Present a BETTER explanation for our existence than God

[Nelson]

Hello Japhia, and welcome to the forum. Now, I don't have the time or the will to generate as thorough of a response as I would like, so I will try to jump right to the point where we disagree. From your material it seems you think that science only accepts "naturalistic" explanations, and you view this as a bad thing.

Science has been redefined to include only naturalistic explanations. All observed and hypothesized processes in the universe must be the result of natural causes. No supernatural explanations are allowed.

Excluding action by God from the definition of science: The argument assumes that it is unscientific to credit God with acting in the universe. But certainly if God were to act in the universe, then science would have to acknowledge and even study those acts. The argument that it is unscientific to admit acts of God into science is premised on the philosophical assumption that God either does not exist or does not act in the universe. See Supernaturalism for a more complete discussion.

My request, is for you to clearly define the separation between supernatural and natural.

Now, as far as I understand it, supernatural is by definition that which is beyond our natural universe. For this reason, we can not perceive it, and perhaps we can not even understand it. It does not necessarily have to have an observable influence within our universe. If you disagree with this definition and think that supernatural entities are observable and testable, then where does the distinction between natural and supernatural lie? If you claim that god is testable and observable, then I would not consider him/her to be supernatural. I don't know any other way to interpret this term. So again, if you disagree, please explain how you understand the term.

So, if we have explanations that are supernatural, then there is the possibility that they themselves can't be explained. This seems to be the way it works with god. If I were to accept that a god exists, and it created the universe, my immediate response would be, "where did this god come from?" This is how science works. It keeps asking why. However, at this point we are no longer allowed to ask why. Theists will almost universally claim that the question of where god comes from is meaningless, as he is beyond time and space and simply exists eternally.

This is where we run into problems. Science CAN NOT accept this as an answer, because it IS NOT an answer. If you seek to use god as an explanation for the universe itself, you only move the question back a single step, and then claim that the new question can't be answered so we shouldn't bother trying. So what exactly does the explanation of god explain in this case? I would argue that it explains nothing at all.

The beauty of our current understanding of cosmology and evolution is that we can explain the apparent complexity of the universe and the life within it from a set of simple mathematical models (obviously these models are not complete, the TOE is still out there). The god explanation requires that you start with the existence of the most complex being imaginable, so it does nothing to explain how this level of complexity arises in the first place.

Japhia, it would also be useful if you outlined exactly what you believe. There is a lot of variety in the deist/theist crowd, so could you kindly explain the basics. For example, do you believe in a literal biblical age of the earth, or the current scientific consensus, or somewhere in between? Do you believe life evolved with a guiding hand, evolved on it's own, or was created in it's current form?

It would also be nice if you explained your alternative to scientific methodology. If you believe that a scientific approach is incapable of discovering god, but you have found him/her yourself, then surely you have an alternative methodology by which this was accomplished.

I'll try to keep up with this thread, but I am a bit busy for the next few days. I apologize in advance if I am slow to respond.

 

[Netheralian]

Why is there something, rather than nothing ?

God must also be considered something in the same way as any universe potentiality (i.e. the conditions that a universe would arise from) would be. So, assuming for a second that there is a God, why is there a God and not nothing? And what is more likely - the absolute minimum possible conditions necessary for a universe to come into being via some as yet undefined process (i.e. a bottom up universe based on absolute simplicity), or a super intelligent being of infinite complexity that just happened (by chance?) to always exist (i.e. a top down universe based on infinite complexity). I mean, if you are going to try and consider the probabilities, then you should at least do so honestly and consider all factors.

 

[Your Funny Uncle]

This was actually said in reference to alt-med practitioners, but it's aposite here.

Science *knows* it doesn't know everything, otherwise it would stop. . . . Just because science doesn't know everything doesn't mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.

The scientific method has almost tripled the life expectancy of a human being. created the computer you're arguing with us on and the car you use to drive to your church. It created almost everything which makes your life more comfortable and safer to live. In the last 400 years or so we've gone from understanding almost nothing about the way the world works to examining matter at a sub-atomic level.

Given these amazing leaps forward in knowledge, we now have no reason at all to assume god's hand in things that were previously put down to being supernatural such as earthquakes, floods and disease, with advances in our understanding being made at an ever-increasing rate across many fields. Why then should we expect that science won't get closer and closer to explaining the origins of life and the universe? Just because current theories on these questions are shaky and incomplete doesn't mean that this will always be the case. And by the way I do not include evolution in this. The theory of evolution is rock-solid despite what the crackpot sites you read may tell you.

"God did it" has become a discredited hypothesis in so many areas that I see no reason to expect that it will hold up in areas we do not yet understand, and as others have mentioned it begs the question "Where did god come from?"

 

[Nautyskin]

Is there really anything to say here, other than "god did it" is no explanation at all?

You're asking people to come up with a better explanation than 'it was magic'. I'd suggest that ANY idea is better than this, including saying "I don't know".

 

[Dustnite]

I want to type a coherent response to this very dead and beaten horse argument, but for some reason my face keeps connecting with my desk repeatedly and will not stop unless I close my browser...

Weird..

 

[Deleted member 1004]

While I'm not going for the questions put forward by Japhia, I will critisise his objective as he must already know (to a certain extent) the answers we're giving here. A newcomer to the field of debate in this topic wouldn't argue with so many base points, and then have the photocopied retorts to the given answers. It stinks of William Lane Craig and the ruler stretching across the universe (to reference the perfect conditions).

As mentioned in a previous post by Lauren:

What's the point? What you will do is just endlessly change the criteria for what constitutes 'a better explanation', or simply dismiss all explanations because they do not agree with your biased viewpoint. As other people have said there are better explanations, but you won't concede that any of them are better because you believe you already have the best explanation.

That much is very apparent - every counter arguement you have put forward has the tell-tale signature of "God must have done it".

 

[Yfelsung]

Actually, the odds of a universe existing that has life in it is 1 in 1.

We only have one universe to use as our data pool. That universe contains life. One out of every one universes we know of contains life.

Therefore, the mathematical odds of life existing in a universe is 1.

Your fine tuning argument fails at a very fundamental level you a) assume a universe couldn't exist with different values and b) you assume we're somehow special so because the universe seems fine tuned for US to exist in, that it must be fine tuned. What your forget is that the universe was not constructed for us, we evolved to fit the constraints of the universe.

Nothing says life couldn't exist in some form in a universe with very different physical laws.

As for life on earth, abiogenesis is a completely plausible theory proven in a lab to be possible. That gives it a step up on the god theory. Evolution has a metric fuckton of evidence behind it, so that makes it better than the god theory.

Actually, every scientific explanation we have is more concrete than the god theory on every conceivable level.

The god theory has 0

All scientific theories have a least a little bit of evidence, some have A LOT.

 

[Japhia888]

Stuff has always existed ? how do you bring this idea in harmony with the second law of thermodynamics ? Based on that law, if " things " always existed, the universe would have to be already in a state of heath death.

To put it as succinctly as I can, the second law of thermodynamics is no more proof for a temporally finite Universe than the first law is proof for an eternal one.

To go slightly further the second law is time dependent, whereas the first is not. It's possible to conceive of models where entropy is conserved by variations in the arrow of time.

The idea that the Universe is eternal is certainly -- CERTAINLY -- not out of the question according to current physics. Indeed physics treats it as being effectively eternal by definition, because it's defined as everything which physically exists, and non-existence has no coherent definition*.

EDIT: *need to clarify that before someone has me for non-existence of fictional entities! I mean the non-existence of the Universe has no coherent definition in physics. Likewise, the colloquial metaphysical concept of 'nothing' does not exist in physics.

there are not only physical, but also philosophical reasons against a eternal universe without a beginning.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

 

[Japhia888]

Japhia888, your argument relies on the assertion that God is a plausible explanation. How do you support this?

that is not the question of the introdution post of this thread. I want do understand the reasons of YOUR worldview better.

 

[Deleted member 619]

there are not only physical, but also philosophical reasons against a eternal universe without a beginning.

What are these physical reasons? You have only presented philosophical reasons, and they don't stack up.

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

This is a fundamental misunderstanding of what infinity actually is. It's a concept, albeit a useful one in certain contextual settings. It isn't a number, which means that this objection amounts to no more than a category error. Infinity can loosely be defined as 'a quantity beyond our means to reasonably comprehend'. The reason that your objection seems to stack up is that the adding of integers will always yield a solution that is well within our means to reasonably comprehend.

The past is complete.

And of course, you have evidence to support this blind assertion, don't you?

This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present.

ACtually, it isn't complete at the present, but at the moment before the present.

If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite.

No, it means that you don't understand infinity, which is actually all to the good, because that's what the word means. If you could comprehend it, it wouldn't be infinity.

If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Philosophical reasons are entirely without utility in elucidating reality, unless you move into the branch of philosophy that deals with measuring your conclusions against reality. In other words, where is your evidence?

 

[Deleted member 619]

Japhia888, your argument relies on the assertion that God is a plausible explanation. How do you support this?

that is not the question of the introdution post of this thread. I want do understand the reasons of YOUR worldview better.

That's simple to explain, and can be dealt with in a single line of text, thus:

There is no evidence to support the idea of a deity, so no good reason to include one in our models of reality.

[/thread]

 

[Japhia888]

Stuff

Well, one at a time then.

I did provide a mechanism. Stuff attracting and repelling. Actually, attraction is the only required force in order for the universal model to work. Every other physical law is emergent from that.

Simplistic, yes, but then, that's consistent with science. Things don't start complicated and get simple, they start simple and get complicated. When the big bang happened there were no atoms, only once things had cooled down enough did atoms form, and then it was just hydrogen until fusion started to make helium etc etc.

correct. Fine-tuning starts with inflation , wich must be finely tuned to 10 of the 10^120 degree. But it continues.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

the strength of the strong nuclear force. If it were about two percent weaker, life-essential heavy elements would be unstable. If it were about two percent stronger, then quarks would not form into protons, so there'd be no ordinary matter at all. Two percent either way, and there would be no life.

The Strong Nuclear Force Coupling Constant. This force holds together the particle sin the nucleus of an atom. If the strong nuclear force were slightly weaker, then multi-proton nuclei could not form because they would just fly apart due to the repulsion from like charged protons. Hydrogen would be the only element in the universe. If on the other hand, the strong nuclear force were slightly greater, then nuclear particles would tend to bind together more frequently and more firmly. Then hydrogen would be rare in the universe, and elements more massive than iron which are necessary for life that are produced from the fission of very heavy elements would be insufficient. Either way, life becomes impossible.

The weak nuclear force

is what controls the rates at which radioactive elements decay. If this force were slightly stronger, the matter would decay into the heavy elements in a relatively short time. However, if it were significantly weaker, all matter would almost totally exist in the form of the lightest elements, especially hydrogen and helium ---there would be (for example) virtually no oxygen, carbon or nitrogen, which are essential for life.

Considering the fine-tuning of the weak nuclear force for both the rate of radioactive decay as well as the precise value required to allow supernova explosions, it seems conservative to say that it was one chance out of 100 that the weak nuclear force was at the right strength to permit these processes so that life would be possible.

gravitational force constant

if larger: stars would be too hot and would burn up quickly and unevenly|
if smaller: stars would be so cool that nuclear fusion would not ignite, thus no heavy element production

electromagnetic force constant

if larger: insufficient chemical bonding; elements more massive than boron would be unstable to fission
if smaller: insufficient chemical bonding


the magnitude of precision cannot even be imagined. How do you explain this ? Chance is a very bad explanation. Or do you honestly think, it explains in a satisfying way the amazing fine tuning of the elementar atomic forces which are needed to permit life ? If you want to exclude God, and chance, as a driving mechanism, what other one do you suggest as reasonable ?

Keep on rolling that process backwards and you have my hypothesis of 'Stuff' Stuff attracting other stuff. Everything else is icing on the cake.

Gravity is finley tuned as well.

gravitational constant: Determines strength of gravity. If lower than stars would have insufficient pressure to overcome Coulomb barrier to start thermonuclear fusion (i.e. stars would not shine). If higher, stars burn too fast, use up fuel before life has a chance to evolve.

It is therefore possible to imagine whole different kinds of universes with different constants. For example, a universe with a lower gravitational constant would have a weaker force of gravity, where stars and planets might not form. Or a universe with a high strong force which would inhibit thermonuclear fusion, which would make the luminosity of stars be much lower, a darker universe, and life would have to evolve without sunlight.

Please show me atheistic rational thought applied here to explain convincingly and reasonably the amazing fine tuning of these forces.

But that's just a beginning point, which is wrong anyway if the universe is infinite, there was never a beginning.

there are strong physical and philosophical reasons to discard the option of a eternal universe.

It's a thing that is. It gets more complex as time passes.

Isn't that concept going against all empirical experience of our daily life ? let a car for one hundred years on the free. When you go back , it will be only rust.

As to the old 'Why not just be a jerk' question, there is one very very important being that cares very much how I act and doesn't like me to be a jerk for no reason and deeply desires me to live in a manner which provides me the maximum of comfort and pleasure without infringing upon the rights and freedoms of others.

And what makes you care about the freedom and rights of others ?

That being is Me. I don't require license or instruction from a divine creator to enjoy life.

Who told you you cannot enjoy life being a jerk ? Some traffickers kill thousands of people, but have a life of luxury and comfort and well being.

 

[Yfelsung]

there are not only physical, but also philosophical reasons against a eternal universe without a beginning.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/philosophy-and-god-f14/philosophy-of-time-t178.htm

Why can't the past be infinite? The answer is that it is impossible to complete an infinite series by addition. The series of past events is complete. Think of this mathematical fact. Why is it impossible to count to infinity? It is impossible because, no matter how long you count, you will always be at a finite number. It is impossible to complete an actual infinite by successive addition.

The past is complete. This claim means that the entire series of past events ends now. It ends today. Tomorrow is not part of the series of past events. The series of past events does not extend into the future. It is complete at the present. If it is impossible to complete an infinite series by successive addition (as it is impossible to count to infinity) the past cannot be infinite. If the past is finite., that is, if it had a beginning, then the universe had a beginning. We have strong philosophical reason to reject the claim that the universe has always existed.

Your philosophical argument does not meld with our knowledge of physics.

Time is a measurement, like length and width. A dimension. A plane beyond X, Y and Z. We can only perceive this plane in slices of time for we lack an organ or ability to perceive the entire 4th dimension of time.

There is no flow, we only perceive a flow. Time is static to a 4th dimensional being. All things that have happened, are happening and will happening all happening simultaneously.

Our concepts of beginning, end, cause, effect and all things related to time are based on our incomplete perception of time.

There was no start, there is no end, the universe simply is.

 

[Japhia888]

which over 120 finely tuned constant of physics are you talking about?
could you list them are give us a link to that list?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-extreme-fine-tuning-of-the-universe-t31.htm

http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe

the second point someone already started making comments on, but could you give the precise formula that was used to come to that answer or perhaps the source?

Tipler and Barrow's book about the anthropic principle :

http://books.google.com/books?id=uSykSbXklWEC&dq=The+Anthropic+Cosmological+Principle&printsec=frontcover&source=bn&hl=en&ei=1LqlSomCDJPhlAeawKCQBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#v=onepage&q=&f=false

Law and Probability By Fraser Watts

http://books.google.com/books?id=2l1VmgbzwCYC&pg=PA64&lpg=PA64&dq=gravitational+constant+creation&source=bl&ots=zuV4QNXl-O&sig=BMRep6GTpfvwcryQ7gxerpFeXjk&hl=en&ei=qI-ESs_XFIiYMeLYtOcE&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q&f=false

from scientific research i read, our galaxy is one out of thousands if not millions or billions.

correct.

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tuning-of-our-earth-and-solar-system-t180.htm

Unique location in our galaxy

We receive very little of the x-rays and gamma rays given off from the galactic center, that would affect all life and its development on earth. We live on the outer rim of the Milky Way, in a less dense portion of the galaxy, away from the noise, dust, and dangers of the interior.

The Sun and our Solar System have been located in a stable orbit within our galaxy. most stars located between spiral arms do not remain there for long, but would eventually be swept inside a spiral arm. Only at a certain precise distance from the galaxy's center can a star remain in its place between two spiral arms. Why is it important that we are not in one of the spiral arms? First, our location gives us a view of the universe that is unobstructed by the debris and gases found in the spiral arms. This fact allows us to visualize what the Bible says, "The heavens declare the glory of God." If we were within the spiral arms, our view would be significantly impaired. Second, being outside the spiral arms puts us in a location that is safer than anywhere else in the universe. We are removed from the more densely occupied areas, where stellar interactions can lead to disruption of planetary orbits. In addition, we are farther from the deadly affects of supernovae explosions.

Im quite curious what important role our moon plays, that without it life could not exist.

We have the tides that are very important for some species, but the very early collision of a smaller Mars sized planet and the earth is what caused the moon. It also tilted the earth on its axis and caused seasons. The earth and moon should more accurately be called a 'two-planet' system, as the size of earth's moon is greatly larger in proportion to the earth, than any other planet. The moon early in its existence also shielded the earth from bombardment by meteor showers that were devastating. The craters on the moon are the evidence of that factor. No other planet has undergone such a unique event in its history.

 

[Japhia888]

What's the point? What you will do is just endlessly change the criteria for what constitutes 'a better explanation', or simply dismiss all explanations because they do not agree with your biased viewpoint. As other people have said there are better explanations, but you won't concede that any of them are better because you believe you already have the best explanation.

It will go round and round in circles until every argument in the entire history of the whole science vs religion debate has been repeated ad infinitum. Everyone will get frustrated and bad tempered and quite frankly I'd rather just have a cup of tea.

enjoy !!

 

[RichardMNixon]

which over 120 finely tuned constant of physics are you talking about?
could you list them are give us a link to that list?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/astronomy-cosmology-and-god-f15/the-fine-tune-constants-close-examination-one-by-one-t191.htm

:lol:
Most of these aren't independent and some of them have nothing to do with life. I saw enthalpy of fusion and vaporization of water on there for instance. Care to explain how life would be impossible if water froze and boiled at 275 and 375 K instead of 273 and 373?

I'd wager there's less than 10 on that list that actually matter.

 

[Unwardil]

More stuff

All that fine tuning stuff can be very easily discarded by the simple fact that we don't actually know if it's possible for them to be any different than they are. We've never observed the universal constants being any different than they are, so to assume they were engineered to be that way is already making a gross supposition.

And even if it's possible for them to be different, again, if there are infinite chances at getting a universe that will have exactly those properties, (I use the word universe in this context to mean 'What began 13 billion years ago during the big bang') then there is still no conflict. Nothing but time is required for it to happen. The fact that we are here at all proves that such a universe can exist.

If you leave a car for 100 years it does indeed become more complex. Refined materials will combine with the surrounding atmosphere creating new compounds spontaneous. Iron will become iron oxide, an increase in complexity. Any number of things could happen, but let's say it gets crushed under ground. The material in the car will be compressed and heated, mixed with other materials and turned into something new. All this represents an increase in complexity, not a decrease.

Solar systems work the same way. You get a gas cloud, that sort of congeals into a big central ball with other balls spinning around it and eventually, you get an ordered system of planets and moons and asteroids and comets and all that.

Evolution, same deal, only with living things and the added complexity of competition into the mix.

Stuff gets more complex over time, not less complex.

As to why I feel like a jerk when I act like a jerk, well I don't feel like running the Socrates gambit. You could continue to ask me 'why' to absolutely anything I say. I'm sure there are a number of reasons, some of them evolutionary, some of them cultural, others personal, the point is, if I act like a big jerk, I feel like a big jerk and that makes me feel bad, so I try not to act like a big jerk. It's very simple.

 

[Japhia888]

Please define "BETTER", or, as SchrodingersFinch noted, please define "BETTER explanation".

First of all : What explanation are we looking for ? the explanation of the existence of the universe, and us.
Secondly : what possibilities are on the table?

i see only 3.

1. The universe had a absolute beginning, and God as a sentient personal being as its cause
2. The universe had a absolute beginning, but no cause. Absolutely nothing was the cause of the universe. It came to be from any thing.
3. The universe had no beginning. Its eternal. It had no beginning, and has no end. It exists since eternity in one form or the other.

If you have another possible explanation, please present it.

Now you need to create a hypotheses of the 3 models, examine them, make deductions or inductions that can be derived from it, verify them, and ask, if they make sense, or are probable hypotheses, or not. You repeat the process, until you arrive at the best possible explanation, which fits best with the facts.

 

[australopithecus]

Please define "BETTER", or, as SchrodingersFinch noted, please define "BETTER explanation".

First of all : What explanation are we looking for ? the explanation of the existence of the universe, and us.
Secondly : what possibilities are on the table?

i see only 3.

1. The universe had a absolute beginning, and God as a sentient personal being as its cause
2. The universe had a absolute beginning, but no cause. Absolutely nothing was the cause of the universe. It came to be from any thing.
3. The universe had no beginning. Its eternal. It had no beginning, and has no end. It exists since eternity in one form or the other.

If you have another possible explanation, please present it.

Now you need to create a hypotheses of the 3 models, examine them, make deductions or inductions that can be derived from it, verify them, and ask, if they make sense, or are probable hypotheses, or not. You repeat the process, until you arrive at the best possible explanation, which fits best with the facts.

First you need to provide testable evidence for a creator god and/or gods or any other sentient being(s) capable of creating a universe. You can't just posit God as an explaination then expect other people to do the leg work, it's your claim, you do the work.

You can't examine a hypothesis based on a unfalsifiable, untestable assertion that is poorly defined at best and not defined at all at worst.

 

[RichardMNixon]

First of all : What explanation are we looking for ? the explanation of the existence of the universe, and us.

1. The universe had a absolute beginning, and God as a sentient personal being as its cause
2. The universe had a absolute beginning, but no cause. Absolutely nothing was the cause of the universe. It came to be from any thing.
3. The universe had no beginning. Its eternal. It had no beginning, and has no end. It exists since eternity in one form or the other.

If you have another possible explanation, please present it.

Now you need to create a hypotheses of the 3 models, examine them, make deductions or inductions that can be derived from it, verify them, and ask, if they make sense, or are probable hypotheses, or not. You repeat the process, until you arrive at the best possible explanation, which fits best with the facts.

You still haven't identified best. Is the best explanation one that explains everything or the one that explains the most with the fewest unjustified assumptions?

I'm also going to edit your models:
1. The universe had a absolute beginning, and God as a sentient personal being as its cause.
2b. The universe had a beginning, caused by some process which is not yet understood.