• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Argument from design

Dylab said:
What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?
Click to expand...

To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite. Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope). What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.

Our universe couldn't exist in any other way than the way it does, thus the argument that it exists the way it does because there was a creator is pointless. It could only exist this way. If there was a Creator, it would have to be this way. If there wasn't a Creator, it would have to be this way.

As for the point at which it would be too improbably that a god not exist, well, if there happens to be a Rapture in the near future, then I'll be inclined to think otherwise.
 
Re: Re: Argument from design

Prospero said:
To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite. Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope). What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.
Click to expand...
Hey, welcome to the world of Infinities!

I think the idea of "infinite universes" is interesting (I dont believe it, its just interesting to me), it leads to me to assume:
Given infinite space, infinite matter (as what would exist if we had an infinite number of surrounding universes), then logically there should be another Yahweh in another universe typing the exact same thing as I am typing right now.

Its also the same thing that says "if there is any possibility of an action occuring, than somewhere in another universe it did occur". Somewhere, in another universe there is another Yahweh who made a spelling error. Of course "possibility" is not a term that means "boundless", I would think if parallel universes existed, the matter (as well as Physics and fundamental forces) in them would be no different than in this universe.

Dont think about it too much or you'll get a bloody nose...
 
Re: Re: Argument from design

Prospero said:
As for the point at which it would be too improbably that a god not exist, well, if there happens to be a Rapture in the near future, then I'll be inclined to think otherwise.
Click to expand...
What?!

Obviously all the Christians decided to up and hide, or perhaps they went to Mars... whatever it was, all the atheists will celebrate and unite because the planet is ours and we're gonna party like its 1999!
 
What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

This is a variation on the so-called "anthropic principle". In its "weakest" form, it says that were the universe not exactly as it is, we would not be here to comment on it (which is a mere tautology). Some take it further, however, and conclude - from the fact conditions locally seem perfectly attuned to the existence of life - that the universe is here for our benefit!

But, even if we were to posit the existence of conscious beings of radically different chemical make-up to humans, flourishing in conditions entirely hostile to all Earthly creatures (or perhaps, in a whole other universe, completely different in every respect from our own) the argument would still work for them!

But, if ours is the "only" universe?

Hm. Well, I don't see what we could conclude from this. We might feel tempted to declare, because how the universe got here - in a form so splendidly adapted for the evolution of Earthly life - is largely inexplicable, that "God" must have created everything. But does this solve our problem? The "problem" now just shifts to a new one: the "how" (and what) of "God". An inscrutable tendered in place of an inscrutable is no explanation.

Paul.
 
rockoon said:


Even more daring a question:

If we find the universe is closed (making it a black hole) how could we prove there is nothing outside the event horizon?
Click to expand...
Just two points here;
1. We're pretty sure that the Universe isn't closed, the results from the WMAP experiment show that it's flat.
2. Even if it were closed that wouldn't make it a black hole, it just means that it will eventually collapse back into the singularity from whence it came!

Originally posted by Prospero
To begin with, don't bother with the argument which contains pieces such as "if gravity were .00001 times stronger or weaker, the universe couldn't support life" etc. That's using statistics in a setting where infinite is one of the factors, therefore even one over infinite of infinite still equals infinite.
Click to expand...

Errr....., No, there are several parameters in physics which if altered by only a small amount would result in the Universe being very different from the way it is. For instance, alter the strong nuclear force just a bit and you make fusion of light elements into heavier elements a lot harder, the result is that there's little or no Iron, Silicon etc., all of which are vital for life on this planet, alter the electromagnetic force and you alter the energy balances of all chemical reactions.

Our "known" universe exists within one Hubble Sphere (the volume of space measured by how distant light has traveled since the Big Bang to be detected by the Hubble Telescope).
Click to expand...

A Hubble sphere is defined as a sphere whose radius is one Hubble length, a Hubble length is the distance light travels in a Hubble time which is the age of the Universe assuming that the rate of expansion of the Universe is constant over time and has the current rate of expansion. None of the above have anything to do with the Hubble telescope, except that they were all named after Edwin Hubble who discovered the expansion of the Universe by measuring the redshifts of galaxies.

What's more, there are even more Hubble Spheres bordering ours and, presumably, continue on ad infinitum. With an infinite universe as densely populated with mass as ours, there must be infinite planets exactly like earth with everyone exactly like everyone here with the exact same history and process of development just by simple statistical calculations using infinity.
Click to expand...

Ummm, depends on what you mean by bordering, certainly not in any three dimensional sense of them being all packed neatly like boxes, and although theoretically there could be an infinite number of universes there's no evidence one way or the other, and it's almost certain that there never will be any such evidence!!
 
Sure if things were a little different, life as we know it could not exist. But what about life as we do NOT know it?
 
Dylab said:
What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?
Click to expand...

Since modern work suggests that there may be many separate "universes", I'd have to suggest that the only reason you're around to make that observation is because the one you're in happened to turn out that way.

In other words IT IS SHEER LUCK, and the fact you're able to exist JUST HAPPENED.
 
Dorian Gray said:
Sure if things were a little different, life as we know it could not exist. But what about life as we do NOT know it?
Click to expand...

More to the point, in a different universe we wouldn't be here to observe it.

The entire argument is entirely circular, we're here because the universe happened to come out that way, this time. That's all, thanks for playing, bzzzt.
 
This is just a restatement of the "anthropic" cosmological argument, and argument that has been all but discredited by modern physics as well as mathematics (none the less, it still seems to enjoy wide circulation. I wonder why.). Modern physics implies a multiverse (an infinity of universes, an article on this is SciAm has already been posted). We happen to live in a 10 dimensional one (refer: http://fimenet.8m.com/hyperspace.htm). Saying that because a slight difference in the balance of forces would not have allowed our appearance God must exist is like saying someone must have rigged the seven decks of cards in spider-solitare (in such a scenario, the likelihood of any result is astronomical). In addition, our universe may be an open, self-replicating system within the multiverse. If the hypothesized "Hawking Radiation" is confirmed (refer: http://casa.colorado.edu/~ajsh/hawk.html) then this will be well established. The implication of that is our particular region of the universe may simply be part of a process that's been going on for quite some time (so to speak, as we don't know whether the temporal dimensions are the same for all universii in our particular system, if they even exist). This all renders theological explanations of the universe exceedingly vacuous.
 
Dylab said:
What if scientists discovered that the simplest laws of our universe rely on a certain number of variables. They somehow find out that these variables are not dependent on anything and that if they were barely changed then our universe could not produce life. These scientists were also, some how, able to prove that the universe as we know it is the only universe that exists.
Click to expand...

It has already be explained how unlikely all these assumptions are. But for the sake of the argument, let us assume we could

-somehow prove that there can't be any simpler laws than those that rely on a certain not too low number of variables (difficult)

-show that a universe with slightly different values for these variables can't contain life

-prove that our universe is the only to exist (rather unlikely)

At what point, if any, would we say that the universe would be too improbable for a god to not exist?
Click to expand...

I would agree that such a situation would demand an explication. But you still would have to show that god is a valid explanation (you say the universe is unlikely, I say god is unlikely, so what? What does the assumption of the existence of god explain?), and that he is the only possible explanation. I haven't tried yet, but I guess I could come up with a dozen alternative metaphysical explanations, if I really had to.

Furthemore how much would saying the universe would have a final cause automaticaly imply the existance of a god?
Click to expand...

You seem to say the existence of life indicates a final cause. Hm. All this eat-each-other seems rather redundant and without any higher purpose to me. But even if we discover the universe has a final cause, once again: is the assumption of the existence of god a valid explanation? The only possible?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom