universe, because the multi-verse leads to contradictions like i stated above.

[Seraph]

The bowling ball isn't a bad analogy. I made it an absurd man-made object because it obviously doesn't actually exist, but it shows that something that is incontingent doesn't necessarily exist. Thus you can't say something exists just because it is uncaused and supposedly "necessary".

Yes, any universe that is expanding would require a starting point. However, there is no reason to think the multiverse (should it exist) would be expanding or be finite in size, especially if this universe's physical laws don't exist in it outside of our own universe.

As for if impersonal can create personal, all living people come from something impersonal. Before a person is concieved, all the parts needed for them to come into being exist within a sperm cell and an egg, two impersonal things. There's no natural law that says a personal being has to come from something personal. It doesn't necessarily have to have intent behind it, it can be unguided natural processes. No matter how imconcievably improbable, if something is remotely possible it will probably happen eventually over the course of eternity in a realm of random quantum instability that results in singularities and big bangs.

The GodandScience site mentions that the universe is so finely tuned that the chances of our universe being as suited for life as it is are as slim as if you stacked a pile of dimes up as high as the moon and as wide as North America, painted a random one red, and told someone to blindly pick it out of that pile. But the way I see it, the problem that the multiverse throws into this is that the person blinding picking the red dime no longer has to get it right the first try, but they are allowed to keep picking over and over for eternity. It may take quadrillions or a googolplex amount of years, but it will eventually happen.

[CeT-To]

The bowling ball isn't a bad analogy. I made it an absurd man-made object because it obviously doesn't actually exist, but it shows that something that is incontingent doesn't necessarily exist. Thus you can't say something exists just because it is uncaused and supposedly "necessary".

Yes, any universe that is expanding would require a starting point. However, there is no reason to think the multiverse (should it exist) would be expanding or be finite in size, especially if this universe's physical laws don't exist in it outside of our own universe.

As for if impersonal can create personal, all living people come from something impersonal. Before a person is concieved, all the parts needed for them to come into being exist within a sperm cell and an egg, two impersonal things. There's no natural law that says a personal being has to come from something personal. It doesn't necessarily have to have intent behind it, it can be unguided natural processes. No matter how imconcievably improbable, if something is remotely possible it will probably happen eventually over the course of eternity in a realm of random quantum instability that results in singularities and big bangs.

The GodandScience site mentions that the universe is so finely tuned that the chances of our universe being as suited for life as it is are as slim as if you stacked a pile of dimes up as high as the moon and as wide as North America, painted a random one red, and told someone to blindly pick it out of that pile. But the way I see it, the problem that the multiverse throws into this is that the person blinding picking the red dime no longer has to get it right the first try, but they are allowed to keep picking over and over for eternity. It may take quadrillions or a googolplex amount of years, but it will eventually happen.

Lol Seraph you are going to have to explain your bowling ball anology a little more because i don't understand what you are trying to say by using it. All it seems is that you are adding properties to the bowling ball which means its not a bowling ball anymore.

I don't see how through naturalistic unguided process a conscious personal being can come about :S maybe explain Seraph. Are you already assuming we are made thru the unguided process? and this includes consciousness not only body.

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/New ... le&id=6411 << Here WLC talks about fine tuning within the multiverse itself.

God bless!!

[Byblos]

The GodandScience site mentions that the universe is so finely tuned that the chances of our universe being as suited for life as it is are as slim as if you stacked a pile of dimes up as high as the moon and as wide as North America, painted a random one red, and told someone to blindly pick it out of that pile. But the way I see it, the problem that the multiverse throws into this is that the person blinding picking the red dime no longer has to get it right the first try, but they are allowed to keep picking over and over for eternity. It may take quadrillions or a googolplex amount of years, but it will eventually happen.

Not true. If the odds are infinity to 1 you will never get there because you will have to traverse an infinite number of coins before getting to the red one. There are better odds (and better evidence) for God than there are for chance. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in chance than in God.

[CeT-To]

The GodandScience site mentions that the universe is so finely tuned that the chances of our universe being as suited for life as it is are as slim as if you stacked a pile of dimes up as high as the moon and as wide as North America, painted a random one red, and told someone to blindly pick it out of that pile. But the way I see it, the problem that the multiverse throws into this is that the person blinding picking the red dime no longer has to get it right the first try, but they are allowed to keep picking over and over for eternity. It may take quadrillions or a googolplex amount of years, but it will eventually happen.

Not true. If the odds are infinity to 1 you will never get there because you will have to traverse an infinite number of coins before getting to the red one. There are better odds (and better evidence) for God than there are for chance. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in chance than in God.

Wow, i never thought of it that way, nice work Byblos!

One thought tho that i am confused with. Is the multiverse this universe that continously and spontaneously generates other universes OR is the multiverse an infinite amount of universes outside ours?

If its the first one where the multiverse continously generates universes, it can't make an actual infinite amount of universes ... it can potentially though can't it?

LOL okay im confused now... someone tell me what the multiverse is again and maybe answer my question... X_X hahaha

[Seraph]

The eternal bowling ball was simply to show that uncaused things don't necessarily exist, even if part of their definition included that they are uncaused and unexplained. Maytan was arguing that incontingent (uncaused) things necessarily exist while contingent things don't necessarily exist, and that this is proof God exists. I was saying that you could invent something absurd and say that it is incontingent and it wouldn't necessarily exist.

Not true. If the odds are infinity to 1 you will never get there because you will have to traverse an infinite number of coins before getting to the red one. There are better odds (and better evidence) for God than there are for chance. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in chance than in God.

Well the chances wouldn't be one out of infinity, it would just be one out of whatever the chances are of the different generated factors being able to support life (in the trillions I think). They would still be same as the chances of just our universe producing life since the possible universes that would be able to contain life would be the same, so the amount of dimes in the analogy would still be the same.

One thought tho that i am confused with. Is the multiverse this universe that continously and spontaneously generates other universes OR is the multiverse an infinite amount of universes outside ours?

Both. The one I'm thinking of is one that generates universes and exists outside of our space and time, generates blasts that can result in different universes with different physical laws, and has probably created an infinite amount over the course of eternity and continues to create more. I'm saying that if this random generating multiverse existed (which is uncreated and has always existed according to many multiverse proponents), our current universe or something apparently fine-tuned like it would eventually come about, without any intent or intelligent guidance. It would go through a trillion trillion failed universes first but it could still happen. When you add the multiverse into the picture, there would be no time constraints on how many times it has to try before it can "get it right".

[Byblos]

Not true. If the odds are infinity to 1 you will never get there because you will have to traverse an infinite number of coins before getting to the red one. There are better odds (and better evidence) for God than there are for chance. It takes a whole lot more faith to believe in chance than in God.

Well the chances wouldn't be one out of infinity, it would just be one out of whatever the chances are of the different generated factors being able to support life (in the trillions I think). They would still be same as the chances of just our universe producing life since the possible universes that would be able to contain life would be the same, so the amount of dimes in the analogy would still be the same.

But if the multi-verse is only able to produce a finite number of universes then itself it must be finite and having had an origin, so we're back to square one where a beginning is necessary even for the multi-verse. On the other hand, if the multi-verse produces an infinite number of universes then your analogy breaks down because again, you would have to traverse an infinite number of non-anthropic universes to get to ours, an impossibility. So take your pick, either the multi-verse had a beginning or we don't exist.

One thought tho that i am confused with. Is the multiverse this universe that continously and spontaneously generates other universes OR is the multiverse an infinite amount of universes outside ours?

See above.

[Seraph]

I would say the multiverse would probably have to have created an infinite amount of universes. But why does it break down? In the analogy, the total number of dimes represent the chances of a universe being randomly generated and having the conditions needed to give rise to life, not the total number of actual universes.

I could be missing something but I also don't see why an infinite number of non-anthropic universes isn't possible. God's characteristics would require that the idea of infinity is possible, and there could be non-anthropic universes because objective material reality is independent of human experience.