Hypothetical: If we assume God does not exist, is theism unreasonable?

Debate Room
82

Ah, but you overlook the first phase in the Chronology of the Universe, Aluneth.

The Inflationary model doesn’t just apply to only the universe we can see, the observable universe. It’s not a one-off process. A once-and-done mechanism that inflates only one volume of space. Once begun inflation accelerates exponentially, generating volumes of space like our universe at an ever-increasing rate.

Because of the Cosmological Principle…

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia

…we cannot assume that universe was the first one to be inflated. If we did that we would be making our universe special and different from any others generated by inflation. This violates General Relativity, in which no particular location or time is any more special or different than any other. So, to satisfy GR and the CP we assume that there have been an untold number of universes generated by the inflationary process before ours was inflated and there will be an untold number of them generated after ours was inflated.

This ensemble of separate universes is a generic prediction of the Inflationary model. The popular name for such an ensemble is the Inflationary Multiverse.

Since inflation exponentially accelerates and the time it takes to inflate a single universe is of the order of billionths of a second the inflationary process has had time to inflate too many universes for us to count. If not an infinite amount, then an uncountably high number that is exponentially increasing as you read these words.

Given such a vast number of separate universes and given that its also a generic prediction of inflation that the conditions inside each one are decided only by random factors, what does this yield? It yields more life-friendly universes, with exactly the right conditions to support complex, multi-cellular life, than we can possibly count.

There really is no need to evoke a controlling mind or any kind of God to do this, Aluneth.

It’s just a function of the numbers. Toss a billion coins into the air for long enough and eventually they will all come down heads up. Keep doing this exercise for long enough and this will happen again and again again. All that’s need is sufficient time and sufficient opportunity.

The Inflationary model gives us just that.

An uncountable ensemble of universes where, eventually life-friendly universes arise and their number increases exponentially, keeping pace with the inflationary process itself. It’s all there in the currently accepted cosmological model. Which is why the Wiki Chronology of the Universe begins with Inflation.

No need for a mind, an intelligence or anything else to fine-tune the conditions for life. Just let Inflation run the numbers and it does so naturally - not supernaturally.

Thank you,

Walter.

1 Like
83

There’s no faith involved, Aluneth.

Because faith has no place and no role in science. Acceptance of something like the Inflationary Multiverse requires no faith - only a secular confidence in the evidence and what can reasonably and logically extrapolated from that evidence.

I don’t have to observe an exoplanet orbiting a star in a galaxy 10 billion light years away to believe that it exists. Nor do I have to have any kind of faith that it exists. Instead, based upon the evidence we have of the exoplanets we observe in our galaxy, the Milky Way, I can logically extrapolate that what holds good here must hold good there too.

That kind of extrapolation is the basis of all astronomy, astrophysics and cosmology.

Scientists apply the laws of physics as they observe them here on Earth to distant locations they can never visit. That’s how we can say with confidence what the chemical makeup of the stars is, without having to go to them.

Logical extrapolation from the evidence we can observe, applied to what we cannot observe.

No faith.

84

You seem focused on the local universe. Do you assert it is the only one? Do you assert that your “mess” could not have happened elsewhere?

85

…and the magic-believers stop there, failing to ask how this supposedly intelligent creator came about. “She’s always been there!” they shout, excitedly, “Isn’t that a miracle?” Now, a supreme magician does not solve any problems. If anything, it creates even more problems, like the problem of the origin of Her Magicianness. If you follow the logic of the magic fanboys, Her Magicianness should have been created from an even more magical and even more powerful sourceress, Her Magicianness+. And so on with Her Magicianness++, etc. This of course does not solve anything, because they might just as well skip a step and instead just say that the universe has always existed. “Always” is perhaps a misleading term here, but I don’t have any better words for it. If anyone have a better term, please step forward and announce it here. In any case, what I mean by “always” is what happen before the recombination era, back through the formation of atom nuclei, the formation of protons+neutrons+electrons, back through the hypothesised inflation era, all the way back to the apparent general relativity singularity condition. And then “before” this, to the hypythesised era of quantum gravity, when our understanding of space, time, and causality seems to break down as we know it, and “before”, “after”, and “every effect needs a cause” does not make sense in the classical understanding of the words. In such a scenario, “always” is both correct and misleading. Correct because it leads us back to the beginning of time as we know it, and misleading because “always” does not necessarily make sense in a an extremely high-energy quantum gravity dominated environment.

86

My main problem is that the accusation of irrationality for someone who attempted to do philosophy in good faith and was truly sincere in their hearts and minds, and tried to look wherever they could for the existence of God and truly tried to think about it seriously, is that it equates all intelligent philosophers to “gullible people hoping God will help them win the lottery after having spent thousands of dollars already.” I mean come on guys, it’s too harsh, but whatever.

Like, it seems obvious to me that rationality is likely a spectrum rather than an on and off switch; intent and state of mind do count in the calculus too.

87

The catch is Aluneth, doing philosophy in good faith is all very well.

But surely the starting pointing for any rational investigation into the nature of reality must start with the evidence?

If you had started there you would have discovered for yourself that modern cosmology does not say that the universe sprang into existence from nothing.

You shouldn’t have needed me to explain that to you.

You should have discovered that for yourself.

So why didn’t you start with the evidence?

88

The rationality that is demanded by science is not a spectrum.

It is an on / off switch.

You are either doing the science rationally or you aren’t.

That’s why all science papers submitted for publication are peer reviewed to see if they meet the necessary standard of reason and rationality. That’s why scientists the world over all agree to practice science in the same way, using the same methods and employing the same units of measurement. That’s why, when a scientist makes an observation, if what they observed cannot be reproduced by other scientists using the same methods, then their findings are called into doubt.

Science is therefore a self-regulating system of rational thought which applies to all scientists eveywhere.

Thanks,

Walter.

89
  1. A non-mind created the Universe under your worldview
  2. What created the thing that created the Universe? Still not a mind.
    What chose the constants and setup of the thing before it? Not a mind.

You have to accept brute facts.

It’s maybe a viable worldview model without God or a conscious intelligent mind, don’t get me wrong, but it isn’t the only one.

90

These are not brute facts.

They would be if these things could be observed.

But as I explained earlier - they cannot.

Inflation is not a brute fact of reality.

It is the logical extrapolation of scientific laws and is backed up by several strong lines of evidence.

91

Actually theism IS testable! If there is a God and he interacts with the world in some “paranormal” way that is outside of rational, science based logic, he should be able to be measured somehow using our best technologies. We have close to 98 percent pieces of evidence against the existence of God with only about a 2 percent margin for error. And the 2 percent is not looking very promising. If it’s that much of a difference, I’ll go with the majority of data results. The odds just don’t seem in God’s favor. Now if solid, reliable evidence appears in the future, I will admit to being wrong. It just doesn’t look like that’s going to happen.

92

You have to accept that there’s something and that it is there as something not caused by an intelligent mind. It’s fine; I held this view for years, and many intelligent people do. No matter how you try to spin it, you have to accept that the whole complex machinery we see today ended up existing and functioning without a mind behind it. It’s not necessarily absurd, of course, but many of us have doubts about it and find it hard to believe (unironically). Many intelligent people inferred a mind.

Science never said there was no mind.
I genuinely don’t see what’s so stupid about it, even if we turned out to be wrong to suspect there was a mind, nor why these theists should be put into the same bucket as weirdos who use tea leaves to know if the Earth is round or flat.

93

There was a physicist who tried to do it for your own curiosity; Victor J. Stenger, God: The Failed Hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist.

Pretty interesting and neat. He tried to disprove God or lower his probability of existing through empirical science. Kinda unique approach. Of course there are some criticisms, but I really liked reading it.

94

I’m a fan of Stenger although I do admit to playing “the Devil’s advocate” to some of his proposals. He could be wrong, not about the mythical God, but about some of his hypotheses. I found a few grey areas in a few of his theories and some confusion as to their wording. I think he could have been a bit more clearer about them. But I do side with the greater number of his theories. All I can say is if you read his last book GOD And The Multiverse, you better have a college degree in physics… it’s that complex! Being someone who lacks that kind of a degree, I choked on it!

95

The main problem is that he kinda only confirms the obvious…

There are very few believers, even among the most optimistic Pentecostal Christians who believe in literal flashy miracles in public happening all over the place and randomly today; very few deny that blatant flashy miracles are either rare or have prerequisites.

So, yes, they do agree it’s not common to see everyday people turn water into orange juice in front of a crowd by our thoughts; most of it happens through great faith, relationship with God, or unique divine interventions.

It’s epistemology that can pose heavy challenges to the rationality of believing, but empirical science like physics just confirms the obvious: we all knew it was kinda rare.

Most miracles are either a bit more subtle or are God working through natural causes.

96

What do you mean by “created”?

Also, you are seem to be assuming that the universe was an effect due to a cause. Please show that is so, keeping in mind the arguments about the breakdown of our understanding of spacetime and classical understanding of causality under conditions that require an understanding of quantum gravity (which we do not have, yet).

1 Like
97

How can you figure out whether a “miracle” happens through “God” or whether it is a natural phenomenon?

1 Like
98

Not necessarily a beginning, if you do assume an infinite eternal past for the Universe, an eternal multiverse, or an eternal whatever came before the Universe. I really liked the Steady State theory (now considered outdated or in heavy tension with our current understanding).
But a non-mind set the constants to the right things, and a non-mind sustained the process to then end up with the machinery we have today, and IT DIDN’T FAIL; it was able to create and sustain life. It’s possible to believe in; it’s a viable worldview, and some do.

Whether you are an optimist or a pessimist about how you view the world and our current Universe kinda affects things a lot, too.
If we believe the Universe is a mess and life isn’t that great, it makes it a bit easier to believe in no mind. If things are going well, and if someone sees it as well-ordered and miraculous, it’s really hard to not at least wonder and be curious about whether an intelligent mind was behind it or not.

99

For me, I don’t really think miracles exist in a literal way. They are kind of a linguistic convention, or the word people attach to things that might have happened through surprising means. God is behind everything, even the most “mundane” things. If someone turns a glass of water into orange juice by pointing a stick of wood at it, it’s not more miraculous than God letting the sun rise and set from a strict point of view, and from my perspective. It isn’t less “holy” for someone to walk on foot than to walk on water.

100

That’s a very anthropocentric view. The “how”: This corner of the universe, in this galaxy, and in this particular distance from our star and on our type of planet, is conducive for carbon-based self-replicating chemistry, a.k.a. life. This carbon-based life has evolved to fit into the existing environment. Which is not the same as the notion that our environment is homehow amazingly just perfect for life.

101

Firstly, are you using the royal “we”?

I do not think the universe is a mess. I do indeed think life is great. I do not accept as true any assertion that there is a “mind” that orchestrates either.