Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Either I failed to clearly articulate the argument or you have missed it. One of the main points was that the atheist who claims that existence has always been is just as guilty of short-circuiting explanation as the theist who ends all discussion with the dismissive 'goddunnit' proclamation.

One points to an perpetually self-reliant, non-personal enti ...[text shortened]... , in the end we finally agree. That's exactly what I've been saying about the atheist.

Either I failed to clearly articulate the argument or you have missed it. One of the main points was that the atheist who claims that existence has always been is just as guilty of short-circuiting explanation as the theist who ends all discussion with the dismissive 'goddunnit' proclamation.

That's what I wanted: at the very least, equal guilt. This levels the playing field, removes the double-standard, and puts the onus on the theist to start trying to explain the origins of their god, just as the atheist is expected to account for the origins of the universe. I assume we can now strike your "atheism is rotten to the core" statement from the record, or amend it to say "atheism and theism are rotten to the core". I disagree with both statements, but there you go.

But wait, this kumbaya moment surely cannot endure...

One points to an perpetually self-reliant, non-personal entity while the other points to a perpetually existent, personal causal agent as the source of existence.

There isn't much different between the two, really. The point of contention is your adjective "personal". This feeling theists have that somehow there's someone "out there" who "cares" for them and thinks they're "special" and has a "plan" for them -- as well as has the blueprints for all of reality -- that's the issue. In essence, the theist argument is that the bedrock of reality -- the source of all things -- is Thought. But thought is by its nature a complexly ordered process -- "complex" meaning it has many components that need to work in harmony, and "ordered" meaning that the arrangement of those components for their proper functioning is highly specific and cannot be easily come by through chance. Why would such an entity come first, and simpler things like humans come later? It's upside-down logic.

So, your position is that conscious Thought came "first" and spawned all else "later," which (aside from being upside-down) is very linear thinking that reveals two things: you're conferring to reality qualities like thought and a personality much like you yourself possess; and, you're insisting that reality work in accordance to a strict, linear, absolute temporal frame of reference (a single straight timeline) much as you and I live in. These are highly anthropocentric positions that don't admit to even known weirdnesses such as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and particle/wave duality. Possibilities of higher and alternate states of dimensionality don't even register on your radar. Do you know what "time" is defined to be? Have you thought about the implications of, say, a fourth spatial dimension? Do you think that just because you can't envision a 4th dimension, then it cannot exist? Conceptually the idea of a 4th dimension is very simple and the mathematics easily derived.

One is both the thing and the thing which causes itself, while the other is outside of the thing and has no cause. Both take upon themselves (pardon the expression) God-like properties. Therefore, your contention that the former is more plausible than the latter sounds more like wishful thinking than thinking itself. There is no God... but existence has pretty much the same properties as God, except it is internally contradictory.

No, the multiverse I'm on about is not something which "causes" itself. It's just a term for the totality of all universes, and we can't even talk about these universes as existing "concurrently" or "in succession," because as I've said before universes are (dimensionally as well as thermodynamically) closed systems which contain energy and make it possible for events to occur. Universes themselves don't exist "inside" of something larger. That strikes to the heart of what dimensionality means. Just as virtual particles are known to spontaneously pop in and out of existence at the quantum level, universes themselves, which could be thought of as particles, could do the same. It's a natural extension of a known quantum mechanical phenomenon. There are ways, I believe, that a substance called "thought" could come into all of this -- not as a cause, however; merely an effect. If you want a contradiction, I suggest you gaze at your word string here: "while the other is outside of the thing and has no cause". Right, so, "outside of the thing" where?

One cannot soundly reject the beginning, and only a fool would resort to endless waves of existence as an explanation for a.) existence; and b.) the rise of man.

Only a fool would ascribe to reality qualities of existence consonant with his immediate surroundings. The idea of a "beginning" to all of reality, for instance, is problematic and leads to all sorts of paradoxes that a god, however omnipotent, cannot fix. It denies higher and alternate dimensionality on its face, which is absurd, because even the meager mind of man can conceive of such things mathematically, and what is mathematically plausible stands a chance of being physically so. Space bends and time warps, according to the equations of Einstein; and since those equations were conceived they've been corroborated by experimental observation. The same goes for quantum mechanics, which is even stranger and allows for spontaneous creation and destruction.

Speaking of time, I'm out of it at the moment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Limitless universes? That's all it takes? Huh. Given the statistical boundaries of improbability of life just on this planet, I am wondering what yardstick you're using for all of these other ones. One in a Graham's cracker?

All-powerful and all-knowing god? That's all it takes? Huh.

Limitless merely means unbounded, which means the number of universes it to be thought of as being arbitrarily large. I think the probability of this is 1.00.

And the probabilities of life arising on this planet is another debate altogether.

Originally posted by Soothfast

Who says God exists outside of time? What is true of God is that, if time had a beginning, He existed when time did not. But that doesn't mean God exists "outside" time.

You theists are a diverse bunch. I've heard the "outside time" proposal at least a dozen times from others. I tip my hat to you if you don't put much store by it.

and (stooping still lower) Glenn Beck.

...if there is one universe, it stands to reason there are others.

Let's see how your logic stands up: (1) Our universe exists, (2) therefore many universes exist. How does that seem reasonable to you?

Certainly the universe is "fine-tuned" to support human life, but there's nothing to say there can't be a broad spectrum of different "settings" for physical laws and physical constants that would be conducive to intelligence life of a different (i.e. non-human) variety. You're right there on shaky ground.

Actually, I believe the universe is fine-tuned for life, not human life in particular.

As for God? Hey -- where is that ol' God, anyway? We're still stuck with the reality that there have been precisely zero "god sightings" in the empirically verifiable record books, so the whole concept could easily be a bust.

You seem to be stuck in the past, philosophically speaking. The verification principle has gone the way of the dodos due to a small matter of its being self-refuting. After all, how does one empirically verify that only what is empirically verifiable is factual and meaningful?

It's known already that one universe exists, and it would truly be odd, I think, if there weren't others.

I would find it odd if there were other universes. The existence of other universes is not something one expects to find, given the known universe.

The thing is, a God goes against the grain of natural processes in which simplicity gradually gives way to complexity. God would be the Ultimate Complex System, giving rise to relatively simple things like universes, stars, toilet germs, and (stooping still lower) Glenn Beck.

Where did you get the idea that God is complex?

Originally posted by Soothfast

As I said, it is not a serious objection. There is no evidence of a multiverse. The idea of a "beginning" to physical reality in modern physics is alive and well.

The Big Bang is alive and well as the beginning of time for this universe, but if there are other universes there is no way to "compare" their timelines, because differ ...[text shortened]... ther forms of intelligent life that could exist in seemingly unlivable universes).

And again, the "fine-tuning" argument could be nothing more than a symptom of our anthropocentrism (i.e. our inability to conceive of other forms of intelligent life that could exist in seemingly unlivable universes).

Cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with human existence, and, for that matter, neither does the fine-tuning argument for God's existence. It has everything to do with the precisely tuned nature of physical reality and why it is the way it is.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]...if there is one universe, it stands to reason there are others.

Let's see how your logic stands up: (1) Our universe exists, (2) therefore many universes exist. How does that seem reasonable to you?

Certainly the universe is "fine-tuned" to support human life, but there's nothing to say there can't be a broad spectrum of differ ...[text shortened]... wer) Glenn Beck.

Again, where did you get the idea that God is complex?[/b]

Let's see how your logic stands up: (1) Our universe exists, (2) therefore many universes exist. How does that seem reasonable to you?

Yes, absolutely, though you've distorted what I said. I'll have another go, then:

There exists one solar system. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there are other solar systems. Status: confirmed

Earth has life. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there are other planets that have life. Status: not confirmed

There exists one universe. Therefore it is entirely reasonable to suppose that there could be other universes. Status: not confirmed

Of course, this is not all an exercise in pure logic. There's physics to consider, and what seems "more likely" physically. Before other solar systems were discovered one could wonder if there were no other solar systems; but then there would be the thorny question as to why physical processes allowed one solar system to come into being, and no others.

Why should there be one universe? If one managed to be born, what mystical process should prevent others from being born? Can you think of any reasonable answer to that? Do you suppose there just isn't any more "room" for another universe "next door" to ours? But that's absurd, because there is no space in which the universe is situated, so the "room" available for other universes must be no less given the existence of this universe than there would be available if there were no universe. There's naught for this universe to take away from on the "outside" on account of it being here.

Actually, I would claim the opposite: that the universe is fine-tuned for life, not human life in particular.

How do you know this? We don't know much about what forms life can take in this universe, much less others.

The vastness of our cosmos doesn't negate the fine-tuning factor. Physical laws and cosmological constants don't vary from one end of the universe to the other. You'll still need an explanation for why the universe is the way it is.

You still seem to be oblivious to what I'm saying. If there exists large numbers of universes -- and we cannot rule it out -- then it stands to reason that they are not going to be identical. Why should they? Natural laws are confined, by definition, to realms of dimensionality where a "natural world" can take shape. No theoretical physics that I'm aware of has come up with a set of equations that demands that alternate universes must be identical. Quite the contrary, actually. And so, if there are indeed a large number of alternate universes that are different, it is statistically inevitable that one will come about that is tuned to support life. To me this is a very natural stochastic process, very natural. Just keep throwing darts at a board, and you'll eventually hit the bull's eye. It's only a matter of having quite a lot of darts.

I haven't yet addressed your complaint from earlier that I seem to be changing physical laws in this universe to suit my needs. I am not. The earliest moments of the universe, however, are theorized to be quite a bit different from what we see today. There was a "grand unified force" that no longer exists today (mediated by the Higgs boson, if I'm not mistaken). Before even a second had elapsed since the Big Bang, however, the unified force had cracked apart (like ice thrown into hot water, say) into the four forces we know today, with different mediating bosons (wee lil' force particles) and more conventional forms of matter. In essence the laws of physics were changing and settling down to a stable state in the earliest instant of the universe's youth. There are some theories rattling around that some cosmic constants may vary slightly and such, but none have been corroborated by observation that I know of.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]And again, the "fine-tuning" argument could be nothing more than a symptom of our anthropocentrism (i.e. our inability to conceive of other forms of intelligent life that could exist in seemingly unlivable universes).

Cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with human existence, and, for that matter, neither does the fine-tuning argumen ...[text shortened]... ything to do with the precisely tuned nature of physical reality and why it is the way it is.[/b]

If you're going to insist on asking the cosmological equivalent of "Why's the sky blue?" I'm just going to have to answer with "Because blue is the color of the sky."

Originally posted by Soothfast

Let's see how your logic stands up: (1) Our universe exists, (2) therefore many universes exist. How does that seem reasonable to you?

Yes, absolutely, though you've distorted what I said. I'll have another go, then:

There exists one solar system. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there are other solar systems. Status: con but none have been corroborated by observation that I know of.

But that's absurd, because there is no space in which the universe is situated, so the "room" available for other universes must be no less given the existence of this universe than there would be available if there were no universe.

What do you imagine these other universe are situated in if not space? In the vacuum fluctuation model, for instance, the universe is conceived as one long-lived quantum particle among many arising prior to Plank time in a primordial vacuum—i.e., empty space. And, of course, there are many problems with the notion of a beginningless vacuum spawning an indefinite number of universes. One of those difficulties being that, given an infinite past, every point in the primordial vacuum would have already birthed a universe, and each of those universes would have already expanded infinitely, colliding with each other. In which case we should be observing an infinitely old universe rather than a relatively young one.

Which brings up a separate point: the inability of the various multiverse models (e.g., the chaotic inflationary model) to escape the absolute beginning predicted by the standard Big Bang model. Even positing, as you have, the possibility that our universe is one of many, merely pushes back the absolute beginning another step. The question remains: if the universe (or primordial vacuum) is not infinitely old, then what caused it?

Originally posted by Soothfast
If you're going to insist on asking the cosmological equivalent of "Why's the sky blue?" I'm just going to have to answer with "Because blue is the color of the sky."

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? On the one hand, you're attempting to explain away the fine-tuning of our universe by invoking an indefinitely populated multiverse, and on the other (your most recent post), you're dismissing fine-tuning as if it is of no significance whatsoever. Which is it? Is it something that needs to be explained (by your multiverse), or is it something that shouldn't be questioned (e.g., the sky is blue because blue is the color of the sky) ???

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Actually, I believe the universe is fine-tuned for life, not human life in particular.

Do you have reasons for that belief other than religious ones?

I personally do not believe it is fine tuned for life. I however do not have any evidence either way, so my belief is based on Occam's razor.

Originally posted by Soothfast

Let's see how your logic stands up: (1) Our universe exists, (2) therefore many universes exist. How does that seem reasonable to you?

Yes, absolutely, though you've distorted what I said. I'll have another go, then:

There exists one solar system. Therefore it is entirely plausible that there are other solar systems. Status: con but none have been corroborated by observation that I know of.

How do you know this? We don't know much about what forms life can take in this universe, much less others.

Life is life, whatever form it takes. Anyway, you're the one who said the universe was fine-tuned for life, I was just agreeing with you, remember?

You still seem to be oblivious to what I'm saying.

No, I'm not. It's not hard to understand the evolutionary principle applied to an infinite array of universes—of course it is highly probable that at least one of the many purported universes will be thermodynamically suited for life. So? The problem here is, you're attacking one argument (i.e., the anthropic principle) while I'm defending another (i.e., the teleological argument) which involves cosmic fine-tuning, which is decidedly different than the anthropic principle (though similar). Frankly, I'm not sure you understand the difference between the two.

The anthropic principle is regarding fine-tuning for life, while the cosmic fine-tuning which cosmologists and physicists wrestle with goes something like this: YouTube

Originally posted by twhitehead
Do you have reasons for that belief other than religious ones?

I personally do not believe it is fine tuned for life. I however do not have any evidence either way, so my belief is based on Occam's razor.

Paul Davies, in his book, The Mind Of God: A Scientific Basis For A Rational World, does an excellent job presenting this issue. It is his book that convinced me (apart from my religious faith) that fine-tuning for life is a legitimate consideration:

"...we find that the force of gravity combined with the thermodynamical and mechanical properties of hydrogen gas are such as to create large numbers of balls of gas. These balls are large enough to trigger nuclear reactions, but not so large as to collapse rapidly into black holes. In this way, stable stars are born. Many large stars die in spectacular fashion by exploding as so-called supernovae. Part of the explosive force derives from the action of one of nature's most elusive subatomic particles—the neutrino. Neutrinos are almost entirely devoid of physical properties: the average cosmic neutrino could penetrate many light-years of solid lead. Yet these ghostly entities can still, under the extreme conditions near the center of a dying massive star, pack enough punch to blast much of the stellar material into space. This detritus is richly laced with heavy elements of the sort from which planet Earth is made. We can thus attribute the existence of terrestrial-like planets, with their huge variety of material forms and systems, to the qualities of a subatomic particle that might never have been discovered, so feeble is its action. The life cycles of stars provide just one example of the ingenious and seemingly contrived way in which the large-scale and small-scale aspects of physics are closely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature." ~ The Mind Of God, pp. 196-197

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Paul Davies, in his book, The Mind Of God: A Scientific Basis For A Rational World, does an excellent job presenting this issue. It is his book that convinced me (apart from my religious faith) that fine-tuning for life is a legitimate consideration:

"...we find that the force of gravity combined with the thermodynamical and mechanical ...[text shortened]... ely intertwined to produce complex variety in nature." ~ The Mind Of God, pp. 196-197

Fine-tuning for life can only be a legitimate consideration in those places where beings exist who can consider such things. Wouldn't the apparent scarcity of places like that, support the idea that the universe is not fine-tuned, is the legitimate consideration?

Life is apparently what happens when certain chemicals occur in certain environments. In those places where this happens, there is life. For all we know, a universe where this does not happen anywhere, is the universe that would require fine-tuning. Life has no specials status in this regard, relative to its polar opposite. Concerning a universe where there is no life, one could say "Wow, that universe is fine-tuned against the occurrence of life."

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? On the one hand, you're attempting to explain away the fine-tuning of our universe by invoking an indefinitely populated multiverse, and on the other (your most recent post), you're dismissing fine-tuning as if it is of no significance whatsoever. Which is it? Is it something that needs to be explained (by your ...[text shortened]... that shouldn't be questioned (e.g., the sky is blue because blue is the color of the sky) ???

I simply do not understand how you can be still missing the point. If universes are multiple in nature and can each have their own different cosmological constants and physical laws, then statistically, in the "long run" (though there is no absolute time frame here), all possible combinations of physical laws and "cosmological constant settings" will be realized. The fine-tuning is not infinitely fine, after all. Extremely minute changes to the laws of physics and the values of cosmological constants would result in approximately the same kind of universe as we have here. So there is a "range" of values with measurable width that can be aimed at, and sooner or later a universe will come into being that will hit within this range. The only required ingredient is that we not cling to some odd notion that there must be some mystical maximum number of universes that reality can stomach. That would suggest there is some kind of "wall" out there that only admits seating for x many universes at a time. (But my argument doesn't even depend on x being infinite. We only need x to be a very large integer.)

You're completely misapprehending the very meaning of dimensionality. You're taking your mundane three-dimensional preconceptions of space and linear notion of time and trying to apply them to completely different animals. This is wholly evident from the things you're saying, up to and including an insistence on a beginning to reality. There is no "time" where there is no dimensionality, because time is a dimension. We cannot let our meager abilities to comprehend other dimensions or zero dimensions deter us from further investigating the nature of reality and fashioning mathematical models that theorize about its properties. Time and again in physics a purely mathematical model has turned out to be correct, even when it seemed utterly absurd and counterintuitive (as was the case for quantum mechanics). So, why say "NO" to a multiverse? Huh. I say let's check it out. If it provides an alternative to inventing a god, which has no connection whatsoever with the body of known physics, then the honest intellect should be prepared to entertain it seriously. Anything that extrapolates known physics rather than breaks with it is preferable. Maybe god will be the final answer, but not until we've run out of alternate theories that can be constructed mathematically using known physics as the axioms.

I dismiss the "fine-tuning" argument precisely because the simplest explanation is that our universe is not unique; that is, there exists a multitude of different universes that each are different from the other, and so one of them is bound to be "fine-tuned" for human life. What in the world is so difficult to grasp about this point? I'm not saying you have to believe it, just understand it. I've said it something like three times already.

It is not unreasonable to suppose there could be other universes, given there is one universe, just as it's not unreasonable to suppose there are other planets in the galaxy, given there is at least one planet. Real simple, man. And then you accuse me of being ridiculous?

By the way, I find it curious that, on the one hand, you're so dismissive of so many of the theories of modern physics -- including the multiverse concept -- yet, at the same time, you've really latched on to the ol' "fine-tuning" idea. Cherry-pick to substantiate your pre-conceived faith much? Not a great approach for a philosophy student, I gotta say...

Originally posted by JS357
Fine-tuning for life can only be a legitimate consideration in those places where beings exist who can consider such things. Wouldn't the apparent scarcity of places like that, support the idea that the universe is not fine-tuned, is the legitimate consideration?

Life is apparently what happens when certain chemicals occur in certain environments. In those ...[text shortened]... is no life, one could say "Wow, that universe is fine-tuned against the occurrence of life."

I agree with you.

The fine-tuning argument is specious because it almost certainly reflects our lack of imagination concerning what environmental conditions life can arise in. I didn't even mention this enormously important point in my previous post, though I did mention it a couple pages back. (Epiphinehas blithely ignored it, of course -- can't let logic get in the way of a good argument, or in this case more of a stalling tactic featuring a blizzard of questions for me and no answers from him.)

EDIT: That is, I mentioned earlier the specific point about the possibility of life of a different sort arising in universes tuned differently. I didn't phrase it so nicely as you or bring up the possibility that it is the universe that harbors no life that is the unlikely sort of universe.

Originally posted by epiphinehas

Life is life, whatever form it takes. Anyway, you're the one who said the universe was fine-tuned for life, I was just agreeing with you, remember?

Dude. "Life is life"? You can't be a philosophy student. Or maybe you can. You can only be distorting what I'm saying on purpose to cover your tracks. If my post above doesn't make my position clear and you continue to misrepresent my position, then I'm through with you.