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.

[Grumpy]

QED

Harvey wrote

QED, can you explain to Grumpy why he didn't understand this argument?

By all means, if you can translate Harvey1 for us, please do. It won't make him any more accurate, but it might help him understand the real world better.(Though Cathar1950 did a pretty good job of pointing out flaws in his...well, let's be generous and call it reasoning)

Harvey1

What you call possibilities I call the desperation of atheism in its attempt to reason without a God.

I've done OK in my life, reasoning without once resorting to "...and then a miracle occurs!!!". So have many others. You have not shown how superstition is necessary for coherent thought, so where do you get off with an ignorant, inflamitory and deragatory statement such as this???

Grumpy

[Cathar1950]

I am not trying to fool any one. I question your premises and the conclusions you draw. My natural mind is not against God and I have no reason to reject God.

Personally I think the material “things” are made from small things that are related. Maybe it is strings or particles. It is like fractals, you see one and think; no big deal but then as they progress they display these elaborate designs built on the evolution of this one tiny design. I am just rejecting dualism because I see it as an unnecessary explanation that increases the problems.
Things like “truth theory”, “truth-makers”, and “causality” all have their issues and problems with in academic circles and you know this. Yet you take them with an unsupported premise to support your view of God. But that does not seem enough because what underlies your project is a desire to eliminate some view of atheism you have selected. I don’t know how to be much clearer. You want me to present some other theory with out problem because I am rejecting your premises and resulting logic.
It is like you saying ok you don’t like my proof of God (in this case proof of anti-atheism) so you prove it.

[harvey1]

I question your premises and the conclusions you draw.

You've already stated that. Now I'm waiting for details.

Personally I think the material “things” are made from small things that are related. Maybe it is strings or particles.

Okay, so is there just one event in all of history? Is everything uncaused?

all have their issues and problems with in academic circles and you know this. Yet you take them with an unsupported premise to support your view of God.

Let's deal with one issue at a time. I never denied that causation was unproblematic. However, there are a number of viable solutions. For example, Tooley's arguments for causal relations and laws is a viable solution.

But that does not seem enough because what underlies your project is a desire to eliminate some view of atheism you have selected.

I'm just calling it as I see it, Cathar. There's a whole bunch of folks out there that think they are right about God not existing, and yet they assume there is no paradoxes to their views. I'm just bringing attention to the paradoxes. If someone wants to deny those paradoxes to maintain their beliefs, that's their issue.

I don’t know how to be much clearer. You want me to present some other theory with out problem because I am rejecting your premises and resulting logic.

No. I want you to provide a reasonable argument to show how to avoid this quite simple paradox. You seem to say that just because there's a paradox means zero. I think that is unreasonable.

It is like you saying ok you don’t like my proof of God (in this case proof of anti-atheism) so you prove it.

Not at all. All you have to show is how it could possibly be wrong without assuming or concluding the world is irrational.

It just seems to me that materialists want very much their arguments to be superior. And, when it is shown that (oh my God) that there's something wrong with those arguments, the accusations come against those presenting the very simple and easy to understand arguments. Tsk... tsk...

[OccamsRazor]

There's a whole bunch of folks out there that think they are right about God not existing, and yet they assume there is no paradoxes to their views. I'm just bringing attention to the paradoxes.

I personally do not think that I am right about the non-existence of God. Furthermore I do not think it valid for anyone to claim as such.
When it comes to paradoxes I am aware that there may be paradoxes (current scientific theories are full of them) but I do not see one that makes the non-existence of God a logical impossibility. Furthermore I cannot see a problem which makes the existence of a creator the only feasible conclusion.

The problem of the universe being irrational. I cannot see that we must accept that this not be the case without providing the mechanism which governs its rationality. For example in the virtual particles issue we cannot reject their sponteneous creation without cause unless we may find a mechanism which gives them cause.
To invoke such a rational explanation of these events without evidence for an alternative would require one to force the universe to accept such a process without an adequate reason to do so. Like the quote:

Einstein: "God does not play dice"
Bohr: "Einstein, don't tell God what to do"

[Cathar1950]

You are at a disadvantage I am not trying to prove God exists or that atheists are not atheist.
My first objection is that you take human constructs such as laws, propositions and math as real entities and concrete reality.
I think the world is real and rational because we are rational and we create rational constructs that fit our experiences. Only our imaginations allow us to surpass those bounds.
We are the “truth makers” and creators of meaning at least for us.

You claim special privilege of a spiritual mind that some how is above and opposed to the natural mind while claiming I am rejecting reason and a rational universe. Except for our imagination I cannot see how you can have revelation or spiritual awareness out side of our experiences. We understand less then we know we know less then we experience and there is more to experience. (A corrupted Whiteheadian idea)

I have no problem with a concept of God or Gods. Atheism does not make me comfortable but neither does a God that requires a spiritual mind arbitrarily bestowed on the unworthy believer over and opposed to the natural mind.

The dice could be loaded.

[harvey1]

You claim special privilege of a spiritual mind that some how is above and opposed to the natural mind while claiming I am rejecting reason and a rational universe.

No, this is not correct. I don't claim a special privilege. I only claim that if one rejects the necessary outcome of a logical argument without reason, then we ought to suspect that they are psychologically motivated. The natural mind is psychologically motivated to resist God, and therefore I strongly suspect that the reason that we see erroneous attempts to somehow find a rationality for material causation (without reason) is because the natural mind resists God. At least... At the very least, let the materialist atheist drop their claim that the world is actually like this. Instead let them reside in agnosticism. But, notice, the material atheist will not do so.

I'm very disappointed in the unwillingness to admit the power of this paradox.

[harvey1]

I personally do not think that I am right about the non-existence of God.

Does this mean that you think God exists?

When it comes to paradoxes I am aware that there may be paradoxes (current scientific theories are full of them) but I do not see one that makes the non-existence of God a logical impossibility. Furthermore I cannot see a problem which makes the existence of a creator the only feasible conclusion.

Well, technically, our conversation has steered toward material causation. The argument is a little more involved to get from metaphysical causation to theism. Nonetheless, material causation ought to be dropped entirely due to severe paradoxes introduced by it.

The problem of the universe being irrational. I cannot see that we must accept that this not be the case without providing the mechanism which governs its rationality.

If we mustn't accept this, then why waste time with science where the assumption is that the world is rational? Science is based on a philosophy of science where we assume the world is rational. For example, we assume that some light from distant galaxies took billions of years to arrive on earth. If we did not make this rational assumption, then science would be impossible to conduct.

For example in the virtual particles issue we cannot reject their sponteneous creation without cause unless we may find a mechanism which gives them cause.

Notice, though, in my argument I stipulated cause as bringing about or limiting the occurrence of. Virtual particles are seen as limited by the uncertainty principle. For example, the approximate masses of the virtual particles limit how long the virtual particle can exist before their annihilation. We don't need to get into all the ramifications of causation if we look at the limits that particle theory places on the coming into existence of virtual particles.

To invoke such a rational explanation of these events without evidence for an alternative would require one to force the universe to accept such a process without an adequate reason to do so.

It is important to eliminate non-sensical notions. For example, in the movie A Brief History of Time there's a point to where Hawking gives up time going backward at the beginning of its contraction because the mathematics did not work. This is just one example among many where good scientists abandon bad ideas.

[OccamsRazor]

Does this mean that you think God exists?

Hehe...very good. No, I worded this badly. What I mean is that I do not claim to have the correct answer when I say that, in my opinion, God does not exist.
God may well exist but I do not currently believe that this is the case.

Let me reign in the debate we are having here harvey. I think that we may be talking at cross purposes.

I was responding to a specific charge in which you contend the statement that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without cause. You then reject this as being irrational.

I am aware of the energy-time interpretation of the uncertainty principle as a limiting factor to such events and I do not throw such scientific and mathematical process out of the window.
What I am saying is that within such limitations we do not currently have a rationale for the cause of an individual particle to 'pop' into existence. What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that there must be a rationale for these events but this process is as yet unknown. I would argue that within rational limitations I do not see why we must also apply such rational processes to the Planck scale. I do not suggest that we should abandon the idea of finding such processes but it seems that to force such a rationale would be us applying our will to the system.

[Edit: Corrected a typo]

[harvey1]

I was responding to a specific charge in which you contend the statement that virtual particles pop in and out of existence without cause. You then reject this as being irrational. I am aware of the energy-time interpretation of the uncertainty principle as a limiting factor to such events and I do not throw such scientific and mathematical process out of the window. What I am saying is that within such limitations we do not currently have a rationale for the cause of an individual particle to 'pop' into existence. What you are suggesting, unless I am mistaken, is that there must be a rationale for these events but this process is as yet unknown.

No. I think that the uncertainty principle provides sufficient and necessary cause for the appearance of such particles. If there's more explanation than that, then it suggests that quantum mechanics is not complete, which at this point I have no reason to assume is absolutely the case. My conception of cause does not preclude probablistic causation.

I would argue that within rational limitations I do not see why we must also apply such rational processes to the Planck scale. I do not suggest that we should abandon the idea of finding such processes but it seems that to force such a rationale would be us applying our will to the system.

I think we must apply the uncertainty principle to the Planck scale without giving up our current conception of quantum mechanics. This is all that I need in order to demonstrate the failure of material causation. Afterall, the uncertainty relation is not a material thing and yet it has causal efficacy with regard to virtual particles existing and then not existing.

[QED]

What gobbledegoop!!! You have not factored in E3=concurrent event, E4=Prior event, E5=subsiquint event, E6=etc,. So you have therefore NOT addressed all possiblities., thus your conclusion COULD NOT BE MORE WRONG!!!

QED, can you explain to Grumpy why he didn't understand this argument?

I don't know. Maybe he didn't understand it for the same reason as me -- and by the sounds of it OccamsRazor as well:

I would argue that within rational limitations I do not see why we must also apply such rational processes to the Planck scale.

When it comes to Planck time, for example, we have a situation where there is a finite period in which our usual appreciation of cause and effect becomes blurred. For me this is just another one of those instances where the logic of our macroscopic everyday world (that we are so very familiar with) fails to serve as a model for what is going on down at the Quantum level. If we look at quantum entanglement, particles which are arbitrarily far apart are influencing each other instantaneously, which in terms of relativity means that what seems to be causing an event from one point of view doesn't happen until after the effects are seen from a different point of view. Even if the underlying reasons for all this unfamiliar behaviour are reflected in the philosophy of paradox (which I'm not convinced about) I still cannot see how a purely philosophical explanation can be trusted to be the one that sheds light on the problems.