Actually, as you point out, most atheists will simply say they don't know, but that there are a number of interesting theories that have yet to be proved or disproved. Speculation doesn't accomplish anything.

Because your god is make believe.

What god created your god? And what god created that god? Ad nauseum, ad infinitum...

Why is it possible for there to be a sentient, all powerful creator of life that spontaneously popped into existence with no creator but the universe itself can't have?

Your god equation makes no sense. A child can see the faulty logic until they've been indoctrinated into seeing the emperor's new clothes...

This is such an absurd question.

The answer is simple., "We don't know". You don't nor do we.

Which causes the believer to default to believer propaganda, "So then you are not an atheist, but an agnostic"

BULLSHIT!

An atheist is one who does not hold a belief in a god or gods.

THE DIFFERENCE, is when the atheist says "I don't know" we don't default to magic, superstition or ancient myth to fill in the gap. But that does not mean we sit on the fence.

I would highly suspect that whatever went into the process that we see today is as natural (all be it not yet understood, and may never be), but in no way constitutes inserting myth, superstition, fantastic claims, or magic for any gap answer.

Saying "I don't know" only makes me an agnostic by proxy of theist belief, it still does not change that all the claims of the super natural are as credible as claiming Harry Potter can fly around on a broom.

I am an atheist. I do not buy any claims of supernatural, past or present. Because I don't know the future does not negate my current position. My current position is that gods are nothing but a product of human imagination.

 

 

I never said it was the default.

 

I'm not a Christian.

 

Theists believe that the laws of logic i.e. cause & effect come from a creator, and as such he is unbounded by these rules, making him the uncaused cause. In short, he's the exception.

 

I have a theory that doesn't contradict itself or butcher Occam's Razor. Frankly, I like it better than "the universe just always existed, end of story" or "the universe popped out of literally nothing & here we are". If you feel that the last 2 examples are somehow more logical than the first then that's your prerogative. <_<

 

The universe popping out of literally nothing i.e. Big Bang would point to a creator outside of time/space. A cyclical universe has no need for a God because it always existed.

 

I didn't say it did. (if I did, then I didn't mean to)

 

I have no idea - it makes no sense, which is why I think our universe/multiverse had a definite beginning.

 

Indeed, but at some point you have to put your beliefs under rational scrutinity. This idea that "wel'll never know" is simply not true. Europeans once thought that it was impossible to know what was on the other side of the atlantic ocean. Our scientific knowledge is still in its infant stages, and we won't be able to just say "I don't know" forever. Also, I'm not asking you for details on how it works - I doubt any of us are astrophysicists. I'm just inquiring whether the basic philosophy is logical/rational. Furthermore, string theory and the like does not have to be cyclical - the universe could still have had a beginning.

 

I don't concern myself with that; it's the job of science to make predictions. Truth cannot contradict truth. My beliefs do not impact my life here on Earth whatsoever - I am as "free" as any atheist.

 

Atheism has always meant "godless belief" as indicated by its etymology. Just because a few atheists decided to expand the definition to include more people and so that they would have the edge in debates does not change this. A word is defined by common usage, not by the people who fit that definition.

 

Aye, I don't disagree with that - I simply think that this "first mover" is another one of the assumptions that go into a cyclical multiverse that supports life. It adds to the improbability of such a universe being the only one to exist for eternity (the universe must now support a "first mover&quot.

 

The quantum fluctuations you describe are part of an infinite universe. We can assume that an infinite series of quantum fluctuations produced an infinite number of universes already, which I have hard time wrapping my head around. We haven't encountered anything truly infinite other than in concept (well, depending on what theories you subscribe to, the center of a black hole has infinite density, but AFAIK most physicists think that the center of a black hole will eventually yield a finite mass).

 

Atheists don't have a monopoly over "I don't know," and I wouldn't say that atheism offers any better alternatives than theism. As I said before, I have an explanation that jives & doesn't

 

Wow.  I think this is about the most thorough reply I've seen on this forum.  Kudos. I'll concern myself with just some of it:

The Big Bang doesn't imply the Universe popped out of nothing, it implies a change of state. The universe can be eternal without being cyclical.  Phil Plait's Death From the Skies! has some interesting conjectures about the distant future of our universe, and the Big Crunch model has been pretty thoroughly abandoned.

 

I was referring to the first question of the second paragraph of your first post.  Subsection 3.

 

That was kind of a trick question.  You can only attempt to quantify an infinity for as long as you're willing to sit there and do it.  It's, by nature, a futile task.

 

We may never know.  I didn't mean to imply that the state of the universe before the instance of the BB was unknowable (though I freely admit I have asserted that in the past, and I know better than to make knowledge claims about the unknowable).  The basic philosophy is rational - perhaps not perfectly so, perhaps some people hold it in an irrational fashion, but it is rational to suspend belief about the origin of the universe until presented with evidence.  I'll again admit that nobody I know has ever presented such evidence.  The difference between science and religion is that science might present such evidence while religion can only present claims about beings to whom the concept of evidence does not apply.

You don't get to excuse yourself from epistemology just because you're a religious person rather than an irreligious one.  Without predictive power, evidence and tests, what do your knowledge claims mean? What can you claim to know at all if those knowledge claims are exempt from reflecting concrete reality?

 

Tbh i find the whole origns thing kinda boring, we are here and i don't care how it happened, only that it did. Im glad people are looking into it though, im sure if they ever find it, they will find some way to make the knowledge usefull, but untill that day comes i don't really care and won't spend to long wondering. Unless there is a practical benefit i don't see why I should care either.

I didn't say or imply which flavor your god was. It doesn't matter because they're all make believe. Even if you've created your very own personal god. Its make believe as well...

The exception... And that's OK with your logic? Seriously...?

 

I don't see a first example to ponder over and be in awe of...

The universe doesn't need you to believe that it's always existed and neither do I.

Believing in magical beings that are all powerful yet magically created themselves and don't need to exist within the reality they supposedly created is just silly. But if it works for ya...

 

Hello, Aedus, welcome to the forum.

 

I can't imagine how anything can be infinite, so my answer is 'I don't know' as well.

 

Why does it have to begin at rest?

Again, of course, my answer is "I don't know," but I have many issues with the definition of God.

Hardly. The position is the same. We just use different words.

 

 

Before we continue I feel that I should clarify my stance:

The evidence is creation, the conclusion is a creator. I make no claims about any of his properties, other than that he is the uncaused cause. We know that simple matter cannot be the cause of its own existence, so we must find something that can. My conclusion follows from the evidence because there are many laws of creation which defy any natural need for their existence, such as the Planck Constant (if it was higher or lower than .00000001 then life could not exist as we know it, and there is no reason for it not to be any higher or lower), the strong force (if it was a trillionth of a centimeter or less then all of the universe's hydrogen would be helium and life could not exist) and the speed of light (if it was any higher or lower life could not have formed), among other things. There is no reason for these constants to be what they are. The odds of such a universe forming are so small that they should basically be zero, which points to a creator. It's deductive reasoning.

But then, if you subscribe to a cyclical multiverse theory which has generated an infinite # of universes throughout eternity, then the odds don't matter and such a universe would eventually be created. Here are the assumptions that go into this:

1) That the constants mentioned above are modified every time a universe is created (whether the universe is created through quantum fluctuations or collision of branes, etc. etc.) As far as I know, there is no science to support this and it's a huge assumption.

2) That this multiverse is eternal and not created. No part of science requires cyclical multiverses to be eternal, and claiming that it is eternal only presents us with more problems i.e. having to cross an infinity, which, as Kavis basically said, is a futile task.

The universe is either created or eternal. I've presented why I think that it's the former, so what is the reasoning for believing that it's the latter? It seems to me that the latter is nothing more than a horrific violation of Occam's razor, supported neither by science nor reasoning. It's like grasping at straws. No matter what most atheists say, they have taken up a position which requires them to support the latter regardless of whether or not it's actually true.

 


I still don't understand why I'm compelled to draw anything from my beliefs. If I want predictive power then I turn to science.



I can accept things such as particle-wave duality once they already exist - they are properties of this universe. This and other strange laws of nature defy any natural or sufficient reasons for their existence, which points to an intelligent creator. No branch of science deals with whether the universe is eternal or not, and from what I've seen I'm not compelled to believe that it's the former. Also, science for all its accomplishments still has some limitations in the here & now. What it can't directly measure it ignores. For example, though memory has a basis in biology, is it safe to assume that biology is the only force in work there?



You misunderstand me. I'm saying that motion is not a property of matter and without motion the universe would just be a giant blob of matter making the existence of solar systems and galaxies and life as we know it impossible. It's existence is another one of the assumptions that go into the eternal universe that atheists require, despite there being no reason for it.



I didn't make myself clear - I meant a multiverse with an infinite # of universes.



As would any cyclic universe theory.



I was by no means referring to them in the philosophical sense - that wouldn't make any sense.

Interesting. Do you consider all deductive inferences to be "make believe" as well? If so then I guess that yes, my god is make believe. Just like the idea of extraterrestrial life - we haven't seen it and have no proof for it, therefore it's make believe.

 

Exception to the rules. It's really a simple concept. If we assume that a Creator exists, then we can assume that he has enough power to bring himself into being. God can be an uncaused cause - simple matter cannot.

Irrelevant.

I find it better than "the universe just always existed - end of story" or "the universe popped out of literally nothing". Sounds like mysticism & superstition to me. In fact, even Christianity is starting to sound alot more logical in comparison. But hey, to each his own.

Indeed, I'm sure many intelligent atheists are pushing for a "lack of belief" definition possibly because they want to shift the burden of proof to theists and make their position the default. And let's face it, when you make an affirmative statement you actually have to back it up, so it's easier to adopt a skeptic attitude instead of a cynic attitude. The reality is that theists have their own extraordinary claims that require their own proof, regardless of what the definition of atheist is.

Here's the bottom line: virtually nobody uses the "lack of belief" definition because it's too vague. If someone said they were an atheist, you still wouldn't know if they were agnostic, undecided, believed that god doesn't exist, or never thought about it. This makes the word useless, and it's why virtually nobody outside of atheists uses this definition.

You'll usually find that the "weak atheist" or "strong atheist" terms are used only on atheist websites/blogs and the peer-edited places like wikipedia. However, if you want to appeal to authority then here's a few articles which discuss the correct definition.

Your chronic anger issues aside, what do you base this on? According to the 2008 American Religious Identification Survey only 5% of non-religious people labeled themselves as "atheist". It's nobody's fault that you chose a label which you feel doesn't represent you. Most likely you didn't actively look at all the options and say "hmm, atheism sounds right for me" - instead I'm assuming you read a few atheist blogs/websites & decided to follow the herd. If you don't want to use the correct etymological definition of atheism then you should adopt another position, or create your own.

The search for gotcha questions for atheists never ceases, does it?

Is there a question so difficult to answer that even an atheist will have to admit the omni-everything Christian god exists?

Of course there are a lot of questions about the omni-everything god in the gotcha category. Could IT make a weight so heavy IT could not lift? Could it do pushups on an event horizon?

The majority of the world today gets along without an omni-everything god much less one who created the universe. In western history so did the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Persians and a host of -ians in Mesopotamia. Not a one of them created the universe. Belief in gods does not hinge upon giving one or more of them credit for the universe.

The simplest answer is, I don't know.

The best question to the believer is, how do you know? When the educated world dropped Adam and Eve and Abraham from the realm of real people the entire chain of authority for revelation disappeared. And if there is one thing our modern world should have taught everyone it is that the wisest of our ancestors knew less about the physical world than our children.

Attributing superior knowledge of gods to them is downright stupid.

What evidence of creation do you have that so many people, even creationist/IDers don't have, to disprove atheists that god does not exist?

wow the whole change one thing and everything must be different, yet we do not know exactly how it would change, because there is more than just one factor in regards to how this universe operates within the physical laws. With that said, You change one factor that could change other factors that might end up with the same result we have now, or completely different. Who knows, we only can deal with what we know, which is these are the constants we have to play with, what IF's don't count when trying to prove a creator exists.

Why must it be eternal or created? what if this is the first time around? What if these is the only universe period. I mean as far as physics goes energy is eternal, doesn't mean the universe is. Second scientists have found that the universe is actually accelerating faster than previously thought, and that in a few 100 billions years it might tear itself apart. Which would take away your eternal universe concept.
 

Yet matter can have gravity which can cause motion to other matter near it. No god required here. Why must the assumption be eternal universe again?

As well since you keep on mentioning a creator or god, what are the properties of such said being? I mean after all a creator is apparently necessary i your world view, so what are the properties of this being exactly? That doesn't require another creator and can create simple matter?

 

Can you name the fallacies apart from numbering them? Simply saying they are fallacies or that I even made them does not make it so.



These would be relevant if I were trying to convince you that God exists, but I'm not. You misunderstand my argument - I am aware that it is possible that God does not exist. I did not claim that these things have to be 100% true, I simply put them in contrast to the alternative. I was simply wondering if any atheists had a justification to this position they're compelled to support or why they think the alternatives are better. Is it inconceivable that the universe could have been created, not eternal or accidental? Which do you think is more likely and why?

 



Very well, point taken. But now all we've done is added a 3rd option. Now the universe is either created, eternal, or accidental. "Accidental" sounding even more unlikely than the previous 2 options IMO.




Ok then, change that to "The Creator is outside the rules of this universe/reality."




Aside from the fact that 6 & 7 are virtually the same thing, I'm not saying that science is wrong - I'm saying that it doesn't fit the atheist position on cosmology. Also, take supernatural beings out of the equation if you need to, it's atheist beliefs I'm putting into question here. Besides, if we define the "creator" as the instigator of the universe and the originator of biological life then it's scientifically falsifiable.



Those questions are onthological nonsense - they violate the nature of being. A rock by nature has a set weight & size. For it to be so heavy that God couldn't lift it, it would have to contradict itself. Here is a very good article on the subject: http://www.errantskeptics.org/Omnipotence.htm




First off, evidence =/= proof. You can find "evidence" for almost anything. There are many cases where asking someone to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that something doesn't exists is ridiculous. Second off, the point of my post was to look at the alternative, which seems even more presumptuous & unreasonable.




Then that would mean there is no explanation or reason whatsoever for how or why the universe exists - it just does. A ridiculous assertion, and even more unlikely than an eternal universe in my opinion. You might as well just accept the other two options.




There are cyclic universe theories out there. In string theory, brane collisions could produce a big bang. If you assume that these branes always existed & are always colliding with each other you've got an eternal universe, even if a single universe eventually tears itself apart.

Motion & gravity is a property of the universe, not matter.

How would I know the properties of a supreme being & creator of the universe? All I can tell you is that I believe such a thing exists through deductive reasoning.

Yes, are you? I'm assuming you somehow took up the position of atheist - a position that requires you to reject the fact that the universe is either eternal or accidental, despite the fact that the odds of such a universe existing are highly unlikely. More unlikely than the universe being created.

He doesn't have to be the one to bring himself into being - you'll also hear theists say that he is the one constant. Either way, we can assume that how the creator exists is beyond our ken. The only thing about this creator that I really claim is that he is the uncaused cause.

 

Yes, but apparently it's male. That would be a claim about "his" properties. Also , "he" creates. Another property. A problem arises, in that we don't exactly know what happened around what you might call "creation", so how can we know that there was a creator? In fact, is seems as though we don't know if anything really was created.

And yet, you feel confident to label this mystery "he", a gender we find in nature, among species with sexual reproduction.

We're not actually compelled to reach that conclusion at all, or to follow the idea that some uncaused causal force somehow creates matter. We don't yet have enough data to perfectly describe what happens at the beginning of our universe anyway, so we don't have the information we would need to jump to your conclusion at all.

Your conclusion is spurious. Just because you can't find a reason for something to be a certain way, it doesn't immediately follow that any preconceived explanation is better no matter what.

Not really. Jumping from "I can't see why these constants would be this way" to "the odds of our universe forming are low" to "creator" is not an example of deductive reasoning at all. I'm not sure where you got that impression.

I suppose it depends on how you approach ontology. For instance, if I said, "the Tooth Fairy exists," and your approach to ontology was to immediately believe me until evidence presented itself that the Tooth Fairy did not exist, then you would be operating much like a very young child, who must be trusting in order to learn. If, however, you reserved your belief for compelling arguments, then you might be more like the adult who has been tricked a few times, and might wait for evidence to see if the Tooth Fairy really exists, or if it's just something someone made up.

It is, of course, conceivable that the universe was created. Many people have conceived of that idea, and many people believe it. But is it compelling enough to convince someone who might doubt it's true? I'm not sure.

If you could be sure that any and all objects in the universe were created, then you would have certainty. We have no such knowledge, so I don't think we can reach that conclusion. Neither could you conclude that the universe is eternal or "accidental" (whatever that might mean, considering we don't even know how it started).

The problem with mystery is that we can actually create an infinite number of possibilities within it. For instance, my assertion that the universe was prepared by the Cosmic Burrito Line Cook is just as valid as your nondescript male "creator". I can even put a hat on him, and special shoes, and so forth. I can do that because we're talking about something neither of us can confirm. That doesn't mean we'll never be able to confirm it, we just can't right now, and so we can make up an infinity of possible scenarios based on no information whatsoever.

You've presented yourself with a contradiction, in that case. You've made something that creates in a way that is outside the rules of our universe. There is no way for you to claim that it "creates" at all, given that we only know about creation in our universe. In fact, given that this something-or-other is outside the rules of this reality, how is it possible for you to have any knowledge of it at all?

You ask that supernatural creatures be taken out of the equation, but maintain that this creature is outside the rules of nature (that would be "supernatural" ). I think maybe you should clarify.

You'll notice that any questions about supernatural creatures violate the nature of being.

Can I quote you on that? You're asking us to entertain the possibility of a creator, so ...

Hold on -- in the absence of knowledge, what assertions are ridiculous? We don't know the cause of our universe. That's clear. So whatever you want to guess is there doesn't have any evidence we can apply to it (or against it).

Motion & gravity is a property of the universe, not matter.

That would be a strange set of assumptions. Having an opinion or belief on vast areas of human understanding isn't so much "atheism" as it is "bar conversations". If our universe is extremely unlikely to exist AND exists, then where does your argument go from there? Jumping to "therefore creator" is a strong non sequitur. It could be that our universe really is unlikely to exist, just as it's extremely unlikely that a person might win the lottery, but some people do.

That's a contradiction itself. This creator is beyond our ken, but somehow you know something about it.

Kind of like atheism then? Read the part where I clarify my position. Again, proof =/= evidence. Probability and even heresay still count as evidence. If you disagree then feel free to go up to any court of law & tell them otherwise.

 

No. Burden of proof depends on whether something is an affirmative statement, not on whether it's a negative statement. If I told you that "19 is not a positive number" then is the burden of proof on you and not me? No - that would be ridiculous.

 

I have the probability that is more likely for him to exist than not. There's a difference between that and trying to prove his existence. And it is usually atheists who misrepresent science with their claims such as "science proves god does not exist". But hopefully I won't have to get into that?

 

Just looks like a bunch of unfounded assumptions to me. If you think something else caused the big bang then feel free to talk about it & see if the basic logic even makes sense. I'm not asking about the details.

 

"Universe" is sometimes used in place of "multiverse."

 

No, it's not. Matter bends space-time which causes objects close to each other to come together. Space-time is a property of the universe, not matter. As is the quantum vacuum & all the other assumptions that your atheist universe requries to exist without a creator.

 

No, that's not how I defined the creator. If we need to nitpick then from now on let's refer to deism's version of the creator.

 

That's disingenuous. I think we both know I refer to him as a "he" out of habit.

 

We can't know for sure - you're not reading my posts.

 

Point taken. But as I asked before, why is it more likely that the universe is eternal or accidental than created? I've given you reasons why I think it's created, not the other two. What is your reasoning? If you have none then we can agree that it is more likely that the universe was created than it is anything else, based on our current knowledge.

Again, I never said it was - I'm arguing parsimony.

 

The odds of our universe being created with all the constants fine-tuned has been calculated to be 10000 to power of 124. Do you disagree that this makes the idea that our universe just popped into existence on its own unlikely?

 

 

It's no more "pure speculation" than any speculative science is - I'm using observations about the natural world to make inferences. Donald Page of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study has calculated the odds of our universe forming without God putting in the necessary constants is about 10,000,000 to the power 124. You can take this up with him if you disagree. And really, it's not so much about probability as it is about parsimony - my position makes way fewer assumptions.

 

 

In other words, you subscribe to the "a fireball appeared in the sky for no apparent reason & caused the big bang" idea? Seriously, what is your alternative? Also, your example depends entirely on causality being attributed to time. Ontological causality does not suggest the temporal relation of before and after. And how do you know that causality would be undefined? You have no idea whether causality is invalid outside of our universe. This is just a bunch of assumptions.

 

As long as we're clear that my creator is much more likely to exist than yours since mine makes the fewest assumptions.

 

If it's semantics you want to argue then you can feel free to suggest a better term than "creates." Nobody can see electrons but we can postulate that they exist and we can say that they have a negative charge despite the fact that "negative" is just a name we've ascribed to it so that we ourselves can better understand it.

Yep you got me.

Supernatural as in made-up/fictional. And the creator does not have to be supernatural - remember I'm making as few assumptions about "him" as possible.

We know enough to make educated guesses. It may not be testable now, but it could potentially be testable later.

 

Neither you nor anybody in this topic has shown why jumping to "therefore creator" is a non-sequitur, or why it's any more unlikely than the alternatives.

 

And you know what electrons could look like despite the fact that you've never seen them. So what?

 

No need for it to be magical. It's deductive reasoning.

 

What are you talking about? I feel like everything I've been typing this whole time has been lost on you because you either aren't reading it or don't understand it. Nobody is talking about different versions of gods or history. Those things have nothing to do with this thread.

 

I don't see why people can't read my actual position before simply claiming that I have no evidence.

 

 

As a follow-up:  Where did you get this number?  You're not the first to claim that the odds of the universe forming are 1 in 10¹²⁴ (or 1 in 10¹²⁷ as you're claiming here).  Where did this come from?

 

By the way, before you get carried away with big numbers, if I shuffle a pack of cards what are the odds of me getting the 52 cards in any particular order?  It's 1 in 8x10⁶⁷.   And that's something that can happen.  Funny that.

It's from "Donald Page of the Princeton Institute of Advanced Study," who apparently doesn't study there anymore. Here is a page w/ a collection of references from atheists/agnostics which shows that this number is in fact high, or at the least that there are many factors which would make such a number high: http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forum/index.php?topic=20365.msg493734#msg493734

I don't know what to say if you doubt that the #s are very high - this fact can be found on many cosmology pages.

Well this is obviously pure nitpickery. Why does nobody address my main point? For your second statement I meant "by" instead of "than". Hopefully I don't have to explain what I meant by the first statement, eh? Bare with me here - I'm talking with like 10 of you guys.

 

Uhm, so that we can live? This article explains it pretty well: http://islam.thetruecall.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=362

 

Then feel free to defend however you think the universe came to be. Is it created, eternal or accidental? And why?

An agnostic attitude is perfectly fine to take.

So what? We also have evidence of a McDonalds - does that mean you'll find them on other planets? Indeed, going by atheist logic I'll go ahead & say that unless a borg cube holds orbit and destroys the white house then it's unreasonable & superstitious to think that ET life exists. What, am I supposed to believe that we have little green men running around on other planets just because there are hundreds of movies on the subject?

Also, out of curiosity, can you point me to this evidence that the building blocks of life can exist elsewhere in the universe?

And why not? If anything can be an uncaused cause then wouldn't it be god? You have better ideas? Also, I suggest you familiarize yourself with my actual argument better before you label it as "special pleading". I've seriously explained my stance like a dozen times in this thread.

No, I am in fact saying that it could be this or that. In my personal opinion one scenario is more likely than another.

 

That the universe is either created, eternal, or accidental? A creator that accidentally created it would fall into the 1st category. Intentionality is irrelevant.

 

Click on the links I provided at the beginning of this post to see why this assertion is wrong. Scientists can in fact extrapolate the range of values for these constants...

 

This merry-go-round is simply a delusion that arises from nitpicking bits from my individual posts and ignoring the main argument that I'm presenting.

There are assumptions, but less than the alternatives. The only assumptions are that the universe was created by something intelligent. This is the last time I will repeat this. Whether or not you get it from this point forward is none of my concern.

Note that electrons were predicted before they could be measured.

Any other explanation than a creator would have the numbers be picked randomly, and do you have any idea how large 10,000 to the 124 is? Scientists already agree that there are variables that are in fact adjusted in our favor despite the fact that there is no reason for them being so. Sure, in the presence of such overwhelming evidence I am forced to draw conclusions. No doubt somebody will respond with something like "just because the odds are high does not mean it's impossible, especially since we exist," but I can always hope someone will respond to my actual argument!

Well I don't see anyproof here, then again I know nothing about the subject. No matter the odds it can happen. Let me give you an example.  I garentee you I could produce a guy who wins 1 thousand tosses of a coin in a row. What are the chances of that? yet it is simple to achteve, in fact I could do it with 1 million coin tosses in a row. All you need is enough people versing each other where the winners move on, eventually if you have enough people at the start you will get someone who has won 1000 games in a row. Is this even relevant i have no clue, i claim no knowledge on the subject. Perhaps a universe was bound to appear like there was bound to be someone who won 1000 tosses of the dice in a row. Just because life as we know it exists doesn't mean under differant conditions a difefrant "form" of live couldn't exist. once again I claim no knowledge.

 

Btw im not sure but your arguement is about possibility right? Then wouldn't it be better to say there probably was a creator.

 

P.S. its late and brain functions have already shut down so forgive me if i read your stuff wrong

 

Ah, I've had a look round and it seems the number comes from Roger Penrose.  The problem with this (if it is true - still trying to get my hands on the original material) is that Penrose's number is that it is tied to the probability of the universe occupying the state it's in after a big bang event.  This has nothing to do with creation or "origin" so you can stop throwing that number around.

 

No, this is not nitpickery.  You are assuming creation to come to the conclusion of creation.  It's circular logic.  Your main point also assumes that the default position is a multiverse theory when that is blatantly untrue.  You ask what atheists have to offer instead of God - I'm telling you "I don't know" is the only answer that's sensible.

 

Yeah... but I put Planck's number down for a reason.  You said "if it was higher or lower than .00000001 then life could not exist as we know it, and there is no reason for it not to be any higher or lower".  So I'll make the linguistic correction you're suggesting and now you say "if it was higher or lower by .00000001 then life could not exist as we know it, and there is no reason for it not to be any higher or lower"

 

The Planck constant is 6.63x10^-34.  You're arguing that if the number was altered by 1x10^-8 then things would be different.  This number is 1x10²⁵ times larger than Planck's constant.  That's quite a large difference you're asking for there.  That's the difference between the weight of a bag of sugar and almost 2 times the weight of the earth.  On that kind of scale I'm not surprised that changing Planck's number would have strange effects!

 

But you're getting mixed up here.   These numbers allow life to exist, life exists, therefore we see these numbers.  That doesn't mean that these numbers were tuned to allow life - that assumes purpose were none exists.

 

 

I do not know, and I think we can never know.  I also don't like the use of accidental.  Accidental often equates to "mistake" and can be misleading.

 

This is ridiculous and you know it.  McDonalds has a creator (as a company, a franchise and a building) that we can tie down as distinctly human, thus there is no reason to assume that we'll find McDonalds on other planets.

Your borg cube theory also only works if it is assumed that alien life must be borg like entities intent on destroying the white house.  If we're just talking about the logical possibility of life having evolved elsewhere then you're argument falls apart as it holds absolutley no connection to the base discussion.

And no-one suggested you use movies as a reference point (or that aliens would be little and green) where did you pick this particular straw man from?

 

Certainly

 

But it is special pleading.  You assume that the universe must have a cause.  You then say something must have caused it and this uncaused cause is god.  I ask you why the universe can't be an uncaused caused.  To say that god can be an uncaused cause but the universe can't is special pleading.

 

 

Oh. And you base your opinion on a calculation that is, itself, dubious?

Just so we're clear, let me show you why I think your argument is confusing, and then you can correct me, because you've said a couple of times that nobody is addressing your actual argument, and I haven't been able to really figure out what it is. It SEEMS like it's:

Our universe, with its constants, is unlikely, therefore it was created by an intelligent creator.

Is that it, or not? I don't want to keep missing what you're saying. That seems to be a non-sequitur, as the first part has nothing to do with creators, and the second part has nothing to do with likelihood, and there's nothing to tie them together or address intelligence. If we had:

(1) Our universe is unlikely to exist

(2) All things unlikely to exist are created by an intelligent creator

---

(3) Our universe is created by an intelligent creator

Then at least we'd be using deductive logic. That seems to be what you're going for. But this seems to be treading in fallacy of accident terrritory.

Then why does the unlikely part mean anything? Are you literally saying, as I've presented as (2), that all unlikely things are created by an intelligence, but that the intelligence doesn't need to be applied to the problem?

Not only that, but what do we call intelligent that has no intentionality? Nothing. There's simply no such thing. Introducing intelligence just makes the creature (for it now must be a biological creature) more complicated.

Other values being extrapolated doesn't really have anything to do with how likely their current values are. If we can imagine something, it doesn't count as a likelihood. Unicorns are a handy example. We already have horses, and some four-legged hooved creatures have horns, so unicorns are fairly likely, right? Well, no evidence for unicorns.

Let me know if I got the argument right above.

Yes, because the effects of electrons could be measured. Math did the predicting. No such math exists for something like a creator, because it's not clear enough what is being posited by saying "creator".

First, I'm going to be blunt with you: that calculation is ridiculous bullshit. A couple of people have already explained why, but you seem to want to stick with it. Is the idea that a creator's odds are ... what, 100 to 1, then? That everything else is 10 to the 1,255 is arbitrary and based on nonsensical, mad ramblings. Let us know what a creator's odds are of existing.

If I put a creator's odds at 10 to the 1000, would that fix our problem? Because I can invent math for that just like your source did.

Second, numbers picked randomly? Are you suggesting there would be another, different universe? Because then, I suppose a different kind of life would exist. Hey, given that we can suggest just about anything, here, why not? That calculation really just determined how likely our universe was, and not how likely another universe was.

So if a different type of universe, with a different type of life existed, would that still mean a creator?

Be clear. They can think of no reason for them to be so. That does not mean that those variables were specifically adjusted by an intelligence. Here, you've made an appeal to authority, a base rate fallacy, an argument from silence, presented a false dilemma, and further committed a fallacy of necessity. Those are just the ones I can remember. To put it step-by-step:

(1) Scientists can think of no reason that our universe's physical constants are what they are

(2) This universe exists

---

(3) Therefore, an intelligent creator must have created the universe.

So yes, you're giving us a lot of non sequitur. I can't help but notice all the fallacies in your argument. If you want to consider that "nit-picking", then I don't know what to tell you.

It's safe to say, then, that you're not a scientist. That's not an ad hominem, but your attitude towards evidence is not empirical. Evidence is only useful when it supports a hypothesis, and you have not presented anything resembling a hypothesis. You're reaching a conclusion before you even arrive at a hypothesis, so how can you say you have evidence?

EDIT - I can't alter the original post.  This:

 

Should read "is that Penrose's number is tied to the probability".

Luckily the # is not really the focal point of my argument. Read the rest of my argument here (the first section of large paragraphs). The other origin explanations are also problematic.

 

Then change "creation" to "the universe".

Hence the reason I provided alternatives: that the universe was created or it is accidental. It can only be one of the three. Do you have any more options?

First off, we're not making it clear what units we're using. The planck constant is 6.63x10^-34 joule-seconds but it's 6.6 * 10 ^-23 erg-seconds, which is what I was referring to (so, my bad). Second, the point is that there is no reason why it should not have been higher by that amount.  

Yes, just like life exists only on this planet - so we can assume that it doesn't exist on other planets, right?

Exactly! You're now my new favorite poster!

See, all I'm talking about is the logical possibility of the universe having been created instead of being eternal or an accident. Yet you guys insist that my "creator" must have many more properties than is necessary and that he must be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to lend him any credence. Therefore I will demand the same thing of ET life.

I do know it - but it's uncannily representative of the logic that atheists sometimes use.

 

I don't see any part that actually says that proteins were found on meteorites. This was an experiment which recreated ten of the 20 amino acids used in proteins and the article suggests that the remainder could have been delivered to Earth via meteorites.

It's not dubious. We've been over this. <_<

Even IF the calculation itself is dubious, the #s are still high & my argument still stands.

That's basically it, except #2 is not as affirmative a statement as you wrote. I am merely comparing all the possible alternatives & choosing one based on parsimony. And it doesn't necessarily have to be a creator, just the idea that our universe was "created".

Even if it was an accident, it does not mean that intelligence was not applied to the problem. Perhaps life is an inadvertent effect of the creator's machinations?

 

So you disagree that my conclusion follows from my premises? What conclusions would you draw then for the universe existing yet being so unlikely to exist? Other than "we lucked out" or "I don't know". If it's the former, then why is that more probable than the fact that our universe could have been created? If it's the latter, then how can you say for certainty that it's not more likely for the universe to have had a creator?

Hmm, it seems that you disagree that this kind of chance points to design. You find it inconceivable that an intelligence could have picked the numbers out, but you don't find it inconceivable that they all just randomly found themselves that way for no apparent reason. Evidence of design can be found in any kind of universe - this is backed up in one of the articles I linked to earlier that discussed the probabilities.

 

No, they haven't. Even if you disagree with the calculation, the number is still absurdly high. Now you're just being difficult and are attempting to argue against years of established cosmological science.

It's too bad that I'm not using numbers, but the amount of assumptions. In the universe's case, it's all the variables that have to fit just right but can have a wide range of values. It's called Occam's Razor.

 

Yet again, what is a better explanation and why are the alternatives more likely? When you see constants just fine-tuned like that, fine-tuned as if by something that knew what it was doing, I think that they were adjusted by an intelligence is really the only obvious conclusion. But I'm not interested in arguing personal preferences.

 

What are you talking about dude? Not all evidence has to be empirical, even scientific evidence. Have you ever read or looked at any speculative science like theoretical physics, etc? Again, applying your kind of logic to everyday matters would be ridiculous and it would be like saying that the existence of ET life is superstitious & unreasonable just because we have no evidence for it.

There are better ideas - I've highlighted all the possible ones in my main post (except "accidental" since this forum software won't let you edit old posts). You guys keep telling me that "atheists don't subscribe to an eternal universe!" so what exactly is your position on the subject? You can't plead ignorance here & say that we don't have enough knowledge, because we most certainly know enough to determine what is more reasonable/probable with our current knowledge of multiverses & cosmology. Remember, an atheist universe IS possible, it just makes some serious assumptions based on current science. And as I said before, an agnostic attitude is also fine to take, in which case you admit that either scenario is as likely at this point.

As I said before, take God out of the equation if you need to. Do you admit that a created universe is just as likely, if not more likely than the other explanations?

 If I can undrestand your logic is the following, So far a naturally explaining universe, because we have for the most part a natural occuring explaination for most things in the universe (again we haven't defined all things in the universe, yet) so you need a supernatural, undefinable creator to explain a natural world....and that's basic logic? Are you kidding me? Please again explain to me your basic logic? That all naturally occuring things (planets naturally forming, sun naturally forming, natural explaination for the atmosphere occuring, natural explaination for the evolution of all the creatures to date. Natural explaination of so many things in this universe, yet somehow you need a supernatural deity that defys explaination to explain the universe?

 @will

the return of treat2?

This is the second time I've had to write this, as I accidentally closed my browser first time and Chrome doesn't have a "are you sure you want to shut down you clown?" fail-safe.  So I apologise for any mistakes I make in the rush.

I didn't say it was the focal point, but it did seem important enough for you to mention it several times.  If you want to drop it it's fine (although as you mentioned that this number is "practically" zero I'd still like to hear your thoughts on the odds of a particular order of a deck of cards being 1 in 8x10⁶⁷ and whether this is an impossible event or not...)

 

So I'll address your original argument which I'm reading as thus:

You've yet to explain why the universe needs a cause.  Why does this creator get a free pass but the universe doesn't?

Secondly, how do you know the numbers can be different?  I'm not being difficult here.  How do you know the numbers could have been different?  This whole line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that the formation of the universe during and after a big bang event is a totally random process.  How do you know this?  For all we know the numbers we've observed are the only possible outcome.  Without seeing other verses forming we have no way of knowing.

You're like a guy looking at a photograph taken 100 years ago which shows the top, and only the top,  of 17 die all showing sixes and saying "There's only a 1 in 10^10* chance that that happened randomly.  Somone must have put them there!".  With no way of witnessing the original event you've got no way of knowing the that die didn't have sixes on every single side.

Bear in mind that I'm not arguing that there is only one way the numbers could have come up.  I'm simply asking how you know that they could have been different.  If you have some way of demonstrating that the numbers are random I'm sure there are a few physicists that would like to hear it.

 

 

What I actually have is a refinement of your statements.  You're claiming that there are only three options for the existence of the universe; Creation, Accident or Eternal.  I don't like the word 'accident'.  Accident implies blame or inadvertent cause, and thus a creator as already demonstrated by Saint Will.  So we're back to two.

I think the three options that you're trying to get at are: Created (with seemingly ambiguous intent), Eternal or Had Beginning (the old something from nothing).  You're also setting up a false argument that our position must be one of these three and thus we should be prepared to defend it.  Let me break it down for you.

• Created.  Based purely on textbook special pleading.  The introduction of a creator asks the question "what created the creator" ad infinitum.  The only way to stop this is to give a special clause to your position which you have no good reason for not applying to other positions.  It creates more assumptions and thus can be disposed of thanks to Occam's razor.
• Eternal.  Often not an argument but rather a question against the aforementioned special pleading - "Why does the creator get to be eternal but the universe doesn't?".  If taken as an actual positions then we have a myriad of possibilites from the multi or cyclic verse theories.  As we have no way of knowing what happened before the big bang these things have as much evidence for them as the universe being farted into existence and thus "I don't know" is a more sensible position.
• Had Beginning.  Somewhere in-between the other two, this is based on the assumption that the universe had a beginning but no real cause.  The "popped-out-of-nothing" argument.  A little bit of a strawman argument because it isn't really a scientific position (big bang theory isn't about the creation of the universe, nor does it say something came from nothing) and suffers from the same flaw as the other two - we have no way of seeing beyond the big bang so anything we say about it is wild conjecture.  It is much simpler to say "I don't know".

So tell me, why should I defend any of these positions when I think "I don't know" is logically the best answer?

 

Well excuse me, but as you mentioned the number but didn't write it down or specify units I took the accepted route of assuming you were following SI convention.

So we're going with 6.6x10^-23 then?  And your saying a change of 1x10^-8 in this number would cause the universe to be different?  A number 1x10¹⁴ times larger than the constant itself?  So you're argument is now "if a bag of sugar was as massive as all the biomass on earth (thank you wolframalpha...) it would be heavier!".  Amazing but not profound or insightful.

I once again ask you to explain how you know the number could have been different.

 

Wrong.  Your statement is a bold assertion with no evidence.   We do not know that life only exists on this planet.  That is completely untrue.

 

Wrong.  Again.  I haven't introduced any further properties or asked for anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.  I ask two things of you, and they are standards that I apply to any scientific hypothesis:

1.  Explain why any property you assign to your system (uncaused cause) cannot be applied to other systems.

2.  Provide any evidence that strongly suggests - not proves - that the observations can only be explained by your hypothesis.

As you've yet to explain why the creator gets to be an uncaused cause and the universe doesn't, and all observations of the universe can be explained using current, standard theories in science you have failed on both counts.

 

Excuse me?  Proteins?  Who mentioned proteins?  Amino acids are the building blocks of life my friend.  If I was being a dick I'd say carbon is the building block of life but I thought I'd stick with the simplest molecular unit.  Why did you assume proteins?

I've highlighted the above section because it proves that you didn't read the article or, if you did, you didn't understand it.  The article does not suggest that 10 amino acids were created here and then the rest were brought by a meteorite.  It doesn't suggest this in the slightest.  I'll break this down for you too:

• The article states that in almost all synthesis of amino acids - hydrothermal, primordial soup or interstellar - we see roughly the same proportions of 10 amino acids forming.
• These proportions match the numbers you get if you try and predict things thermodynamically.  In other words the proportions we see match those we'd expect to see forming in a naturalistic system.
• Furthermore these 10 amino acids form under such a variety of conditions that there is no reason that they couldn't form anywhere in the universe.
• Given the commonality of these 10 amino acids and the fact they are more thermodynamically likely than all the others, it is not unreasonable to assume that early proteins and life may have formed using nothing but these 10 acids and that the other 10 in our biological frame were introduced by catalytic/enzymatic processes further down the evolutionary road.
• It is then also not unreasonable to assume that the same processes could have happened elsewhere in the universe.  The thermodynamic ease of formation of these acids precludes the idea that life can only exist on our little world.

So yes, the building blocks of life can exist and form elsewhere in the universe.

 

If the calculation is dubious then the validity of the numbers is questionable.  You'd be as well using numbers that you plucked out your ass... a high number doesn't mean anything unless it was reached through sensible means.  If the calculation is dubious so is the number.

But then you've told me it's not the focal point of your argument so it's not like it matters right?  Right?

 

 

*{EDIT:  This should be (roughly) 1 in 10¹³}