I don't use the TA, but I would like to point out that multi-verse theory proposes that universes can form in a lot of different ways.

Or even in Quantum Fluctuations, the simplest form is the most probable, not the only one.

Actually, after reading AiG's post, I don't think I'm right in saying the simpelist form is the most probable, as I think I can come up with counter examples.

We cannot observe the universe on the smallest scales because of the uncertainty principle. At the sub planck length the uncertainty principle dictates that spacetime is roiling with all sorts of twists. Spacial dimensions and time lose meaning. You can't even say for certain what is left - right, up - down, forward - backward, or before - after. Relativity fails at the Planck length.

String Theory seeks to smooth out that uncertainty by positing that 1 dimensional strings are the fundamental and smallest scale objects in the universe. They are themselves at the planck length, and even if we could hypothetically use a string beam for lack of a better term to try and probe sub planck length scales we would be unable to.

BTW, no argument thus presented by anyone about physics can conclusively disprove a creator (which does not necessarily mean a deity in the philosophical sense. See Tipler's Omega Point theory). The fact that the universe exists at all is a strong argument in favor of creation. The fact that it operates according to certain laws is even stronger. No theories of multiverse, chaos, or cosmic accident get around this. Tipler's Omega Point would be able to simulate any universe, or even multiverse imaginable or describable. It can do this an infinite amount of times, and infinite amount of ways for an effective (from the view point of those in the simulation) infinite amount of time.

This doesn't actually mean anything-and is an incorrect statement of the uncertainty principle.

 What the Heisenberg principle actually entails is fundamental limits on measurement accuracy in quantum mechanics. It arises because of quantization. The limits are innate properties of the system and not the result of the ability of the experimenter. It is impossible to measure conjugate variables with accuracy. If one conjugate variable is accurately measured, the other cannot be. In quantum mechanics, this is a consequence of the fact that the most unobtrusive measuring devices we could employ will inevitably disrupt the experiment. To record the position of an electron, we need to send a photon at it. The photon, however, will cause the electron to move. In macrosopic physical measurements the use of photons striking our eyes to measure something like the speed of a care is completely irrelevant. In quantum mechanics however the effect is significant because of the quantization of photons and electrons. As a consequence, position and velocity are conjugate quantities. By using a photon to accurately measure one, we have made it impossible to accurately measure the other.

Que? There's no such thing.

Quantum foam is not a consequence of the uncertainty principle.

This is also not a consequence of quantum foam. In fact, it is simply a fundamental property of reference frames in general, namely, that there is no such thing as absolute space and time, and therefore that the concept of direction is only meaningful when assigned to a particular reference frame.

Correct, but this is again, not a consequence of uncertainty.

Tipler's Omega point theory is impossible because it depends on a value for omega greater than 1 for the critical density of the universe, which has been experimentally falsified. The universe is accelerating in expansion. There is insufficient mass in the universe for contraction.

Don't you just love this one? The universe [insert random fact], therefore my magical whim is correct. Why do they keep repeating this crap over and over, as if non sequiturs were somehow valid?

Occham's Razor and law of probibility take care of the delema of "the unknown" efficiantly.

You talk about "fluctuations" as if they constitute magic. Do not fall into that trap.

It is most certian that scientific method has not answered everything. BUT, I warn against speculation of the unknown based upon the absurd challenges of the "Dumb and Dumber" crowd who would seek to fill in the gaps that science admits to with absurdity.

I am placing my bets on whatever came before what we cant currently scientifically through method, observe, as being as natural as what we know now, but simply not understood by our observations.

My point is that when scientific method cant fill in the gap, the wishfull theist, and even the si-fi fan fills in the gap with claims of Transporters and Harry Potter.

The safest bet is that magic doesn't exist, and we merely currently do not have full understanding of what we observe.

Are there things we dont know as a species? NO SHIT, call that one into CNN.

BUT, I default to whatever came before what we don't know right now, as  being mind blowing, but merely currently not observed, in meaning that whatever came before the big bang is as natural and unconscious as pollen fertilizing a pistle.

Lets not play into the hands of wishful thinkers that because we don't have all the answers that somehow quantum mechanics leads to virgin births.

If you mean by 'Creator' nothing more than 'something which initiated the emergence of our Universe, then there is little problem, but the statement is little more than a tautology.

Such an 'initiator' logically and scientifically need be no more than a Planck scale quantum fluctuation.

Once you start assigning attributes to this initiator, you are into pure speculation.

If you go as far as to propose an entity with something analogous to sentience and conscious purpose, then it ceases to be an 'explanation' at all, rather you are positing something which introduces far greater mysteries requiring explanation, and you are into an impossible infinite expanding regress of 'explanations'. Any idea proposed as an ultimate explanation of reality has to be something minimal and quintessentially simple, so avoiding the infinite regress problem - any apparent structure and complexity has to be able to arise from simpler substrates, and this is pretty much what we see. Thus the backward regress of 'cause' is diminishing, ie convergent, to the scale of the infinitesimal, rather than the infinite.

From simplicity at the lowest level, which leads to simple and consistent 'laws', analogous to the way a two-dimensional array of identical circles pack into a regular hexagonal pattern, which could not happen if they were random sizes. As we 'zoom out' and observe ever greater aggregations of simple interacting particles, the possible structures and patterns multiply far greater than 'exponentially'.

So order and apparent structure arise naturally from simplicity, whereas the hallmark of a conscious mind is unpredictablity, where things do not behave according to simple laws. The unpredictability of a consciousness is fundamentally different to the pure randomness we see in the timing of events at the quantum level, unless you want to equate conscious choice to the equivalent of flipping a coin.

So the mix of perceived structure and chaos we observe in the universe is more like what we would expect from the working out of physical 'laws' arising from ultimate regularity at the basic level, combined with the pure randomness at the heart of quantum uncertainty.

'Operating according to certain laws' is an argument against a conscious creator - such regularity of behaviour is the sign of predictable, simple, mechanistic behaviour, not that generated by a vast 'mind'.

I more think that the fact the universe is self-sufficent is what I would expect if there were a God since any inconsitancy leave the universe literally incomplete and incoherent.

People design things that are self efficent, and don't require their constant intervention all the time.

I mean everything will have a natural explanation, and God doesn't have to give it a tune up.

I mean an electrical engineer doesn't have to come and constantly maintain my laptop.

Sure the laptop and everything else humans created will degrade and come to an end, but then again so will the universe.

 The human body does require maintance, but for the most part, it's self-suifficent it produces it heals itself, it makes more cells to replace old ones etc....

Maybe the human body is a better analogy than a computer.

Perhaps it wasn't a perfect analogy, but the point is that I can't imagine God leaving out anything that would require maintance, so I would expect the universe to be complete with natural explanations.

Well, that would pretty much hold that the universe was made right from the very beginning. Then there would be no further need to for to intervene. In fact, any further intervention by god would speak to some inherent imperfection in god's creation as any further interaction would change what was going on.

Again, if the universe is “complete” (and I am not sure what that even means), then the only room left for the existence of god is that of the first cause. Now the problem as I see it is that god as first cause doesn't really tell us anything.

Sure, one could speculate on the moment of the big bang and ask the question “what went bang?”. However, that is a different question from “why did it go bang?” which is answered by god as first cause. In any case, I fail to see how we can get to a reasonable answer on that matter. One could suppose that the invisible hand of god was the first cause but one could just as easily say that god sneezed and the whole universe is more or less a huge accident that god had no real control over.

Then too, that bring us back to the infinite regress. Just where does god live and how did that come about?

I'm not sure why you have a problem understanding that a machine is an open system (energy input from the outside) and the universe is a closed system (all energy contained within).  Yeah, I know, you can put gas in a car, and once the gas is in there, it's part of the machine, but that's a matter of space.  The external energy source for a combustion engine is the gas in the gas tank, regardless of the fact that it's an internal tank.  See?

 You've lost me.  So... closed systems that contain open systems... um... 

Hmm.  Seriously.  I'm lost.  What's your point?

Ok... so... hmm... where's the disagreement?

 Right... I get all of that... open subsystems interact within a closed system...

What follows from this?  Or, does anything follow from it?

IOW, since we have natural explanations for everything, no need to propose the existence of a God, there is nothing left to explain. If you introduce God you now do have something to explain.

So God has set up the Universe to look just like it naturally emerged and developed?? Why do you assume a 'God' again??

So 'God' doesn't explain anything, rather 'God' is something requiring explanation.... Everything is much easier to explain if we drop the God idea altogether.

So in other words, I should drop something because it turns out like I expected if I'm right?

Doesn't every idea require something to explain?

Because of the complexity and harmony of nature.

So god must be real because the universe is in such a state that logically precludes god from having any need to interact with it? Well, if that makes you happy, I suppose that that is fine. However, in that case, whether you are happy or not still doesn't go anywhere. God certainly would not have anything to say about the matter.

In fact, if I follow your idea, to think that god has interacted with the universe post big-bang seems to suppose either an inherent imperfection, with the implication that god made an imperfect universe or that god actually has disrupted the universe despite the inherent perfection that need not be tampered with.

As far as the Einstein quote goes, I have seen that before and it still doesn't help. Perhaps the universe exists because god farted it into being. It is still what it is. And as much as I dislike the anthropic principal, I can continue by suggesting that god farts worse than a Siamese cat eating liver. We certainly do not know what the other fart universes are like but we do know that this one resulted in conditions that produced us in such a way that this conversation can be taking place.