Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[otseng]

I don't quite understand. We both have referred to the fact that energy cannot be created, yet you ask for an explanation for how the energy in our universe got created. As far as I know, the universe did not come into being. There was never a time when the universe did not exist.

What I've said is that according to the first law of thermo, energy is constant in a closed system. Energy can only be added to a closed system if it comes from outside the closed system. And a supernatural entity outside of our system created the energy inside our system.

What do you know about this God who's existence you're defending?

As I've mentioned already, it can create and it is intelligent.

Many theists claim that God must exist because there has to be an ultimate uncaused first cause. If you are willing to forgo using this rather common defense of the God claim, I'll try to remember not to attack it.

I've never used that as an argument and I don't ever intend to.

Since energy cannot be created, I presume, without rigorous proof that all of the energy in the universe was not created from nothing in the first Planck period.

I would agree that if the laws of physics does not change (which I think we need to assume), energy cannot come from nothing.

If time began at time 0, it can still be uncaused. There was nothing before time that caused time to come into being.

And as I've argued, I think that is only because of selective definition and limited perspective. How would you counter my example of something in universe A creating universe B?

So, would one result of the prediction be that all the other universes do not have sentient life?

I don't see any reason why sentient life could not arise in some other universe. Do you?

For one thing, it relies on too many assumptions. First is assuming other universes exist. Second is assuming a lot of other universes exist. Third is assuming some would be fine-tuned enough for life. Fourth is assuming that life can come from non-life. Fifth is assuming evolution can account for the origination of complex life. Sixth is that it would lead to sentient life.

Secondly, we don't have any evidence of other sentient life in our own universe. How can then any statements be made about sentient life in other universes?

What humans create is merely a matter of moving stuff around. What you're convinced that God creates is making stuff from nothing.

It's all a matter of perspective. If God is outside of our system, then he can create something in our system, yet it appears that it came from nothing from our perspective. For example, I have a fish tank. For the fish, it is a closed system. They cannot leave the fish tank. But occasionally, food appears in the fish tank. From their perspective, the food came from nothing. But, from my perspective, the food came from a canister of fish food.

Likewise, the creator is outside of our universe. It can create things inside our closed system. It would appear that it came from nothing from our perspective. But from the creator's perspective, our universe could've just come from something in it's system.

[McCulloch]

What I've said is that according to the first law of thermo, energy is constant in a closed system. Energy can only be added to a closed system if it comes from outside the closed system. And a supernatural entity outside of our system created the energy inside our system.
[...]
I would agree that if the laws of physics does not change (which I think we need to assume), energy cannot come from nothing.

So somehow this intelligent being with intent somehow inserted energy into our spacetime. This energy must have come from somewhere. The realm of the God, heaven or the meta-universe, apparently must provide the energy for the down-stream universes. This only abstracts the first law of thermodynamics problem to another level. I have our universe's energy existing for all time, uncreated. You have our universe's energy created from some unknown source outside of our spacetime, either uncreated or created from some further abstract source.

How would you counter my example of something in universe A creating universe B?

As far as we know, universes don't create other universes. If we created another universe from ours, would the energy for the new universe have to be removed from ours? What process in our universe would create a new spacetime continuum?

I don't see any reason why sentient life could not arise in some other universe. Do you?

For one thing, it relies on too many assumptions. First is assuming other universes exist. Second is assuming a lot of other universes exist. Third is assuming some would be fine-tuned enough for life. Fourth is assuming that life can come from non-life. Fifth is assuming evolution can account for the origination of complex life. Sixth is that it would lead to sentient life.

Not too many assumptions at all really. We are discussing that if other universes exist, could there be life in them. So the first assumption is merely part of the question. The second assumption, is yes, in most multi-universe models very very many universes exist. For each quantum uncertainty, a large number of universes exist. That takes care of the third assumption, which really is a restatement of the second. Yes, given the vast number of universes, it is rather improbable that only one would be fined tuned for sentient life. The fourth is already a given. Life has come from non-life, therefore life can come from non-life. In your fifth assumption, you assume that whatever process gave rise to complex life in our universe would be absent from all of the other universes. I see no reason for your assumption.

Secondly, we don't have any evidence of other sentient life in our own universe. How can then any statements be made about sentient life in other universes?

Exactly. I will remain agnostic towards the possibility of sentient life in other universes. I see no reason to rule it out, as you seem to wish to do.

What humans create is merely a matter of moving stuff around. What you're convinced that God creates is making stuff from nothing.

It's all a matter of perspective. If God is outside of our system, then he can create something in our system, yet it appears that it came from nothing from our perspective. For example, I have a fish tank. For the fish, it is a closed system. They cannot leave the fish tank. But occasionally, food appears in the fish tank. From their perspective, the food came from nothing. But, from my perspective, the food came from a canister of fish food.

Then your creator solves none of the philosophical problems commonly used to justify a creator. From your perspective, it seems, that this wonderfully designed universe must have had an even more wonderfully designed creator to have made it. I may not know where the universe came from, but you don't know where the even greater creator of the universe, that was invented to explain the creation of the universe came from.

[otseng]

This energy must have come from somewhere.

Yes, energy in our universe must have come from somewhere. By you stating this, I assume then you acknowledge that this is a valid issue and needs to be addressed.

How would you counter my example of something in universe A creating universe B?

As far as we know, universes don't create other universes.

I'm not claiming that other universes create other universes. I'm providing one example to illustrate that not being able to point to "before" a creation of a universe does not show that that a universe is uncaused.

Not too many assumptions at all really.

Before we go down the path of debating the assumptions, what would be the main point of positing the existence of sentient life in other universes?

Exactly. I will remain agnostic towards the possibility of sentient life in other universes. I see no reason to rule it out, as you seem to wish to do.

We have no evidence of any kind of the existence of other sentient life in our own universe (or even in other universes). So, I find it inconsistent that you would be agnostic towards other sentient life that we have no evidence for, yet be atheistic towards a creator that we do have evidence for. At the minimum, you should likewise be agnostic towards a creator.

I may not know where the universe came from, but you don't know where the even greater creator of the universe, that was invented to explain the creation of the universe came from.

As I've argued before, it is immaterial. If you do accept the existence of a creator, we can then philosophize about its origins, but if you do not accept its existence, it is meaningless.

Further, what we are talking about is the origin of the universe, not the origin of the origin of the universe. I have proposed a cause that is consistent with the arguments I've given for fine-tuning. And as you've stated, you do not have anything to propose. And on this basis alone, it would be more rational to believe in a creator.

[McCulloch]

This energy must have come from somewhere.

Yes, energy in our universe must have come from somewhere. By you stating this, I assume then you acknowledge that this is a valid issue and needs to be addressed.

The statement that was quoted was made in context of the hypothesis that universes were created. If, as you claim, that universes are somehow created, then, yes, the energy in them must either be created (contrary to the first law of thermodynamics) or be provided from somewhere else, merely abstracting the problem of energy creation to another level.

How would you counter my example of something in universe A creating universe B?

As far as we know, universes don't create other universes.

I'm not claiming that other universes create other universes. I'm providing one example to illustrate that not being able to point to "before" a creation of a universe does not show that that a universe is uncaused.

But your illustration is not valid unless you can show that a spacetime continuum can be created from within another spacetime continuum. My own view of the meta-universe as the space of all possible universes, does not include a meta-time. It is not required.

What would be the main point of positing the existence of sentient life in other universes?

I don't know. You raised the issue and asked the question about sentient life in other universes. What was the relevance of that question?

Exactly. I will remain agnostic towards the possibility of sentient life in other universes. I see no reason to rule it out, as you seem to wish to do.

We have no evidence of any kind of the existence of other sentient life in our own universe (or even in other universes). So, I find it inconsistent that you would be agnostic towards other sentient life that we have no evidence for, yet be atheistic towards a creator that we do have evidence for. At the minimum, you should likewise be agnostic towards a creator.

We have evidence that sentient life can develop in a universe. Thus it is not too much of a stretch to believe in the possibility that sentient life could develop in another universe. There is a fundamental logical principle that something that has happened is possible. There is no evidence that I am aware of supporting the assertion of an intelligent intentional creator outside of the universe. Perhaps we should address such alleged evidence.

I may not know where the universe came from, but you don't know where the even greater creator of the universe, that was invented to explain the creation of the universe came from.

As I've argued before, it is immaterial. If you do accept the existence of a creator, we can then philosophize about its origins, but if you do not accept its existence, it is meaningless.

I don't know what an immaterial being is. Do you mean that God is an abstraction? What evidence do you have that something immaterial can affect the material universe?
The point of my argument is that it is philosophically useless to posit a creator god as the source of all that is, in that you have answered one question (where did the universe come from) with something that raises even more difficult questions.

Further, what we are talking about is the origin of the universe, not the origin of the origin of the universe.

But if your model of the origin of the universe creates more unknowns than it solves, it is not a very useful model.

I have proposed a cause that is consistent with the arguments I've given for fine-tuning. And as you've stated, you do not have anything to propose. And on this basis alone, it would be more rational to believe in a creator.

What? Is it more rational to believe a confident myth than an honest I don't know?

[otseng]

This energy must have come from somewhere.

Yes, energy in our universe must have come from somewhere. By you stating this, I assume then you acknowledge that this is a valid issue and needs to be addressed.

The statement that was quoted was made in context of the hypothesis that universes were created. If, as you claim, that universes are somehow created, then, yes, the energy in them must either be created (contrary to the first law of thermodynamics) or be provided from somewhere else, merely abstracting the problem of energy creation to another level.

I don't believe I'm simply "abstracting" the problem. I've proposed a cause for the energy in our universe. And it also independently aligns with the evidence of fine-tuning. And I'll present more independent arguments later that also confirms a creator.

But your illustration is not valid unless you can show that a spacetime continuum can be created from within another spacetime continuum.

I'm simply providing a thought experiment to show the fallacy of saying something that has a time 0 is uncaused. I'm not making any claim that such a thing actually exists. Whereas, you do claim that other spacetime continuums exist. So, how can you show that other spacetimes exist?

My own view of the meta-universe as the space of all possible universes, does not include a meta-time. It is not required.

I'm not claiming one way or the other that a meta-time exists. But simply arguing that our perspective of time is limited.

What would be the main point of positing the existence of sentient life in other universes?

I don't know. You raised the issue and asked the question about sentient life in other universes. What was the relevance of that question?

I was simply guessing at what one of the predictions would be of other universes.

We have evidence that sentient life can develop in a universe. Thus it is not too much of a stretch to believe in the possibility that sentient life could develop in another universe.

We can perhaps at some later time discuss the evidence whether humans evolved from non-life. As for other non-human sentient life, it would be an assumption with no evidence at all.

There is a fundamental logical principle that something that has happened is possible.

However, if something is shown to be statistically improbable, then it would be more reasonable to explain it by intelligence than by chance.

There is no evidence that I am aware of supporting the assertion of an intelligent intentional creator outside of the universe. Perhaps we should address such alleged evidence.

I've already brought up two. The fine-tuning of the density of the universe and the first law of thermo.

I may not know where the universe came from, but you don't know where the even greater creator of the universe, that was invented to explain the creation of the universe came from.

As I've argued before, it is immaterial. If you do accept the existence of a creator, we can then philosophize about its origins, but if you do not accept its existence, it is meaningless.

I don't know what an immaterial being is. Do you mean that God is an abstraction?

No, I'm referring to your question as immaterial (though God could be too, but I'm not making any claim on that). That is, the question of what caused God is not relevant to the origin of the universe.

But if your model of the origin of the universe creates more unknowns than it solves, it is not a very useful model.

Actually, it solves quite a lot. Two of which we've covered so far (fine-tuning and cause of energy). We'll get to more things that it solves as this thread progresses.

What? Is it more rational to believe a confident myth than an honest I don't know?

Comparing it to a "confident myth" would be a false dichotomy. The comparison should be between a "creator" and "I don't know". And the proposal that there is an creator has more explanatory power than "I don't know", and thus would be a more rational position to take.

[McCulloch]

I've proposed a cause for the energy in our universe.

No you have not. You have proposed that there must be a cause but you have in no way proposed what that cause could be.

And it also independently aligns with the evidence of fine-tuning. And I'll present more independent arguments later that also confirms a creator.

And I'll address these arguments when you actually present them.

I'm not making any claim that such a thing actually exists. Whereas, you do claim that other spacetime continuums exist. So, how can you show that other spacetimes exist?

You make no claim about whether other spacetime continuums exist, yet you rely on an argument that assumes that at least one does. Presumably, whatever realm that your God inhabits, that realm outside of the universe, from which your God created the universe, is a continuum of sorts.

I cannot show that any other spacetime continuums exist, but a significant number of quantum physicists rely on the multiple universes model to do their work.

My own view of the meta-universe as the space of all possible universes, does not include a meta-time. It is not required.

I'm not claiming one way or the other that a meta-time exists. But simply arguing that our perspective of time is limited.

Perhaps I jumped the gun a bit on that one. We have agreed that the God that you claim exists outside of our universe has intent and intelligence. To me, intent implies time or at least some dimension which operates in a similar was as time, hence meta-time.

We have evidence that sentient life can develop in a universe. Thus it is not too much of a stretch to believe in the possibility that sentient life could develop in another universe.

We can perhaps at some later time discuss the evidence whether humans evolved from non-life. As for other non-human sentient life, it would be an assumption with no evidence at all.

Perhaps we could postpone the discussion of this topic until after you demonstrate its relevance to the debate at hand.

There is a fundamental logical principle that something that has happened is possible.

However, if something is shown to be statistically improbable, then it would be more reasonable to explain it by intelligence than by chance.

It is statistically improbable that this planet has life. It is not so statistically improbable that no planet in the universe has life. The universe is big.

No, I'm referring to your question as immaterial (though God could be too, but I'm not making any claim on that). That is, the question of what caused God is not relevant to the origin of the universe.

But if your model of the origin of the universe creates more unknowns than it solves, it is not a very useful model.

Actually, it solves quite a lot. Two of which we've covered so far (fine-tuning and cause of energy). We'll get to more things that it solves as this thread progresses.

It solves neither. It merely pushes the questions back a level.

Q. Where did this wonderful fine-tuned universe come from?
A. God, who is an even more finely-tuned and wonderful entity than the universe created it.
Q. Where did God come from?

You see, this approach leaves a larger more difficult question than the one we originally had. How can that be an intellectually satisfying solution to the question?
A.

[McCulloch]

I've already brought up two [pieces of evidence supporting the assertion of an intelligent intentional creator outside of the universe]. The fine-tuning of the density of the universe and the first law of thermo.

Firstly, the fine-tuning of the universe.

I brought forward an analogy. Suppose that there is a large sheet (make it as large as you need it to be) with a small number (perhaps even one) of small holes in it. You observe a photon come through one hole. You are prevented from knowing if any photons came through this or any other hole. What do you conclude?

1. Someone on the other side of the sheet, produced a single photon and directed it towards the very small hole.
2. There is lots of light on the other side of the sheet, and some of it got through.
   • The first explanation, is not warranted. It postulates an unknown being with a specific purpose whose existence cannot be discerned from the available evidence. The second is more consistent with what is known. It merely postulates that there are more instances of what we know exist rather than postulating the existence of something completely different.
     
     cf. Does many-worlds violate Ockham's Razor? The many-worlds interpretation makes a whole lot of sense to 58% of the leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists, with only 18% opposed.
     
     Secondly, the first law of thermodynamics. In a closed system, energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The universe is a closed system that had a beginning. By assuming that the universe was briefly an open system, right at the beginning, and that the energy of the universe was provided by some unknown outside agency, you have squeezed in the necessity for a god. This argument in no way shows intent or intelligence, and it assumes that which cannot be explained, that the universe is an open system, at least on one end.

[otseng]

I've proposed a cause for the energy in our universe.

No you have not. You have proposed that there must be a cause but you have in no way proposed what that cause could be.

I guess I wasn't explicit enough. The cause of matter/energy in our universe is a supernatural creator. I do not claim to know how the creator created our universe, but I'm only claiming to identify a cause. As an analogy, I have a pencil on my desk. The cause of the pencil is a pencil factory. But, I do not know exactly how the pencil was created by the pencil factory.

You make no claim about whether other spacetime continuums exist, yet you rely on an argument that assumes that at least one does. Presumably, whatever realm that your God inhabits, that realm outside of the universe, from which your God created the universe, is a continuum of sorts.

I cannot show that any other spacetime continuums exist,

Like you, I cannot demonstrate that other spacetime continuums exist through either direct or indirect evidence, so I'm not making any claims whether they exist or not. I would suspect that a supernatural creator would be in some sort of continuum, but I would not know about its configuration of space and time (or if it even has space or time).

We have agreed that the God that you claim exists outside of our universe has intent and intelligence. To me, intent implies time or at least some dimension which operates in a similar was as time, hence meta-time.

I use the word "intent" as meaning "planned, deliberate, not accidental, purposeful".

It is statistically improbable that this planet has life. It is not so statistically improbable that no planet in the universe has life. The universe is big.

Being big is necessary, but not sufficient. I'll elaborate more after we get through fine-tuning and the origin of the Universe.

You see, this approach leaves a larger more difficult question than the one we originally had. How can that be an intellectually satisfying solution to the question?

Then likewise, we should also throw out the theory of evolution, since it cannot answer the origin of life. Also throw out quark theory, since we don't know what quarks are made of. And throw out the Big Bang theory since it does not address the origin of the Universe. And throw out multiverse theory too since it does not address what caused all those other universes.

It postulates an unknown being with a specific purpose whose existence cannot be discerned from the available evidence. The second is more consistent with what is known. It merely postulates that there are more instances of what we know exist rather than postulating the existence of something completely different.

I think we can agree that neither explanation has any direct evidence for their existence. We cannot detect a supernatural entity, nor can we detect any other universes. So, we have to look to indirect evidence for their existence.

Also, being an "unknown" being does not mean that a being does not exist. Many people on this forum are "unknown" to me. But I can still make deductions about their intelligence and existence based on the pattern of letters that show up here. If someone makes a well constructed post, it could be possible that the person was very lucky in randomly striking the keyboard. But, it would be more rational to think that there was an intentional and intelligent person behind it.

The many-worlds interpretation makes a whole lot of sense to 58% of the leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists, with only 18% opposed.

Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. How many people believe something has no bearing on its veracity.

The universe is a closed system that had a beginning. By assuming that the universe was briefly an open system, right at the beginning, and that the energy of the universe was provided by some unknown outside agency, you have squeezed in the necessity for a god.

And a god is the only explanation proposed so far.

This argument in no way shows intent or intelligence, and it assumes that which cannot be explained, that the universe is an open system, at least on one end.

Origin of the universe by itself does not show intelligence. That is where fine-tuning comes in. The range of parameters for sentient life to exist in this universe is very narrow. And it would require a deliberate act of high intelligence to get it right in one try.

[McCulloch]

Responding only to a few items. More later.

I would suspect that a supernatural creator would be in some sort of continuum, but I would not know about its configuration of space and time (or if it even has space or time).

I use the word "intent" as meaning "planned, deliberate, not accidental, purposeful".

How is it that you are using the word planned without reference to time?

I think we can agree that neither explanation has any direct evidence for their existence. We cannot detect a supernatural entity, nor can we detect any other universes. So, we have to look to indirect evidence for their existence.

So on one side we have the evidence of the body of knowledge known as quantum physics. On the other side, we have the teleological argument.

Also, being an "unknown" being does not mean that a being does not exist. Many people on this forum are "unknown" to me.

Yet the class of being known as people, is known to you.

But I can still make deductions about their intelligence and existence based on the pattern of letters that show up here. If someone makes a well constructed post, it could be possible that the person was very lucky in randomly striking the keyboard. But, it would be more rational to think that there was an intentional and intelligent person behind it.

And if the person made many indecipherable posts but only one that happened to have a well formed sentence, would you make the same conclusion? How much of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

The many-worlds interpretation makes a whole lot of sense to 58% of the leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists, with only 18% opposed.

Argumentum ad Populum fallacy. How many people believe something has no bearing on its veracity.

That would be true only if I was appealing to the general population. Since I was appealing to leading cosmologists and quantum field theorists, you might accuse me of an appeal to authority. As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument, especially if the authorities that are appealed to are experts in their fields. Informally, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe something makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe that thing. For example, the fact that nearly all medical scientists think that HIV causes AIDS and reject AIDS denialism, makes it reasonable for non-experts to believe the same. I have not the time or brain power to become an expert in quantum physics.

Origin of the universe by itself does not show intelligence. That is where fine-tuning comes in. The range of parameters for sentient life to exist in this universe is very narrow. And it would require a deliberate act of high intelligence to get it right in one try.

So you beg the question by assuming that it must have been done in one try.
There seems to be two possibilities

1. A deliberate act of high intelligence did it right in one try.
2. There were lots of possibilities, we exist in one where our existence is possible.

[otseng]

How is it that you are using the word planned without reference to time?

I'm not discounting that God could be in a meta-time. God could either be in a meta-time or not. I'm not making a claim either way.

I think we can agree that neither explanation has any direct evidence for their existence. We cannot detect a supernatural entity, nor can we detect any other universes. So, we have to look to indirect evidence for their existence.

So on one side we have the evidence of the body of knowledge known as quantum physics. On the other side, we have the teleological argument.

I don't understand your position here. How does quantum physics relate to the existence of other universes?

Yes, the fine-tuning argument can be classified as a teleological argument.

Also, being an "unknown" being does not mean that a being does not exist. Many people on this forum are "unknown" to me.

Yet the class of being known as people, is known to you.

And I also believe that people are not simply physical entities, but spiritual entities. So, extrapolating ourselves to a higher being is "not too much of a stretch".

But I can still make deductions about their intelligence and existence based on the pattern of letters that show up here. If someone makes a well constructed post, it could be possible that the person was very lucky in randomly striking the keyboard. But, it would be more rational to think that there was an intentional and intelligent person behind it.

And if the person made many indecipherable posts but only one that happened to have a well formed sentence, would you make the same conclusion?

If one post was eloquent and 50000 posts were random gibberish, I would attribute that one good post to be a result of random chance. However, if those 50000 gibberish posts did not exist and only one well-crafted post existed, I would have to attribute it to an intelligent poster. Now, you might say there exists 50000 random posts in other forums. But, if no evidence can be shown that he actually posted 50000 posts in other forums, then it would be entirely rational for me to think it was a product of an intelligent poster and not a result of random chance.

How much of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

I have my ideas, but I'll let you go first.

The many-worlds interpretation makes a whole lot of sense to 58% of the leading cosmologists and other quantum field theorists, with only 18% opposed.

That would be true only if I was appealing to the general population. Since I was appealing to leading cosmologists and quantum field theorists, you might accuse me of an appeal to authority.

It would be appealing to authority as well. But, I was referencing the fact that you stated 58% of cosmologists think multiverse makes sense, whereas 18% are opposed. Even if 99.99% of cosmologists thinks it makes sense does not by itself show that multiverse exists.

As with all logical fallacies, the fact that an argument is an appeal to authority does not make its conclusion untrue and does not make it unreasonable to believe the truth of the argument, especially if the authorities that are appealed to are experts in their fields. Informally, the fact that a majority of experts in a given field believe something makes it more reasonable for a person without knowledge in the field to believe that thing.

Yes, we've covered this already. And I hope we don't have to go through it again here.

So you beg the question by assuming that it must have been done in one try.

We know that one universe exists (ours). The assumption would be that other universes exist. So, it would not be an assumption that only one universe exists.

There seems to be two possibilities

1. A deliberate act of high intelligence did it right in one try.
2. There were lots of possibilities, we exist in one where our existence is possible.

Yes, those are the only two that I know about.