solja247 Wrote:People like Dawkins argue that something less complicated could of created the universe, because if God created the universe, then you have something even more compliacted than the universe...Thats what I mean with Occam's razor...

No I don't believe you understand Dawkins point. In essence Occam's Razor states that the hypothesis with the fewest number of assumptions is usually superior, most other things being equal. What Dawkins was arguing was that given the enormous number of assumptions you have to make for the God hypothesis (That he exists in a realm without what we call existence, that the realm itself exists, that he is an intelligence, that there is a mechanism which drives that intelligence - some sort of divine brain - that he is omnipotent, that there is a mechanism which allows omnipotence, that he is omniscient, that there is a mechanism which allowed omniscience, that omniscience and omnipotence can exist together, that there are other unknown laws which govern this realm, even without getting to the assumptions you need to make for Yahweh and Jesus the list could be a page long), applying Occam's Razor virtually any other hypothesis becomes superior. God by his very nature would be infinitely complex and thus infinitely unlikely.

Compare the god hypothesis to one where the Big Bang was caused by quantum fluctuations within the singularity which was the foetal universe. Considering the big bang's trigger mechanism would be found in a well known physical theory, Quantum Mechanics, the number of assumptions you need are far fewer and thus the probability of this answer being correct increases compared to "god did it". Dawkins wasn't arguing that something which is more complex than the universe cannot exist, or rather something more complex than out current understanding of the universe cannot exist, but that given the unfathomable complexity of god he is far more unlikely than any of the "natural" explanations.

Occam's razor does not exclude a multiverse hypothesis because there is real mathematical evidence which points to its existence.

Quote: Fine tuned not only for life but also elements, galaxies and stars. What would happen, if the universe consisted of the Sun, Earth and the moon? We shouldnt take a reductionists approach to the cosmos...

Again, if there are multiple universes, each one with its own laws of physics, its a virtual certainty that this exact universe with these exact laws of physics occurred. The reason we are in this one, observing it, is because we couldn't exist in one of the universes which wasn't conducive to life. No need to invoke god.

(September 23, 2010 at 4:16 am)socratation Wrote: Again, if there are multiple universes, each one with its own laws of physics, its a virtual certainty that this exact universe with these exact laws of physics occurred. The reason we are in this one, observing it, is because we couldn't exist in one of the universes which wasn't conducive to life. No need to invoke god.

How do you know if there are other universes at all?
I don't find that to be a good argument because maybe this is the only universe or maybe not.

(September 23, 2010 at 11:10 am)Rayaan Wrote: How do you know if there are other universes at all?
I don't find that to be a good argument because maybe this is the only universe or maybe not.

Er, he did put an 'if' there Rayaan

(September 23, 2010 at 11:10 am)Rayaan Wrote: How do you know if there are other universes at all?
I don't find that to be a good argument because maybe this is the only universe or maybe not.

We don't know if there are any, there are only reasons for suspecting that might be the case, namely due to a weird phenomenon seen in Quantum Mechanics during the double slit and other experiments. The best and most accurate understanding we have of the cause of this phenomenon at the moment comes from Richard Feynman - It's called Path integral formulation.

The theory essentially deals with the journey of a quantum structure from point A to B, and states that (because of the uncertainty principle) unlike other relativistic trajectories that can be traced as a single pathway from A to B, pathways in Quantum Mechanics are an expression of every possible path that could have been taken from A to B - of which there are an extremely large amount, with the most probable pathways occurring within a very narrow range - The combination of these pathways or 'probability amplitudes' accounts for both the motion of the particle (highly likely to be around the average of the range of amplitudes) and all of the interference that was experienced by the particle over the journey (caused by it's self) - The particle essentially took every single path at once.

If we take this principle into account and look from A to B, we see every possible journey that could happen, but the same applies looking backwards from B to A. If us here on this planet under these specific set of conditions ands values is B and the start of spacetime is A then looking back we can see that the journey from A to B has an extremely high probability amplitude (10^500 or more) This effectively means that 10^500 other occurrences happened from the very begging through to now, and we are only in one of the many many outcomes, likely one that only has a limited probability because of what we know of the goldilocks zones for universe formation, most would collapse immediately, many would expand too fast and a slight minority would have conditions such as the ones here.

M-theory is a more complete extension of this idea and it provides many more reasons for thinking that multiple-universes are the case, but this is just one of the reasons why we would expect there to be multiple universes.

M-Theory has a good change of being indicated or falsified in the coming decades, so it may not be long before we are able to know whether this idea can continue to predict experimental results into the future, or if it gets a prediction so wrong that it cannot be reconciled.

Oh, and by the way, what i just gave you in this short little post is more evidence indicating the existence of multiple universes than there ever has been indicating a God exists, just so you know.

Quote:Well first you have to prove design and you haven't. Then you need to show why it is mankind that is the object of the design and not black holes. What non theological evidence can you offer?

This universe is finely tuned for life, for stars, for black holes, for Hydrogen, for galaxies, for planets etc.

Quote:Second, scientists don't say that life or the universe arose by chance.

How did it arise? was it aliens?

---

Quote:Again, if there are multiple universes, each one with its own laws of physics, its a virtual certainty that this exact universe with these exact laws of physics occurred. The reason we are in this one, observing it, is because we couldn't exist in one of the universes which wasn't conducive to life. No need to invoke god.

You do actually.
What started the Multiverses to exist?

You can get rid of a Theistic God, but not a Deistic God...

---

Quote:No I don't believe you understand Dawkins point. In essence Occam's Razor states that the hypothesis with the fewest number of assumptions is usually superior, most other things being equal. What Dawkins was arguing was that given the enormous number of assumptions you have to make for the God hypothesis (That he exists in a realm without what we call existence, that the realm itself exists, that he is an intelligence, that there is a mechanism which drives that intelligence - some sort of divine brain - that he is omnipotent, that there is a mechanism which allows omnipotence, that he is omniscient, that there is a mechanism which allowed omniscience, that omniscience and omnipotence can exist together, that there are other unknown laws which govern this realm, even without getting to the assumptions you need to make for Yahweh and Jesus the list could be a page long)

I didnt get that from Dawkins, bit if he was trying to disprove the God hypothesis, by talking about a theistic God, it really begs the question, 'Should he be an atheist apologetist?' If he cant make the difference between a Deistic God and a Theistic God.

Quote:Compare the god hypothesis to one where the Big Bang was caused by quantum fluctuations within the singularity which was the foetal universe. Considering the big bang's trigger mechanism would be found in a well known physical theory, Quantum Mechanics, the number of assumptions you need are far fewer and thus the probability of this answer being correct increases compared to "god did it". Dawkins wasn't arguing that something which is more complex than the universe cannot exist, or rather something more complex than out current understanding of the universe cannot exist, but that given the unfathomable complexity of god he is far more unlikely than any of the "natural" explanations.

I keep on forgetting that we know so much about our universe. seriously we dont know anything about our universe! So why would we know what brought it into existence?

(September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm)solja247 Wrote: This universe is finely tuned for life, for stars, for black holes, for Hydrogen, for galaxies, for planets etc.

There is no evidence of any design as such that couldn't be explained with empirical evidence for a naturalistic explaination.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm)solja247 Wrote: How did it arise? was it aliens?

That is an excellent question. It's still a very open question for physicists and astronomers around the world.
The religious answer, however, I can guarentee, is as good as any that I can make up right now.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm)solja247 Wrote: I didnt get that from Dawkins, bit if he was trying to disprove the God hypothesis, by talking about a theistic God, it really begs the question, 'Should he be an atheist apologetist?' If he cant make the difference between a Deistic God and a Theistic God.

I'm not aware that Dawkins sees a difference between any god of any kind. I believe he's quite expressly stated that he does not believe in any god or that any god had anything to do with the universe or life.

And no, it doesn't 'beg the question.' That's a fallacy - one of that name, to that fact.

(September 23, 2010 at 5:43 pm)theVOID Wrote: We don't know if there are any, there are only reasons for suspecting that might be the case, namely due to a weird phenomenon seen in Quantum Mechanics during the double slit and other experiments. The best and most accurate understanding we have of the cause of this phenomenon at the moment comes from Richard Feynman - It's called Path integral formulation.

The theory essentially deals with the journey of a quantum structure from point A to B, and states that (because of the uncertainty principle) unlike other relativistic trajectories that can be traced as a single pathway from A to B, pathways in Quantum Mechanics are an expression of every possible path that could have been taken from A to B - of which there are an extremely large amount, with the most probable pathways occurring within a very narrow range - The combination of these pathways or 'probability amplitudes' accounts for both the motion of the particle (highly likely to be around the average of the range of amplitudes) and all of the interference that was experienced by the particle over the journey (caused by it's self) - The particle essentially took every single path at once.

If we take this principle into account and look from A to B, we see every possible journey that could happen, but the same applies looking backwards from B to A. If us here on this planet under these specific set of conditions ands values is B and the start of spacetime is A then looking back we can see that the journey from A to B has an extremely high probability amplitude (10^500 or more) This effectively means that 10^500 other occurrences happened from the very begging through to now, and we are only in one of the many many outcomes, likely one that only has a limited probability because of what we know of the goldilocks zones for universe formation, most would collapse immediately, many would expand too fast and a slight minority would have conditions such as the ones here.

M-theory is a more complete extension of this idea and it provides many more reasons for thinking that multiple-universes are the case, but this is just one of the reasons why we would expect there to be multiple universes.

M-Theory has a good change of being indicated or falsified in the coming decades, so it may not be long before we are able to know whether this idea can continue to predict experimental results into the future, or if it gets a prediction so wrong that it cannot be reconciled.

Oh, and by the way, what i just gave you in this short little post is more evidence indicating the existence of multiple universes than there ever has been indicating a God exists, just so you know.

Thanks for explaining that. You're quite knowledgeable.

I also read in a book about the idea of cosmological natural selection where black holes give rise to new universes and the most successful ones survive. Or something like that. (?)

Still, I don't think that understanding how the universe came into existence or how it works automatically means that there is a less chance of a God existing. Why? Because maybe He just made everything comprehensible like that. And if a theory like M-theory (or S-theory or P-theory or whatever it may be) is true, then I feel that there has to be something much more intelligent which would be able to think of such a powerful concept and to put it to work in the first place, and then even be successful at creating beings who would try to understand the reason for their own existence. Maybe it took a lot of tries to create us but it still worked. Or maybe there was a 100% chance that we would be created one day or another. And if so, then this would imply that all the laws of physics were aimed at creating life for a purpose.

(September 23, 2010 at 9:40 pm)solja247 Wrote: I keep on forgetting that we know so much about our universe. seriously we dont know anything about our universe! So why would we know what brought it into existence?

Good. Now at least you admit that much. Now can we go further and admit that at the same time as we don't know "anything" about our universe we couldn't possibly know anything about something even more complex that shows no signs of even existing? eg god.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:39 am)Rayaan Wrote: Thanks for explaining that. You're quite knowledgeable.

I try, difficult concepts to grasp to be sure.

Quote:I also read in a book about the idea of cosmological natural selection where black holes give rise to new universes and the most successful ones survive. Or something like that. (?)

Something like that, but it's not a good argument as there is no evidence of such a thing happening.

Quote:Still, I don't think that understanding how the universe came into existence or how it works automatically means that there is a less chance of a God existing. Why? Because maybe He just made everything comprehensible like that.

That's not why it's less probable, it's becauase there are many more individual concepts that are attributed to god than those necessary for a naturalistic explanation. god is essentially the oposite of everything we have reason to believe exists: He is a mind without a brain for one, a concept alone that is in stark contradiction with everything we know about mind.

Quote: And if a theory like M-theory (or S-theory or P-theory or whatever it may be) is true, then I feel that there has to be something much more intelligent which would be able to think of such a powerful concept and to put it to work in the first place,

Your feelings have nothing to do with the truth.

Look at it this way: God is a mind, a personality, the examples of which we have are the most complex systems in the known universe - The bare minimum requirements for a mind are many times more specific than the requirements for the basic constituents of the universe - This means that a mind is many times more unlikely to exist than energy and law.

Most theists suppose God has a mind of a different nature, the evidence and necessity for which is nil, making the assumption entirely unfounded.

Quote:Maybe it took a lot of tries to create us but it still worked

So you think it possible that there exists a god who can't get it right the first time?

Quote:Or maybe there was a 100% chance that we would be created one day or another.

We have no reason to think this is the case.

Quote: And if so, then this would imply that all the laws of physics were aimed at creating life for a purpose.

An omnipotent being could create life in a far more efficient manner. Do you believe in an inefficient god?

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: That's not why it's less probable, it's becauase there are many more individual concepts that are attributed to god than those necessary for a naturalistic explanation.

A naturalistic explanation would ultimately lead to something which doesn't require anymore explanation because that is the source of explanation for everything else. That's why God doesn't have to be so complex. He could be so simple that it's beyond our grasp to understand His true nature. The simplest thing could also be the greatest and the most mysterious thing you can ever imagine (or can't imagine).

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: god is essentially the oposite of everything we have reason to believe exists: He is a mind without a brain for one, a concept alone that is in stark contradiction with everything we know about mind.

We can't understand the mind of God. Maybe it can exist all by itself without needing a brain like we do.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: Your feelings have nothing to do with the truth.

It's more than just feelings.
It's a combination of faith + reason + intuition - the evidence only.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: Look at it this way: God is a mind, a personality, the examples of which we have are the most complex systems in the known universe - The bare minimum requirements for a mind are many times more specific than the requirements for the basic constituents of the universe - This means that a mind is many times more unlikely to exist than energy and law.

Most theists suppose God has a mind of a different nature, the evidence and necessity for which is nil, making the assumption entirely unfounded.

Not just a mind, but God is a law itself for the entire universe, a law for all the other laws of nature.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: So you think it possible that there exists a god who can't get it right the first time?

I don't know the answer to that, but it's possible that He gave the universe some kind of a self-organizational intelligence to ultimately sort out everything by itself to finally bring out the result which He had planned for. Yet again, maybe He could've done it the first time if He wanted to.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: We have no reason to think this is the case.

Agreed.

(September 24, 2010 at 12:53 pm)theVOID Wrote: An omnipotent being could create life in a far more efficient manner. Do you believe in an inefficient god?

No, I believe in a perfectly efficient God. It's only that the universe if innefficient in certain ways. I don't know why He made it like that. However, God reveals His perfection in the universe by bringing order out of chaos. You'll notice that fine tuning has happened through different levels: First, the laws of physics were fine tuned, then the the laws of chemistry were fine tuned, and then the laws of biology were fine tuned to create life. So, each level of fine-tuning is an unfolding of God's ultimate perfection. Maybe the laws of physics were the most costly to fine-tune since there's a greater number of possible parameters to choose from than the laws of biology and chemistry.