Anti-Materialist

At the entrance to this website there is an excellent article about the way the universe is fine-tuned to produce life.

The author makes a very convincing argument to support the idea that the universe sure looks like it was created. He then goes on to say that he still does not take that to mean that there is a God. I think his point was this - the fact that the universe looks created does not tell us anything about who did the creating. It does not prove the existence of a single God.

This is true - the universe could have been created by a team of entities. There is really no way to know. But wouldn't such a team have a leader? Not necessarily, but it seems likely.

However, the concept of what is a discrete entity is really quite blurry. Two separate computers, both possessing artificial ingelligence, could be considered discrete entities. If they use a common server, then they could be considered mostly discrete entities. If they share CPU functions, they could be considered partially discrete entities. If they are fully integrated, they could be considered part of the same system.

It seems likely that who or whatever created the universe is a complex system. The creator could be a team of angels, or a team of really advanced virtual reality programmers. Or, it could have been one really vast entity. If it was one really vast entity, then that entity would probably be capable of some serious multiprocessing. In fact, it would be capable of so much multiprocessing that it could probably hold within itself multiple identities. Would those identities be discrete entities - or would they all be subprocessing units of God.

My point is this - the concept of what defines a discrete entity gets very blurry, once you get past the level of complexity of a human brain.

Most complex systems work best when they are run by a single controlling unit - a CPU. If the universe is created, then there must be a complex system that created the universe. Whoever is the central processing unit of that complex system could be considered God.

This does not say anything about the nature of God - it does not say whether or not God is all powerful or anything like that. It simply shows that there is probably a top dog somewhere, whom we could choose to call God if we felt like it.

If that top dog is capable of knowing our thoughts at all times, and even controlling our actions - then we cannot reasonably be said to be a discrete entity from that top dog. We are all part of a greater whole.

Abacus

99.999999999999999% of the universe is radiation riddled near vacuum. I disagree that the universe is fine-tuned or even appears fine-tuned to produce life.

Doubting Didymus

Any universe in which replicators are possible is going to look designed to someone or somethings' eyes sooner or later.

JGL53

A-M, everything you said might be true. But it's also true that tomorrow morning monkeys might fly out of my butt.

Why can't the universe have always existed without having been created by some imagined supernatural conscious super-powerful entity? What's wrong with the theory that the universe is a brute fact, or part of a multiverse that is a timeless brute fact? Why are you so O/C about multiplying entities beyond necessity?

Lobstrosity

I have a big problem with your use of the word "probably." You have absolutely zero basis for making such an assertion. It does not stand to reason that you can extrapolate in any way from complex systems created by man (a tiny subset of this universe constrained to act according to this universe's physical laws) to a complex system that might have created this universe. That's like my saying that if aliens exist, they will probably like chocolate because everyone I meet seems to like chocolate.

On top of this, if your basis for assuming the universe is created arises from its order and complexity--from how fine-tuned it is to create life or something--then you must equally concede that its complex creator(s) were likely themselves created by some even more complex process/creator. Where does it end? Is it turtles all the way down?

In short, fine-tuning does not imply an intelligent or even complex creator. An intelligent creator is just one option, and a rather problematic one at that given that you have now just displaced the mystery of our creation into the mystery of our creator and its creation. Then you find yourself giving this creator attributes (e.g. he is all knowing and loves you and will send you to a happy place when you die) and suddenly you're living in a giant fantasy world founded on nothing more than baseless assumptions.

The easiest way to think of fine-tuning is this: if a universe existed where the laws didn't allow for the formation of conscious life, nothing would arise to perceive that universe. Nothing would ever know about it. The only universes that would be "perceived" by creatures like us are universes that have the right physical laws to allow for our formation and survival. Whatever conscious beings form in a universe would find that that universe is somehow set up with just the right laws to allow for their survival. It would seem amazing to them, but not to some external viewer looking at the whole picture. Maybe there are an infinite number of universes out there, and we find ourselves in this one not because it was specifically and intelligently created for us but because it's one of the ones in which such formation is possible. Who knows...the point is that this idea is no less likely than the idea that something made our universe intelligently and also manages to sidestep that pesky infinite recursion problem.

echidna

Ummm, ants.

I hope your argument for God can be a bit more substantial and better grounded than this.

Anti-Materialist

Yes - you guys are right in saying that we cannot assume that a complex system probably has a CPU. It just intuitively seems likely to me. Intuition is great for getting a line of thought started, but it is not so great for reaching conclusions.

The infinite recursion thing is quite frustrating. But frustrating does not mean we should dismiss it. I am sorry that pushing back the concept a little further is frustrating - but there you have it. Life is frustrating.

The multiverse explanation is a good one. I think there probably are other universes.

But then, you have to ask how a system as grand and brilliant as the multiverse came to be. That is an even more complex system - which makes it look even more created to me.

So, that leads to the question, how do we solve this infinite regression problem. There are ways to do this - involving multiple dimensions of time. In such a scenario, one dimension of time would be nested inside another dimension of time. You wind up with mind-warping concepts such as a looped chain of cause and effect (notice, I did not say a time loop - could be a different thing).

Or, you wind up having to accept that the chain of cause and effect goes backwards forever. Turtle all the way down.

Or, you wind up saying what we can really say about this, because we don't have all the answers - which is, we just don't know.

If I am supposed to believe in a self creating multiverse, then I still am supposed to believe in getting something from nothing. That concept just doesn't cut it.

But yes - I agree that we cannot, from such an argument, conclude anything whatsoever about the nature of who or what created the multiverse. My intuition tells me that there could well be a CPU involved. However, the notion of whether that CPU is truly separate from us, or from anything else, is too fuzzy.

All we can say at this point is that we just don't know.

Jinto

And that is precisely why we don't use it to reach conclusions.

Except that it also renders your God-concept useless as an explanation for the universe, as the whole infinity of progressively more and more mysterious explanations lacks an explanation for why there should be an infinity of these things in the first place.

Yes, I read your webpage.

If you're going to invoke closed timelike curves, then please keep them within our own universe. I find it very annoying when a theist will say "we have no explanation for the universe, therefore I'm going to invent a being for which we have no evidence," and then, when asked to explain their being, give an explanation that could be applied equally well to the universe itself.

Which does not constitute an explanation, and certainly lacks any increase in exlpanatory power than one that leaves omnipotent beings out of the picture - which was the real objection to the God hypothesis.

Therefore, the default assumption is NOT "there is a God"

If I am supposed to believe in a self-creating being, then I am supposed to believe in getting something from nothing. That concept just doesn't cut it.

Which does not lend the God hypothesis any weight.

Anti-Materialist

That is true - it does not lend the God hypothesis any weight.


However - it leaves us with the possibility that there might be a God.


Many people have a very personal relationship with God. Prayer, or meditation, or whatever, works for them. This personal relationship provides them with strength to deal with insanely difficult situations - like being locked inside of a wall for 22 years.


Materialists would have us assume there is no God. But to do so takes away the tremendous benefit that is to be found in the personal relationship that so many people have with God.


If we can't prove anything one way or the other, then we make no assumptions, period.


And that leaves us in a position where we can still allow ourselves to use our intuitive feelings about God, because those intuitive feelings prove to be very useful in day to day life.


It also means that we must not allow ourselves to be deceived by our intuitive feelings. They work - they help us become more functional, so that is a good thing. But just because I can sense something within myself that feels like the presence of God, does not mean that I am really sensing the presence of God.

I won't assume it is real. But then, neither will I assume it is false. I will just use it as needed, because it works. It gets very specific results that enable me to function better in life, and to feel greater amounts of joy and wonder.

Jinto

Actually there is no evidence for this claim either. Given that there has never been recorded any decrease in ability to deal with stressful situations in atheists versus theists, and given that many people have turned atheist precisely after testing this hypothesis (whether they would really have a harder time dealing with things if they weren't praying) and having the tests come back negative, I would suggest that prayer, meditation and the like really has nothing to do with people's ability to deal with insanely difficult situations.

Not, of course, that I'm ever going to convince any theist of this who does not conduct a controlled study of his own prayers.

Materialists would have us assume that there is no God, thereby doing nothing except to remove from idiots like Fred Phelps the "Christian morality" excuse that allows him to sucessfully promote ideals that would otherwise be promptly dismissed as absurd. If praying makes you feel better, then we don't ask you not to pray. Rituals of any sort can be relaxing. I personally will sometimes pray to the Hubert the purple beaver deity, thereby combining the relaxing properties of ritual with a good bit of humour. Doesn't mean that I believe for one second he exists. If only people would seperate the concept of prayer from the concept of believing in a deity, then we'd all be a lot happier.

Wrong. Where two explanations have precisely the same explanatory power, but one does not require the multiplication of theoretical entities, then we assume that is the correct explanation until and unless evidence to the contrary is presented.

You can use your intuition while not believing a God is responsible for it. For example, you can believe that since our brains evolved in the real world, that their pattern recognition capabilities may provide correct answers for things in the real world even when we don't know logically how we arrived at a conclusion. This explanation actually makes sense, provides an explanation for why our brains seem to be so lousy at arriving on a consensus about things outside the real world (given the huge number of different and mutually exclusive religons), and does not require the addition of theoretical entities. Simple, no?