The fine-tuning argument for God's existence

[Sommerswerd]

Why do you disagree that the strength or weakness of an argument doesn't depend on how many people agree with it?

I said above

Spoiler :

and as more people join that "side" there is a greater chance that some will be scholars with the knowledge to strengthen the argument.

I know that is not exactly the same, but an argument can be indirectly strengthened by popularity in this way, right?

In the end the argument is bunk, and so it doesn't really matter who thought it up. It just isn't a very good argument.

I went to a relative's house for this past Thanksgiving, and was treated to a tour of his beautiful new house. During the tour, he commented about how he had been searching for a house that met his specific needs of his large family and one day he spotted this house come up on the market, a "perfect fit" for all the housing needs. He quite sincerely attributed the serendipity directly to "look at how Jesus works!"

This is a perfect example of how I perceive the 'fine tuning' argument. "The house I live in is perfect for me, that why I live here. If it was not perfect for me I would not be living here, I would live in a different house that was perfect for me. So this is proof that God must have designed this house especially for me"

 

[warpus]

I said above

Spoiler :

and as more people join that "side" there is a greater chance that some will be scholars with the knowledge to strengthen the argument.

I know that is not exactly the same, but an argument can be indirectly strengthened by popularity in this way, right?

Well.. No. With some things there is very little correlation between how many people believe something and the truth of the statement.. and in fact there is a logical fallacy that describes this very phenomenon - assuming that something is true just because a lot of people believe it.

 

[Tigranes]

It might be interesting for you, but it is useless as a discussion about the subject matter (i.e. the thread title) if you can't even agree on the basic premises of what's being discussed (with most other people in here).

There are so many parallel discussions that true state of the debate is getting buried under piles of information. This is where we are right now:

Is chance consistent with the existence of God? Sure it is. Is the multiverse consistent with the existence of God? Absolutely. But Unicorny and other fine-tuning argument proponents aren't merely saying that God's existence is consistent with other things - they're saying that we can know, or at least have a very good indication, that God exists. What we're saying is that we can't.

I hope most people, including myself, can agree that this is the fair representation of the state of affairs. As you can see it is possible to agree on basic premises and discussion wasn't completely useless. Would you let us to pick up an argument from here?

If so, please consider this: there is a big gap between "know" and "have a very good indication". The best way to prove that God isn't is by proving that He is. The whole can define the part, but part cannot define the whole, which would mean that whole is the part of the part and therefore not a whole anymore. Whole knows the part, part does not know the whole. Part can only learn about Whole by the virtue of Whole revealing about Itself to the Part.

Now, let's depart from abstract Whole and Part thing and consider less applicable but more down to earth analogy of you and your future toddler son. You know he is your son, you've been there when you got married, you've been there when your wife lost virginity to you, you've been there through all that love and mutual trust thing, you've been with her as a carrying husband at all the stages of her pregnancy, during the delivery even -- you are the father, you know it's your son. Now your son, while still incapable of conducting DNA paternity test can only believe you are his father. He has very good indications that you are. He can see you care for him, love him, the only grown up man around, you look alike, everybody calls him your Dad, kids in his preschool talk about their Dads, so he somehow connects the dots and he pretty much sure you are his Dad. He was not been there when you were conceiving him (nothing comes out of nothing), so he cannot positively know he is your son but he trusts 100% he is, he swears by you, man! (again forget DNA test in this analogy)

I hope we once and for all can establish difference between prove/know and trust/believe. Let me know yes or no so we could move forward.

Why do you need an argument for God's existence, for instance, if you take it for granted that he exists?

Why do parents tell kids "I love you" so many times if kids have seen their love before? It's called reassurance. One more kiss helps to get through the day. We live in a crazy world, you see, sometimes you feel like nothing makes sense. It really helps getting reassured on so many levels.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well.. No. With some things there is very little correlation between how many people believe something and the truth of the statement.. and in fact there is a logical fallacy that describes this very phenomenon - assuming that something is true just because a lot of people believe it.

Once again, I agree with everything you are saying, but I don't think what you said responds to my question. I am saying that popularity of an argument can attract people to the debate that actually have sufficient knowledge to contribute to the discussion and improve the argument. It is not the popularity itself that improves a stagnant argument, rather, it is the scholarly person who was drawn in to the argument precisely because it was popular who in turn adds his wisdom/insight to the argument, thereby improving it.

 

[Unicorny]

According to standard cosmology model, the initial state of the space-time, and thus gravity, of the early universe had very low entropy. The ‘mass-energy’ of the initial universe had to be precise to get galaxies, planets, and for us to exist. The most extreme example of fine-tuning has to do with the distribution of mass-energy at that time.

Just how precise?

The odds of a low-entropy state to exist by chance alone are one out of 10^10^123 - the Penrose number. Let us try to get an idea of what type of a number are we talking about? You don’t have enough particles in the universe (that we know of) to write down all the zeroes! This number is so large, that if every zero was typed out at font size 10, there would be no room left in our universe! That is why we will explain it with three illustrations:

First, balancing a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports does not even come close to describing an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123

Second, this is much more precision than would be required to toss a dart and hit a penny across the universe!

Third, cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one billion of the piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick the coin. The odds of her picking it are only 1 in 10^37.

All these numbers are extremely small when compared to the precise fine-tuning of the Penrose number, the most extreme example of fine-tuning that we know of.

In summary, the fine-tuning of many constants of physics must fall into an exceedingly narrow range of values for life to exist. If they had slightly different values, no complex material systems could exist. This is a widely recognized fact. Attributing the fine-tuning evidence to dumb luck or accident is not only irrational, but rather insane.

Dismissing the fine-tuning evidence as nothing remarkable is called denial.

Religious apology in a nutshell:

1) Nothing can exist without a cause.

2) God can exist without a cause.

The inherent contradiction in the argument speaks for itself. All elaborations are merely special pleading.

The claim that the physical constants we know of have special values is highly questionable. We know that they have certain values within the universe we know of, we do not know why this is the case. We do, however, know that some of them could have different values, or even disappear altogether, which makes the claim for 'fine tuning' obviously bogus (see the 'weakless universe' page on wiki). If we then consider the fact that this 'finely tuned' universe is almost entirely hostile to the life it is supposedly tuned for and indeed almost entirely empty then where does the argument stand? Merely as an object of ridicule imo.

Faulty premise, therefore faulty conclusion. Something can exist without a cause, and that something is an eternal, self-existent and self-sustaining, intelligent SPIRIT that we refer to as God. And since there are no known laws that govern the immaterial realm, as there are for the material realm, then God can certainly be eternal and and uncaused. In the end, something must be eternally existent and uncaused. And that something is spiritual in nature - God. And this Spirit God then speaks the material realm into existence by the power of His divine edict.

Moreover, an uncaused cause is a logical necessity for without an uncaused cause, infinite regression is invoked and therefore nothing could have existed in the first place (I feel as if a lot of skeptics in this section do not understand this point). As such, there is no contradiction here:

1) Nothing can exist without a cause

2) Except the first uncaused cause

3) Otherwise nothing would exist

4) But since the universe and everything within it do exist, an uncaused cause (i.e God) does exist.

 

[uppi]

Do you realize sometimes, that you are so eager to contradict that you take on the statement conveniently rephrased in your head and not the one presented by the opponent?

No. I try only to contradict what I think is false. I am human and I do err, but in this case you have not shown sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics and its interpretations to point out any errors to me.

Do you see any difference between
"we cannot observe the state of quantum superposition" and "there is nothing more that actually exists beyond what we can observe"?

Of course, I do. Neither statement is confirmed by quantum mechanics. The latter is neither proven nor falsified by quantum mechanics. The former is just demonstrably wrong. We can observe superposition states. In fact, a lot of protocols in quantum information fundamentally depend on the possibility to observe superposition states.

This distinction between "incomplete knowledge" and "intrinsic quantum indeterminacy" is worth dwelling on. Following Sean Carroll and trying to be cat-friendly let's replace common quantum dead/alive cat story with sofa/table story. If the wave function (real or not) tells us there is a 75 percent chance of observing the cat under the table and a 25 percent chance of observing her on the sofa, that does not mean there is a 75 percent chance that the cat is under the table and a 25 percent chance that she is on the sofa. There is no such thing as "where the cat is." in, what I call, quantum common sense. Her quantum state is described by a superposition of the two distinct possibilities we would have in classical mechanical common sense. It's not even that "they are both true at once"; it's that there is no "true" place where the cat is -- which means that we DO have a certain reality which we cannot observe. The wave function is the best description we have of the reality of the cat, not reality of the wave function itself, which is a "less" quantum common sense topic.

Nothing prevents me from observing the reality of the cat, even if it was in this superposition state. I could build an elaborate setup of mirrors that would project the image of the cat under the table and the image of the cat on the sofa to the same place in my eye. The setup also blocks out the image of the sofa and the table, so I get no information of where the cat is. Such a setup would be tricky in practice, but so would be the preparation of this cat state. This measurement and confirmation of the cats existence does not project the wave function of the cat to either place, so I preserve the superposition state of the cat. So there is nothing real here, I could not observe.

You are saying that there is no true place where the cat is, and there are interpretations where this is indeed the case (and others, where its not. That is why I keep saying that there is no quantum common sense). This statement is exactly my point: In those interpretations, the position of the cat is not an element of reality (yet). So I cannot observe it, because it does not exist. The cat exists, but there is nothing to stop me from observing the cat.

 

[Browd]

According to standard cosmology model, the initial state of the space-time, and thus gravity, of the early universe had very low entropy. The ‘mass-energy’ of the initial universe had to be precise to get galaxies, planets, and for us to exist. The most extreme example of fine-tuning has to do with the distribution of mass-energy at that time.

Just how precise?

The odds of a low-entropy state to exist by chance alone are one out of 10^10^123 - the Penrose number. Let us try to get an idea of what type of a number are we talking about? You don’t have enough particles in the universe (that we know of) to write down all the zeroes! This number is so large, that if every zero was typed out at font size 10, there would be no room left in our universe! That is why we will explain it with three illustrations:

First, balancing a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports does not even come close to describing an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123

Second, this is much more precision than would be required to toss a dart and hit a penny across the universe!

Third, cover America with coins in a column reaching to the moon (380,000 km or 236,000 miles away), then do the same for a billion other continents of the same size. Paint one coin red and put it somewhere in one billion of the piles. Blindfold a friend and ask her to pick the coin. The odds of her picking it are only 1 in 10^37.

All these numbers are extremely small when compared to the precise fine-tuning of the Penrose number, the most extreme example of fine-tuning that we know of.

In summary, the fine-tuning of many constants of physics must fall into an exceedingly narrow range of values for life to exist. If they had slightly different values, no complex material systems could exist. This is a widely recognized fact. Attributing the fine-tuning evidence to dumb luck or accident is not only irrational, but rather insane.

Dismissing the fine-tuning evidence as nothing remarkable is called denial.



Faulty premise, therefore faulty conclusion. Something can exist without a cause, and that something is an eternal, self-existent and self-sustaining, intelligent SPIRIT that we refer to as God. And since there are no known laws that govern the immaterial realm, as there are for the material realm, then God can certainly be eternal and and uncaused. In the end, something must be eternally existent and uncaused. And that something is spiritual in nature - God. And this Spirit God then speaks the material realm into existence by the power of His divine edict.

Moreover, an uncaused cause is a logical necessity for without an uncaused cause, infinite regression is invoked and therefore nothing could have existed in the first place (I feel as if a lot of skeptics in this section do not understand this point). As such, there is no contradiction here:

1) Nothing can exist without a cause

2) Except the first uncaused cause

3) Otherwise nothing would exist

4) But since the universe and everything within it do exist, an uncaused cause (i.e God) does exist.

You don't need 4). The universe itself can be the first uncaused cause. An argument based on "this one thing (universe) needed a cause but this other thing (God) needed no cause" is IMO a specious argument. And that's before you resort to invoking "immaterial realms" and other figments of human imagination. In fact, I see a distinct lack of imagination in this argument for the existence of God -- it boils down to "look at this marvel of a universe, so precisely balanced for life. It is so improbable that the only explanation I can imagine is that there was an intelligent creator, who spawned this universe and this planet out of love for us. And that creator must be the very one described in the Bible."

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, time and again, we currently (and perhaps always will) lack the tools to peer behind the big bang to determine what "caused" it, if anything. That ignorance does not mean God "caused" the universe to spawn or that there is a God to do the causing.

 

[Unicorny]

You don't need 4). The universe itself can be the first uncaused cause. An argument based on "this one thing (universe) needed a cause but this other thing (God) needed no cause" is IMO a specious argument. And that's before you resort to invoking "immaterial realms" and other figments of human imagination. In fact, I see a distinct lack of imagination in this argument for the existence of God -- it boils down to "look at this marvel of a universe, so precisely balanced for life. It is so improbable that the only explanation I can imagine is that there was an intelligent creator, who spawned this universe and this planet out of love for us. And that creator must be the very one described in the Bible."

As has been said elsewhere in this thread, time and again, we currently (and perhaps always will) lack the tools to peer behind the big bang to determine what "caused" it, if anything. That ignorance does not mean God "caused" the universe to spawn or that there is a God to do the causing.

Wrong. Scientists and philosophers recognize that, logically, there must be an initial, uncaused Cause of the Universe. [Those who attempt to argue the eternality of the Universe are in direct contradiction to the Law of Causality (since the Universe is a physical effect that demands a cause), as well as the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which indicates that nothing physical lasts forever (see Miller, 2007).] Aristotle, in Physics, discusses the logical line of reasoning that leads to the conclusion that the initial cause of motion must be something that is not, itself, in motion—an unmoved mover (1984, 1:428). Thomas Aquinas built on Aristotle’s reasoning and said:

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another.... For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.... It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e., that it should move itself. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again. But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover.... Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God (1952, 19:12,13, emp. added).

God, not being a physical, finite being, but an eternal, spiritual being (by definition), would not be subject to the condition of requiring a beginning. Therefore, the law does not apply to Him. Concerning the Law of Causality, renowned German philosopher, Immanuel Kant, said that “everything which is contingent has a cause, which, if itself contingent, must also have a cause; and so on, till the series of subordinated causes must end with an absolutely necessary cause, without which it would not possess completeness” (Kant, 2008, p. 284, emp. added). An uncaused Cause is necessary. Only God sufficiently fills that void.

Consider: if there ever were a time in history, when absolutely nothing existed—not even God—then nothing would exist today, since nothing comes from nothing (in keeping with common sense and the Law of Thermodynamics, Miller, 2007). However, something exists (e.g., the Universe)—which means something had to exist eternally. That something could not be physical or material, since such things do not last forever (cf. Second Law of Thermodynamics, Miller, 2007). It follows that the eternal something must be non-physical or non-material. It must be mind rather than matter. Logically, there must be a Mind that has existed forever. That Mind, according to the Bible (which has characteristics proving it to be of supernatural origin, cf. Butt, 2007), is God. He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Of old You laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You will endure; yes, they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will change them, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will have no end (Psalm 102:25-27, emp. added).

The point stands. The Law of Cause and Effect supports the creation model, not the atheistic evolutionary model. [NOTE: For more on the subject of an Uncaused Cause, see Colley, 2010; Lyons, 2007]

An physical entity such as the universe being uncaused would contradict itself and its own laws.

 

[Arakhor]

You know, if you're going to cut and paste in future, maybe you could retain the formatting, especially when you leave in three editorial notes, specifically noting added emphasis.

However, absolutely none of what you posted proves the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. Quite apart from all the special pleading to indicate that a superior being was the Prime Mover, nothing short of personal belief identifies said being as God.

 

[Sommerswerd]

That was a really polite way of putting it Arakhor

I'd add that this:

Logically, there must be a Mind that has existed forever.

is essentially saying that we all, the universe, existence itself are all figments of God's imagination, which is an interesting philosophical concept I admit, but it also strips the "involvement" and "authority" from God's mojo. Why should anyone care about obeying worshiping recognizing etc God when we are all nothing more than child-wizard #497 at Hogwarts to God's J.K. Rowling?

Unless of course you think you personally happen to be the Harry of the story, in which case that's fine for you but what about the rest of us?

 

[Browd]

Sorry, but citing Kant, Aristotle, Aquinas and Psalms doesn't do it for me.

And, as to statements such as the Bible "has characteristics proving it to be of supernatural origin" or "He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics," all I can do is shake my head.

 

[Unicorny]

You know, if you're going to cut and paste in future, maybe you could retain the formatting, especially when you leave in three editorial notes, specifically noting added emphasis.

However, absolutely none of what you posted proves the existence of the Judaeo-Christian God. Quite apart from all the special pleading to indicate that a superior being was the Prime Mover, nothing short of personal belief identifies said being as God.

Which would contradict the purpose of life itself, as such, there will never be an absolute proof of God or proof that God does not exist, However, there's ample evidence - think "hints" to support the notion of God's existence.

Then again, only a thinking and an open mind will arrive at the right conclusion, i.e the truth. For example, prize-winning US astronomer, Allan Sandage, "the world's greatest observational cosmologist", became a theist at age 50. "The world is too complicated in all its parts and interconnections to be due to chance alone." Read his essay, "A scientist reflects on religious belief".

Note: to reject the idea that the universe is the first uncaused cause even further: extrapolation of the expansion of the Universe backwards in time using general relativity yields an infinite density and temperature at a finite time in the past. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debated—certainly no closer than the end of the Planck epoch. This singularity can be considered the "birth" of our universe. Based on measurements of the expansion using Type Ia supernovae, measurements of temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background, and measurements of the correlation function of galaxies, the Universe has an estimated age of 13.8 billion years. An uncaused cause is eternal by definition, otherwise, it needs to have a beginning which would require a cause according to physical laws.

Sorry, but citing Kant, Aristotle, Aquinas and Psalms doesn't do it for me.

And, as to statements such as the Bible "has characteristics proving it to be of supernatural origin" or "He, being spirit, is not subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics," all I can do is shake my head.

But randomly conjecturing that the universe might be the first uncaused cause is fine for you, right? Not only does it contradict science itself, it defies common sense too. The intellectual dishonesty in this thread is palpable.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Or the near infinitely dense, massive point that spawned the Big-Bang was the natural end-point of a Black Hole

 

[Unicorny]

I feel as if the focal premise & argument of this thread has been lost amidst all the intellectual dishonesty, snide remarks, and general denial - and that's putting it really politely. As such, I'll re-cap and summarize it below:


Scientific findings

Cosmologists can calculate what they believe happened from the very earliest moments of the big bang, and can estimate the values of a range of cosmic constants and physical properties. There are scores of these numbers, but not all are independent. Physicist Paul Davies lists 13 constants and 12 derived quantities; cosmologist Martin Rees discusses six numbers, but as most of these are ratios of other numbers, his total comes to about a dozen.

It turns out that many of these numbers must lie within very narrow ranges, both now, and right back at the early stages of the big bang, for the universe to exist and form galaxies, stars and planets, and to provide the opportunity for complex life to appear.

A list of some of the most notable of these examples of "fine-tuning" (e.g. relating to the strength of the four fundamental forces, the mass of fundamental particles, etc) is at it looks like it was designed, so I will only describe two of the most amazing examples here.

The cosmological constant, or vacuum energy, is a major determining factor of whether the universe collapsed in on itself shortly after the big bang, or flew apart so fast that no matter coalesced into stars and planets, or is in a narrow range that allows a viable universe to form. Its value is obtained by subtracting two large cosmic forces, and theory suggested that it too would be large. But for the universe, stars & planets to exist, it must be very small. It turns out that the large forces cancel out accurately to 119 decimal places, yielding the required value. String theory "guru", Leonard Susskind says: "To make the first 119 decimal places of the vacuum energy zero is most certainly no accident."

Cosmologist and mathematician Roger Penrose once attempted to calculate the probability that chance allowed the initial state of the universe and its entropy to be exactly 'right' to allow it to still exist now. His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero. To put this number in perspective, balancing a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports does not even come close to describing an accuracy of one part in 10^10^123. Dumb luck or intentional design? Don't fool your intellect.

Which leads us to seek an explanation.

Possible explanations for fine-tuning


These apparent coincidences have led cosmologists to think hard about how this situation may have arisen. Eminent cosmologist Martin Rees lists four possible options - (a) coincidence, (b) providence, (c) an underlying theory of everything, or (d) an ensemble of universes (the multiverse). Let's look at these a little more:

Coincidence

There are some who argue that it just happened that way, and who maintain that mathematical probabilities are inapplicable to such an event as the big bang. But most cosmologists have rejected this option - the probabilities have been estimated by many and they are simply too large for most scientists to ignore them. (It is true that Victor Stenger has produced an enormously simplified computer model suggesting that the universe isn't all that improbable, but he doesn't seem to have persuaded many of his colleagues.)

In addition to the Penrose estimate, Lee Smolin says: ".... just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. ..... The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229." This is much much less than the probability of picking a given baryon out of the universe at random.

Providence

Science has been defined as dealing with things we can observe in the space-time universe, so the God option cannot be directly addressed by science. Many scientists dismiss the idea of God creating the universe, sometimes very strongly, while many others are theists. Although this may not represent his current view, Paul Davies wrote:

These rules look as if they are the product of intelligent design. I do not see how that can be denied. Whether you wish to believe they really have been so designed, and if so by what sort of being, must remain a matter of personal taste. ..... Although many metaphysical and theistic theories seem contrived or childish, they are not obviously more absurd than the belief that the universe exists, and exists in the form it does, reasonlessly.

An underlying theory

This would be the first and preferred choice of most scientists, because science tends to assume there are underlying reasons for things and searches for them. And it is certainly still the preferred option of many (e.g. I think Stephen Hawking holds this view). But there has been no success so far in finding an underlying reason, and it becomes almost a matter of faith rather than of science. Many cosmologists (e.g. Weinberg, Rees, Susskind, Davies) have concluded that the fine-tuned numbers are too disparate and unrelated to be based on an integrated theory, and gradually more of their colleagues are moving away from this view. Nevertheless, it remains possible, even if increasingly unlikely, that an underlying theory will be found.

The multiverse

This has probably become the most favoured option over the past decade. It overcomes the objection that the fine-tuning is too unlikely to have occurred by chance, by postulating that there is an extremely large number of universes or "domains " of the one universe, perhaps even an infinite number, all with different values of constants, and perhaps even different constants as well. Ours is one rare case where the universe allows life to appear. The mathematics has been done, and the multiverse is claimed to be consistent with cosmological theory. Leonard Susskind says multiple universes are "inevitable consequences" of known science.

The theory has been controversial. Martin Rees says: "These universes would never be directly observable, even in principle." Susskind: "The existence of other pocket universes remains a conjecture". For this reason, many scientists say the multiverse is pseudo science, "more like metaphysics than physics". But proponents believe if the theory behind the multiverse can be tested in other areas, it would give confidence that it may be correct where it cannot be tested.

But, as Davies has pointed out, if there are indeed multiple universes, then one still has to explain how a multi-universe "generator" came into existence, so finely tuned as to produce an array of universe with different characteristics. I find the multiverse hypothesis amazing. It requires us to believe that not just one universe came into existence for no reason, but that a universe generator capable of producing an enormous number of universes or domains appeared for no reason. It magnifies the problem of finding an explanation, not reduce it. Amazingly ridiculous that is.

Which explanation is right?

Scientific assessmentt

None of the four options listed above can currently be demonstrated by science, and perhaps never can be. Science is useless and helpless here.

God is the most likely answer

But it would be a mistake to consider God as an alternative to the scientific options. Rather, it is best to consider which is the best scientific option and then ask: "Which is more likely, that this should occur by chance or by God's design?"

Rejecting the multiverse nonsense leads us to two options: 1) God 2) Dumb luck. How did it come to be the way it is?

Be whatever type of universe we live in, it seems that it has to be extraordinarily special, and that cannot easily be explained by science. It requires either design by a God or coincidence almost beyond belief.

Or the near infinitely dense, massive point that spawned the Big-Bang was the natural end-point of a Black Hole

Another drop in the water theory among thousands others. It falls under the "Pink Flying Unicorns spawned the Big Bang while eating purple bananas" in terms of merit.

 

[Tigranes]

No. I try only to contradict what I think is false. I am human and I do err, but in this case you have not shown sufficient understanding of quantum mechanics and its interpretations to point out any errors to me.



Of course, I do. Neither statement is confirmed by quantum mechanics.

In reality, superpositions can never actually be observed - all we can see is the consequences of their existence, after individual waves of a superposition interfere with each other. Thus, we can never observe atom in its indeterminate state, or being in two places at once, only the resulting consequences, and physical reality is not determined until the act of measurement takes place and “solidifies” the situation into one state or another.

Part of the problem of observing and measuring superpositions is known as decoherence. Any attempt to measure or obtain knowledge of quantum superpositions by the outside world (or indeed any kind of interaction with their environment, even with just a single photon) causes them to decohere, effectively destroying the superposition and reducing it to a single location or state, and also destroying the ability of its individual states to interfere with each other. Decoherence, then, results in the collapse of the quantum wave function and the settling of a particle into its observed state under classical physics, its transition from quantum to classical behavior.

Decoherence is also the main reason that quantum theory really only applies in practice to the sub-atomic world: in the large-scale world in which we live, it is all but impossible to isolate anything from interaction with its environment, especially given the countless trillions of photons bouncing off every object all the time. Even an object made of just 60 atoms requires extreme cold to prevent it from becoming “classical” rather than "quantum". It is the interaction of quantum objects with the environment that produces what we understand as classical objects, such as cats and tables. Thus, in practice we never observe a quantum system directly; we only observe its effect on its environment.

 

[El_Machinae]

His answer was 1 chance in 10^10^123, a probability so small as to effectively be zero

Here's the problem. Everything you type after this is basically a waste of your time, because you've yet to deal with the main point nearly everyone has with your thesis.

Honestly, you're making a very simple mistake in logic here, and I'm kinda getting worried that you're intentionally not understanding. The rest of your rhetoric is kind is not really all that beneficial, since it's only going to convince someone who's made the same error you're making. I'm really not sure why you're being so stubborn here, how many people need to say "er, you're making a simple error" before you'll suspect that it's true?

Though saying the Mind is separate from Matter is new, I guess.

 

[Perfection]

But, as Davies has pointed out, if there are indeed multiple universes, then one still has to explain how a multi-universe "generator" came into existence, so finely tuned as to produce an array of universe with different characteristics. I find the multiverse hypothesis amazing. It requires us to believe that not just one universe came into existence for no reason, but that a universe generator capable of producing an enormous number of universes or domains appeared for no reason. It magnifies the problem of finding an explanation, not reduce it. Amazingly ridiculous that is.

Not particularly.

Task:
Write a program can construct a 500 character essay on how smart Perfection is.

Strategy one (Coincidence):
The programmer writes a 500 character essay on how smart Perfection is then has the program output it

Strategy two (Providence)
The programmer constructs an elaborate AI that performs Internet research on Perfection then analyzes his posts looking for things that are smart and then produces the essay

Strategy three (Multiverse/Underlying Theory)
The program simply outputs every possible combination of 500 characters over an incredibly long time.

In terms of ease of programming, strategy three is easier then one which is easier then two.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another drop in the water theory among thousands others. It falls under the "Pink Flying Unicorns spawned the Big Bang while eating purple bananas" in terms of merit.

I actually like the Black hole approach to the multi-verse problem because it only requires a single "source" subatomic "god-particle" to get the whole thing (multiverse) started.

If "our" big-bang resulted from the theoretical final stage of a completely collapsed-into-itself black hole... well that black hole would have to have originated as a star in a different universe, prior to becoming a black hole. And this prior Universe would have had many many stars and presumably many of its own black holes, each of which would have collapsed themselves into their own subatomic particles, which would then explode in big-bang events forming their own universes... thus the multiverse.

This process repeated over a long enough time would theoretically, just through "dumb luck" eventually result in a universe like the one we now enjoy.

And my favourite part is that the only "uncaused cause" needed to get the whole thing going is just one near-infinitely dense/massive subatomic particle to pop into existence from nothing... As opposed to needing the "uncaused" infinitely complex omnipotent superbeing to pop into existence from nothing...or worse... to have always existed in nothingness and then spontanseouly invented the universe based on ideas derived from timeless existence in nothingness.

At least the phenomenon of subatomic particles popping into existence from nothing has been proven (see also Discovery Channel's Steven Hawking series, Curiosity). I think its reasonable to apply Occam's Razor here and say that the uncaused 'god-particle' seems simpler than the uncaused God.

 

[Tigranes]

At least the phenomenon of subatomic particles popping into existence from nothing has been proven (see also Discovery Channel's Steven Hawking series, Curiosity). I think its reasonable to apply Occam's Razor here and say that the uncaused 'god-particle' seems simpler than the uncaused God.

From your link: Empty space—that is, space that contains nothing—no energy, no charge, no matter, nothing—is filled with a writhing, active population of virtual particles that physicists call “the quantum foam,” with bubbles appearing and popping in wild abandon. At the subatomic level, space is never truly empty.

Sommerswerd, you probably read this and said to yourself! There! Something can come out of nothing! But can't you immediately see the word "space"? The space-time itself had to be created, that's what Big Bang actually is -- Big Bang isn't considered as an explosion in space, but rather it was an explosion of space. Someone has to take credit for that! You need space before you need explosion in space.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. The earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. Earth means this material world we live in, heavens means spiritual world you enter after you die. Material world was formless and void, wait! void and yet Spirit of God was moving over the waters? Void ... and waters? Can we finally put Bible aside? Oh shoot, void means empty space while "waters" from 1st millennium BC sounds exactly like this foam of physical vacuum people talk about in 21 century AD! Lost another mortgage to ditech dot com

Have you actually spoken to any Nobel prize winners who "proved" the whole Big Bang (worst thing that happened to skeptics since 2nd Law of Thermodynamics)? I had. Dr. John Mather does not even like the very term "Big Bang", it is used for the lack of a better term, after extensive contest for a better phrase failed to produce something less definitive and yet descriptive. No matter how you slice it or dice it -- Somebody/something has to take credit even for empty space, which is not "nothing" in true meaning of the word.

 

[El_Machinae]

Naw, shamayim means sky.