Why would God be interested in free lunches?

[QED]

Most of us are familiar with the saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" and physics backs this up with the notion of conserved properties. The best known of these is probably energy which most schoolkids will tell us "can neither be created nor destroyed". Other example of conserved properties are electric charge and angular momentum. This jives with the idea of a provident God -- only he who has the power to break these universal rules and inject energy, charge and momentum into the unfolding universe. And what a lot of this we might imagine there to be!

But actually there isn't. All these laws of conservation hold within the universe, however they do not apply to the universe as a whole. The total mass-energy has a net sum indistinguishable from zero (when the negative contribution of gravitational potential energy is accounted for) and any imbalance in the numbers of electrons and protons would have a dramatic affect on structures of cosmic scale as the electric force is so much stronger than the force of gravity holding these structures together. If there was any net angular momentum to the universe then it would have shown as an increase in the microwave background radiation in the direction of its rotation axis. This radiation has now been measured to be the same in every direction to on part in a hundred thousand.

So why would a God with unlimited powers be so frugal? It's as though he's been down to the charity shop and blagged himself a universe for nothing. Perhaps it's the greatest testament to his ingenuity, but perhaps it's telling us something about the reason why we see the appearance of so much stuff when, with the proper accounting, it all sums to zero.

[harvey1]

In response to your question. Why not? Why not accept the existence of the universe as a brute fact without reason or motive?

And, that is an equally good question. However, the text I quoted made a claim and so I am just asking why the claim must be considered true. That's all.

Incidentally, Newton wasn't 'wrong'. Newtonian physics was used by NASA to get the Apollo astronauts to the Moon. It just isn't applicable on all scales.

Is this a true statement, "The sky is blue"? My answer is that the sky is mostly blue, but it is not always blue, so this statement has to be considered false.

[Cathar1950]

Is this a true statement, "The sky is blue"? My answer is that the sky is mostly blue, but it is not always blue, so this statement has to be considered false.

The sky is blue if and only if the sky is blue. So it isn't always false.
The problem with your "truth" is it is often vague or meaningless or there is disagreement with the meaning and context.

[wuntext]

...the text I quoted made a claim and so I am just asking why the claim must be considered true. That's all.

If you think Prof. Stenger would risk ruining his academic career by deliberately posting misleading claims backed up by misleading mathematics, contact him and protest - and then contact his university and protest.
If, on the other hand, you are questioning the validity of Prof. Stenger's claims because you don't like the conclusions, then that's something I can't help you with.

Is this a true statement

Yes it is a true statement. If you think I am lying, go to somewhere such as www.physorg.com, log in to their message boards, and ask the same question.

[QED]

Do you mean ultimately Why? ...perhaps to imply that it needs something like God to make all this so (your standard argument I believe).

I mean "why" in the very traditional terms. Nothing is said to be unstable, and I want to know why is nothing unstable. It seems like an assumption that I'd like to know the reason for making that assumption.

OK, it's just that it seems that even if you accepted the universe as a solution to a wave-function, you would trump it with God as the only entity capable of satisfying it as a proposition. This is why I keep on going back to the character of creation implied by this proposition. What need of such ultimate economy would an omnimax being have? I would think that most people have built their views of God around an entity that has unlimited resources at its disposal. But all cosmological models ultimately seem to predict a full payback on the loan of existence. You'll probably tell me that this characteristic is amply captured by the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it doesn't seem to me to distinguish the process as a special and deliberate act of construction. If people had omnimax powers I can't help feeling that they would use them to buy into existence freehold rather than on a lease.

[harvey1]

The sky is blue if and only if the sky is blue. So it isn't always false. The problem with your "truth" is it is often vague or meaningless or there is disagreement with the meaning and context.

A proposition saying the "sky is blue" is either true or false. If it is not always true, then it is false regardless of how often it is true. I realize that being false is very misleading because of the tremendous amount of truth of that proposition, however the "is" must be treated as a singular present indicative of "be," which is to exist actually. If this proposition states that the "sky is blue" is how the sky exists actually, then the proposition must be considered false since the sky doesn't exist as blue essentially.

[harvey1]

...the text I quoted made a claim and so I am just asking why the claim must be considered true. That's all.

If you think Prof. Stenger would risk ruining his academic career by deliberately posting misleading claims backed up by misleading mathematics, contact him and protest - and then contact his university and protest. If, on the other hand, you are questioning the validity of Prof. Stenger's claims because you don't like the conclusions, then that's something I can't help you with.

I have no interest in asking Prof. Stenger why he believes that a state of nothing must obey the laws of physics. I'm content with the fact that this is what he believes. However, if you believe it then you ought to be to able answer my simple question, especially since you've brought this up as an answer to a debate issue. Don't you want God to exist? Most human beings do.

Is this a true statement

Yes it is a true statement. If you think I am lying, go to somewhere such as www.physorg.com, log in to their message boards, and ask the same question.

I'm here and not there. But, if you would like to answer my question about this "true" proposition about the sky actually being a blue thing, then I'd like to know how it is possible that a blue thing can be un-blue and blue at the same time.

[harvey1]

OK, it's just that it seems that even if you accepted the universe as a solution to a wave-function, you would trump it with God as the only entity capable of satisfying it as a proposition. This is why I keep on going back to the character of creation implied by this proposition. What need of such ultimate economy would an omnimax being have?

It has nothing to do with need, it has to do with what makes something true. I think truth is necessarily frugal, and therefore it makes for a strong argument that the universe is a structure that eventually reaches some ultimate moral truth. The theory of truth that I believe is correct (must be correct) is that something is true only if there is something to show why that thing is a truth. This is called the truthmaker theory of truth. For example, it is true there is a universe because there in fact is a universe. It is true that life evolved because there is a history of where life evolved, etc., etc.. It seems so common-sensical to make this statement, but it has profound implications for anyone who says that God is proving things about the world like a mathematician would prove a theorem. The proving process is frugal, but the final theorem (or Omega state) is profound.

I would think that most people have built their views of God around an entity that has unlimited resources at its disposal. But all cosmological models ultimately seem to predict a full payback on the loan of existence. You'll probably tell me that this characteristic is amply captured by the Judeo-Christian tradition, but it doesn't seem to me to distinguish the process as a special and deliberate act of construction. If people had omnimax powers I can't help feeling that they would use them to buy into existence freehold rather than on a lease.

I think the truthmaker theory has a very deep connection in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and the process of maintain truth is so important in Christianity that it is given the main reason as to why Jesus died for our sins (i.e., this was the way in which God could redeem humanity without sacrificing God's highest standards of moral truth). Since this suggests that God is vastly limited to maintaining moral truth, I would say that frugality is seen by many Christians as a quality of God's character. God is not wasteful.

[wuntext]

I have no interest in asking Prof. Stenger why he believes that a state of nothing must obey the laws of physics. I'm content with the fact that this is what he believes.

However, if you believe it then you ought to be to able answer my simple question, especially since you've brought this up as an answer to a debate issue. Don't you want God to exist? Most human beings do.

I'm here and not there. But, if you would like to answer my question about this "true" proposition about the sky actually being a blue thing, then I'd like to know how it is possible that a blue thing can be un-blue and blue at the same time.[/quote]

Because,

[wuntext]

However, if you believe it then you ought to be to able answer my simple question, especially since you've brought this up as an answer to a debate issue.

What question???? The meaningless "Why?" If so, I did - "Why not"?

Don't you want God to exist? Most human beings do.

Wishin' don't make it so. I remember as a kid wanting a fat guy in a red suit to exist. I soon realised I preferred evidence based reality. I don't believe in "magick", so that's the fat guy and god out of the frame pending further evidence.
And the fact "most human beings do" believe in god is irrelevant. What god - Allah? Shiva? Or just yours?

I'm here and not there.

But you could be there with hardly any effort. And I'd really like you to be there, I don't appreciate having my honesty questioned.

But, if you would like to answer my question about this "true" proposition about the sky actually being a blue thing, then I'd like to know how it is possible that a blue thing can be un-blue and blue at the same time.

The atmosphere is not a "blue thing", the atmosphere is a 'thing' that can be a number of colours that because of Rayleigh scattering happens to be perceived as blue more often than not. Anyone who believes the absolute proposition that "the sky is blue" is speaking from a position of ignorance.

[QED]

I think the truthmaker theory has a very deep connection in the Judeo-Christian scriptures, and the process of maintain truth is so important in Christianity that it is given the main reason as to why Jesus died for our sins (i.e., this was the way in which God could redeem humanity without sacrificing God's highest standards of moral truth).

Harvey, please don't bring this up unless you can explain to me how the enactment of the execution of an immortal is supposed to be any sort of sacrifice that can atone for anything. I opened the topic titled Questioning the Crucifixion because I hear this said all the time yet it fails to make the slightest bit of sense. If I am to be convinced that Christianity has the sort of basis in the ultimate truths of the Cosmos, foundational elements like this one will have to make sense to me.