Big Bang, Modern Physics, Derails Atheists and Theists Alike

[David Sklansky]

When people of specific religions talk to pure atheists both sides are sure that the other side must be borderline crazy. Clearly they must have to have some kind of psychological, conscious or subconscious ulterior motive to believe what they believe. The universe popped out of NOTHING? Surely that makes no sense. If you insist on believing that, there has to be a psychological desire on your part for there to be no God. Its not a conclusion you came to based purely on thought.

On the other hand atheists have at least as strong a reason to be suspicious of what made a believer in a specific personal god come to that conclusion. Because the overwhelming evidence is that the things we see now stemmed from stuff that existed millions or billions of years ago, evolving slowly and surely according to the laws of physics, including, sometimes, the inherent randomness of subatomic particles. Reports of supernatural events are invariably debunked, but religious people desperately cling to those very few that haven't. The explanation surely must be the strong psychological need for them to believe it is true.

So who's right? I say its both sides. At least as regards their opinion of the other side. Which brings me to Deism. In its vaguest form. The idea that there was some entity that always existed ("outside" our universe). That did something to make this specific universe, with these specific laws of physics and subatomic particles, come into being. And then was done with us.

It seems to me first of all, that those who believe that, are absolved of ulterior motives. They can't be accused of needing to feel that there is no god who can interfere with them or hating God for his malice, because in theory that God may still have the power to interfere even though he is not to be directly blamed for tsunamis. On the other hand, Deists can't be accused of seeking comfort from their beliefs. So from a purely psychological standpoint, a Deist should be the most trusted as regards to his motives.

Logically it seems to me that all forms of Deism lumped together is the most likely explanation for the existence of the universe with pure atheism second, religion in general third, and the specific religions we know, far distant behind that. Because of the Big Bang and the intricacy of subatomic particles. It is possible for something to have always existed. Especially if we bring more dimensions into play. But it is accepted that this universe didn't always exist. So much for the "if God created the universe, who created God" with the followup "If your answer is that God always existed then why can't the universe always have existed". Both points go out the window when things can exist forever and the universe is known not to.

More troubling to me though is the complexity of subatomic particles. The chemistry and especially the Newtonian physics I learned was pure logic. All of Newton's laws can be derived from thought experiments and can be reduced to obvious common sense. Even though most people don't realize that. If E is defined as force times distance, then E=1/2 mv squared. There are no alternatives. But the actual universe is apparantly not like that. The way it is and the stuff in it could in fact be other ways. In other words I don't believe that pure logic allows you to deduce that there will be three types of mesons or whatever. At least not always. (I think almost pure logic allowed Dirac to deduce that there would be a positron).

So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design.

On the other side of the coin though is the fact that once we specify our subatomic particles and the laws that apply to them, simple logic and math can be used to show the different scenarios that can come about, and the probabilities associated with them. And there is scant evidence that any original designer ever fiddled with it once he set the ball rolling. The two spots where I have slight doubt is the original creation of DNA and the existence of human consciousness. But no one should think that the tiny doubt about those things is in any way related to the fact that the truth of the bible is a giant underdog when the physical and mathematical evidence is evaluated objectively.

[arahant]

I won't quibble with what I take to be the thrust of your argument, however....

[ QUOTE ]

More troubling to me though is the complexity of subatomic particles. The chemistry and especially the Newtonian physics I learned was pure logic. All of Newton's laws can be derived from thought experiments and can be reduced to obvious common sense. Even though most people don't realize that. If E is defined as force times distance, then E=1/2 mv squared. There are no alternatives. But the actual universe is apparantly not like that. The way it is and the stuff in it could in fact be other ways. In other words I don't believe that pure logic allows you to deduce that there will be three types of mesons or whatever. At least not always. (I think almost pure logic allowed Dirac to deduce that there would be a positron).


[/ QUOTE ]

There are very basic symmetries that underlie the laws of the universe, and the sorts of particles we see. The math is more basic (by which I suppose I mean more advanced/arcane) than that required to deduce newtonian physics, but it SEEMS that the laws of the universe can be derived from principles that are so basic as to appear 'obvious'.

The soup of particles in the standard model is becoming more obviously 'neccesary' regularly, and I suspect that when all is said and done, we will reach a point where we understand that basic symmetries underlie everything.

[Subfallen]

David,

Coincidentally I have a relevant link on my clipboard at this very moment. I won't attempt to go into any details, because my physics knowledge is pathetic, but read Stenger's chapter on cosmology.

Apparently there are new models that suggest the net amount of energy in the universe is 0. That is: something and nothing are just two sides of the same coin, and interestingly these models predict that "something" is the more stable side.

I think modern theoretical physics is much closer to an answer here than you're aware of.

[Lestat]

For those who are able to understand and follow it, the detailed logic you present here should be helpful. For those who don't, a simple "We just don't know yet" should suffice. This conclusion simply means, "We can't yet tell", which is clearly the most logical and practical conclusion to arrive at.

I still say the question of "If God created the universe, then who created God?", is a perfectly legitimate question and I'm still unlcear why you dismiss it as such (perhaps I'm not fully understanding some of the good logic you provide?). Just because something doesn't have to be the case, doesn't mean it isn't. In other words...

Just because there is no hard law that a creator couldn't have always existed, doesn't mean that it did. It's perfectly acceptable to reason if that the universe is complicated to a factor of x, then that which created it *should* be more complicated by a factor of x times x. My math is lacking so it could be x times y, I don't know.

But the ample evidence for evolution is a reality that should not simply be passed over. Evolution clearly does not work from the top down. To state that it's "possible" for a more complicated entity to have always existed outside the known universe, is to make huge (and unnecessary) leaps in logic. Simply put, it is poor philosophy and you should know better.

[Phil153]

Are you being generous to make a point, or do you truly believe what you say? Also,

So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design.

I can't see how less complex universes have anything to do with refuting the anthropic argument. Please explain.

[David Sklansky]

"I can't see how less complex universes have anything to do with refuting the anthropic argument. Please explain."

If in fact there could be more elegant, less complicated, more commonsensical universes that could result in intelligent life that wonders about its existence, then you can't say "don't think that this complicated universe is amazingly unlikely, because without the complications, there could be no intelligence to contemplate it". In other words if the universe is much more complicated than it needs to be to support such life, (though arahant says it will soon be shown not to be), the anthropic principle can't explain that away.

Example: A guy wins the Hilton Football Handicapping Contest and ascribes it to God. Nonsense you say since someone had to win. But if he won on 30 out of 30 picks and the next guy hit 21 you can't use your argument anymore.

[Mickey Brausch]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't believe that pure logic allows you to deduce that there will be three types of mesons or whatever. At least not always.

[/ QUOTE ]What is happening is that we are discovering not the weaknesses and limitations of human logic, but the vast territories still uncovered by human logic --on account of reality being more complex than we thought it was.

It's like a person who's stuck inside a cabin on a boat in the middle of the sea and does observations, which are perfectly logical --though leaving things unknown-- on the basis of what's happpening to him and his surroundings, and then opens the door and sees he's on a boat in the middle of the sea. There was nothing wrong or inherently contradictory before in his logic or senses; but now his world's horizons irreversibly expanded.

Mickey Brausch

[David Sklansky]

That's just a guess.

[bocablkr]

[ QUOTE ]
I still say the question of "If God created the universe, then who created God?", is a perfectly legitimate question and I'm still unlcear why you dismiss it as such (perhaps I'm not fully understanding some of the good logic you provide?). Just because something doesn't have to be the case, doesn't mean it isn't. In other words...

Just because there is no hard law that a creator couldn't have always existed, doesn't mean that it did. It's perfectly acceptable to reason if that the universe is complicated to a factor of x, then that which created it *should* be more complicated by a factor of x times x. My math is lacking so it could be x times y, I don't know.


[/ QUOTE ]

Have to agree with Lestat here. It is just a cop-out to say God always has existed or exist outside of the Universe. What the hell does that really mean? And why do you find that an acceptable answer.

Personally, I don't and am a FULL HARDCORE ATHEIST. I don't believe in alternative universes or existing outside of time and space. Interesting SCI-FI scenarios that are just as real as ghosts.

[Bork]

[ QUOTE ]
So with many universes to "choose" from including many that would be much less complex but could still probably support life (an important point to refute the anthropic argument) the fact that this one exists argues for some sort of original design.

[/ QUOTE ]

The premise I understand to be supporting the above conclusion is : 'The universe could have been less complicated and supported life like our own.' Obviously I am missing some premises and/or am not familiar with some argument you are taking your audience to be familiar with. So, what I am asking is how do you get from the complexity claim to the 'some sort of original design' conclusion.