Questions for the moral atheist

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]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 ins ...[text shortened]... n remains: if the universe (or primordial vacuum) is not infinitely old, then what caused it?[/b]

What you're doing here is what the theoretical physicists are doing. There's lots of different multiverse models, as you say, and there's problems associated with each. That's always the way it's been in science. The refinements and experimental data will take time to catch up.

It almost looks like you're clinging to a God simply so he's there to flip the "on" switch for Time and/or a Vacuum. Gotta be a boring job.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH

• If everything ultimately must be explained by the laws of physics and chemistry, what is a moral value (does it have mass, occupy space, hold a charge, have wavelength)?

Natural philosophy leaves why-questions to metaphysics; yours is not a fruitful line of enquiry.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
The question remains: if the universe (or primordial vacuum) is not infinitely old, then what caused it?

I'm still waiting to read your thesis about why you think God fixes the problem. Near as I can tell theists are just "defining away" the problem with an argument that goes like this: "God explains the beginning of creation because God is the Beginning." Tell me how this isn't the essence of the argument.

Originally posted by Soothfast
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 r ...[text shortened]... ch? Not a great approach for a philosophy student, I gotta say...

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.

Again, Soothfast, I have not misunderstood your argument. Let me quote from my last post to demonstrate: "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." Let's move on, shall we?

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.

No, that's not true. The Vaccum Fluctuation Model presupposes a primordial vacuum wherein quantum fluctuations give birth to mini-universes, according with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Do you have a different conception of what your multiverse is birthed in? If so, I'm all ears. Many physicists hold to the Chaotic Inflationary Model, if you'd like to discuss that.

So, why say "NO" to a multiverse? Huh. I say let's check it out.

First off, the multiverse idea strikes me as an all too convenient solution to the fine-tuning problem. Multiverse hypothesis are, at best, exercises in metaphysics lacking any corroborating data. Worse still, they don't even succeed at escaping their own internal metaphysical flaws. As I said before, God is a much simpler solution, and to be preferred, if not to other naturalistic explanations, at least to multiverse hypothesis. That said, I'm all for scientists investigating the existence of other universes. Why not?

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.

Let's not get carried away and start assuming that the evidence is not entirely in the corner of just one unique universe.

That said, I understand how you've extrapolated a multiverse based on our past ignorance of other galaxies and solar systems besides are own. Again, not hard to comprehend. And you may be right. It is entirely possible that we just can't detect the presence of other universes yet. So? The fact is, multiverse hypothesis each possess fatal metaphysical flaws—if the hypothesis themselves cannot even stand on their own, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you contend that multiverse hypothesis are serious objections to the fine-tuning problem?

And then you accuse me of being ridiculous?

You still haven't clarified your position on fine-tuning. Is cosmic fine-tuning a problem that legitimate scientists are contending with, that your multiverse hypothesis was invented to explain away? Or, is cosmic fine-tuning something akin to asking, why is the sky blue? Let me quote my recent post:

"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) ???"

Do not avoid this question. I'm enjoying our discussion and would like to get into it in more depth. However, if you can't demonstrate an understanding of core concepts, I don't see how we can continue. So, please, clarify your position.

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.

Again, fine-tuning is the only reason you're conceptualizing a multiverse to begin with! If anything, you—like the scientific community in general—have latched onto the ol' fine-tuning idea as much as I have. Did you watch the youtube link I provided? If not, it was Roger Penrose, of Hawking-Penrose Singularity Theorem fame, talking about the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of our cosmos. It's worth a look, and it just might help you understand the fact that cosmic fine-tuning is not something invented by theists.

Originally posted by Soothfast
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.

I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me any malicious intent. I took your earlier statement, "It [a multiverse] supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life," to mean that you endorsed the idea that the universe appears fine-tuned for life in particular.

Originally posted by Soothfast
What you're doing here is what the theoretical physicists are doing. There's lots of different multiverse models, as you say, and there's problems associated with each. That's always the way it's been in science. The refinements and experimental data will take time to catch up.

It almost looks like you're clinging to a God simply so he's there to flip the "on" switch for Time and/or a Vacuum. Gotta be a boring job.

The refinements and experimental data will take time to catch up.

Until then, it is eminently more reasonable to accept the standard Big Bang model, which, by contrast, is overwhelmingly corroborated by the evidence and an internally consistent theory by itself.

Originally posted by Soothfast
I'm still waiting to read your thesis about why you think God fixes the problem. Near as I can tell theists are just "defining away" the problem with an argument that goes like this: "God explains the beginning of creation because God is the Beginning." Tell me how this isn't the essence of the argument.

I'm glad you asked. Let's discuss the Kalam version of the cosmological argument.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) the universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I would appreciate it if you didn't ascribe to me any malicious intent. I took your earlier statement, "It [a multiverse] supplies a ready explanation for why this particular universe seems so well-suited to life," to mean that you endorsed the idea that the universe is fine-tuned for life in particular.

Point taken.

Edit: I do have a habit of sounding adversarial and even being adversarial. I'll try to relax a little more. 😉

Originally posted by epiphinehas
[b]The refinements and experimental data will take time to catch up.

Until then, it is eminently more reasonable to accept the standard Big Bang model, which, by contrast, is overwhelmingly corroborated by the evidence and an internally consistent theory by itself.[/b]

The Big Bang model has nothing to say about what brought about the Big Bang or the existence of other universes that arose from other big bangs in other dimensions. Therefore, the notion of a multiverse does not run afoul of the model.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm glad you asked. Let's discuss the Kalam version of the cosmological argument.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) the universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

Caws a chorus of crows: And the cause has a cause, has a cause, has a cause ...

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm glad you asked. Let's discuss the Kalam version of the cosmological argument.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) the universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

Okey dokey, boss. Well and good. Now, it's time for God to start explaining to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury just where he was on the night of T=-1 Planck time.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Now, it's time for God to start explaining to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury just where he was on the night of T=-1 Planck time.

Plancking?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
I'm glad you asked. Let's discuss the Kalam version of the cosmological argument.

(1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
(2) the universe began to exist
(3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

We need "The universe is a whatever."

Seriously. It might instead be a uncaused thing. Or more precisely, causality might not apply to its beginning, only to its constituent parts.

But that is to be determined.

Secondly, we need to determine what kind of thing causality is. Is it a principle of thought, an assumption we make that makes the world intelligible, an a priori fact, or an a posteriori fact. I think the only compelling justification for saying it applies to the universe, or would be as an a priori fact. Philosophers disagree on what causality is.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
You still haven't clarified your position on fine-tuning. Is cosmic fine-tuning a problem that legitimate scientists are contending with, that your multiverse hypothesis was invented to explain away? Or, is cosmic fine-tuning something akin to asking, why is the sky blue? Let me quote my recent post: [quote]"On the one hand, you're attempting to expla ...[text shortened]... of core concepts, I don't see how we can continue. So, please, clarify your position.

Yes, I did clarify my position on fine-tuning, just today. But you won't let it go.

Sigh.

To whatever extent you think this universe appears "tailor-made for humans," I reply with this: "Yes, epiphinehas, it sure seems fine tuned for you and me. But then again, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to marvel at it."

To whatever extent you think the seemingly "designed for humans" universe we humans live in could not come around by chance, I reply (dismissively, if you like) as follows: "Yes, seems like a long shot, doesn't it? But then, there are some clever physicists who find their equations coming up with a multiverse. Since their models are based on known physics and the equations seem to suggest the multiverse has infinitely many universes in it -- or at least a tremendously large number of universes -- I think it's reasonable to speculate that maybe, just maybe, this 'porridge just right' universe of ours simply came about by chance, and countless numbers of other universes are out there that are not so nice and thus gave rise to no life. Though, it might be rather presumptuous of us to assume we know what constitutes a 'porridge just right' universe that is conducive to life. There may be other universes out there that, while not hospitable to humans, are nevertheless hospitable to some other forms of life wholly alien to us. And finally, no theoretical models are pointing to a God, only to a multiverse or some other non-supernatural construct, and I think non-supernatural explanations are always preferable when we want to invest our faith in something since so far they've always been the winning bets."

So, what you are perceiving as inconsistency or contradiction on my part breaks down into these two replies. I hope this clarifies things somewhat.

And no, the multiverse concept did not, to my understanding, arise among theoretical physicists out of a desire to explain "fine-tuning" (which itself, again, is a debatable "problem" since we cannot know under what conditions life can arise). It's arising as a seemingly natural solution to certain quantum mechanical issues and related matters.

Drop the sky is blue business. That was a scrap of trash I threw on the floor that wasn't meant to be eaten up.

Originally posted by Soothfast
Yes, I did clarify my position on fine-tuning, just today. But you won't let it go.

Sigh.

To whatever extent you think this universe appears "tailor-made for humans," I reply with this: "Yes, epiphinehas, it sure seems fine tuned for you and me. But then again, if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to marvel at it."

To whatever extent you think the ...[text shortened]... a scrap of trash I threw on the floor that wasn't meant to be eaten up.

And no, the multiverse concept did not, to my understanding, arise among theoretical physicists out of a desire to explain "fine-tuning" (which itself, again, is a debatable "problem" since we cannot know under what conditions life can arise).

AGAIN, cosmic fine-tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with the universe being conducive to life. Nothing. At all. Please understand, the initial conditions are finely tuned, and this would be true whether or not life existed. Quite apart from considerations of the anthropic principle, scientists have to contend with the fine-tuning problem because it is a fact about our universe. The initial conditions began in a state of low entropy—this requires an explanation.

Drop the sky is blue business. That was a scrap of trash I threw on the floor that wasn't meant to be eaten up.

Huh? What the heck does that mean? That you're just B.S.-ing? If so, I have to ask, why am I even wasting my time discussing this topic with you? C'mon, dude, get it together! Simply because I'm a theist, doesn't give you a free pass to be ignorant of the issue being discussed or to debate poorly.