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.

[McCulloch]

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 disagree.

God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

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".

You are defending the proposition that God has with intent created the universe. You have clarified your own understanding of intent as involving planning, to which I agree. However, I fail to understand, and have asked for an explanation, as to what you mean by planning, if not with reference to time or some time-like dimension.

From the dictionary, plan as a verb:

• to arrange a method or scheme beforehand for (any work, enterprise, or proceeding): to plan a new recreation center.

So, both the compilers of the dictionary and I do not understand how you could possibly mean that God planned creation if God does not inhabit a realm with time or some time-like dimension. Please either explain what you mean or admit that you have implied God must be in time or a meta-time.

[McCulloch]

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

Quantum physics depends on the existence of other universes, at least according to one interpretation.

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".

Your personal religious beliefs should not count as evidence. What do you mean by spiritual entity? You know that people exist. You believe, without evidence that spiritual entities exist. Correct me if I am wrong, by supplying a rigorous definition of spiritual entity and a demonstration their independent existence.

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.

In my analogy, this galaxy is the forum and the everything in it are the posts. Sentient life is a well crafted post. We know of one somewhat well crafted post and a vast number of random gibberish. Thus you and I both attribute the one good post to random chance.

How much of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

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

In order to avoid further debate on this particular item, can we agree that vast amounts of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

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

It is enough that if you wish to disagree with the experts in a given field, you should have clear direct unambiguous evidence and thorough reasoning.

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.

Me too. We can agree to limit ourselves to those two possibilities for now, without necessarily ruling out that there may be others outside of the confines of our imaginations.

[otseng]

So, both the compilers of the dictionary and I do not understand how you could possibly mean that God planned creation if God does not inhabit a realm with time or some time-like dimension. Please either explain what you mean or admit that you have implied God must be in time or a meta-time.

Everything that humans endeavor in are bounded by time, whether it is planning, thinking, creating, etc. So, of course the definitions of what we engage in will include an aspect of time. However, does this necessarily mean that things outside of our time is bound by the same definitions? It might be. Or it might not be. I don't think one can prove it either way. We cannot know the exact nature of something that is beyond our ability to experience.

Let's for argument sake assume that God is on another time dimension. With this assumption, God would be in an analogous time continuum as ours, but in an independent one. So, using this assumption, God can certainly "plan" as we understand it to mean.

Quantum physics depends on the existence of other universes, at least according to one interpretation.

Please elaborate.

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".

Your personal religious beliefs should not count as evidence.

You are correct, my statement would at this point simply be considered an opinion. But, likewise, the statement that humans are only material beings would also be considered an opinion.

In my analogy, this galaxy is the forum and the everything in it are the posts. Sentient life is a well crafted post. We know of one somewhat well crafted post and a vast number of random gibberish.

What would be the "vast number of random gibberish" that you are referring to? Stars, planets, life?

In order to avoid further debate on this particular item, can we agree that vast amounts of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "virtually empty". Do you mean the number of atoms per cubic meter? The number of lifeforms in our galaxy?

you should have clear direct unambiguous evidence and thorough reasoning.

I agree with this.

[McCulloch]

Let's for argument sake assume that God is on another time dimension.

Actually, by specifying that God has intent and plans, you have put God on some kind of time-like dimension.

But, likewise, the statement that humans are only material beings would also be considered an opinion.

That humans are material beings, I hope, is not up for debate. We both agree that humans are a material life form. What is merely opinion is your assertion that there is something beyond that. That humans are spiritual entities, as well as material beings. Is there going to be a definition of spiritual entity or are we dropping the use of that term?

In my analogy, this galaxy is the forum and the everything in it are the posts. Sentient life is a well crafted post. We know of one somewhat well crafted post and a vast number of random gibberish.

What would be the "vast number of random gibberish" that you are referring to? Stars, planets, life?

In the analogy, the vast number of random gibberish postings is analogous to the vast amount of space in the galaxy without life.

In order to avoid further debate on this particular item, can we agree that vast amounts of our galaxy is virtually empty and lifeless?

I'm not really sure what you mean by "virtually empty". Do you mean the number of atoms per cubic meter? The number of lifeforms in our galaxy?

By virtually empty, I mean very few atoms per cubic meter. However, upon reflection, it seems to me that this attribute adds nothing to the debate. I suppose that I put in virtually empty mainly for rhetorical reasons.

By lifeless, I mean without biological life forms. So, in order to avoid further debate on this particular item, can we agree that vast amounts of our galaxy is lifeless?

It appears to me that you may be concluding that because life developed on the surface of one small satellite of one star of the 100-400 billion stars in the galaxy, that the galaxy was designed to support life.

[McCulloch]

Something has been bothering me about our dichotomy, either the universe is finely tuned and carefully planned or there are many universes and we happen to be in the universe that we can be in. Let me illustrate with a story.

• Arthur is an academic statistician. Ben is a successful investment banker. Charles approaches both of them with this problem, "I have a fair pair of dice, which I roll and get boxcars (two sixes) forty-seven times in a row. What are the odds that when I roll them the forty-eighth time, I will get two sixes? "
  Arthur thinks about it and realizing that since the past events cannot affect the future outcome of dice, the answer is one in thirty-six.
  Ben, on the other hand, takes a more realistic approach. He concludes that the probability of Charles being wrong about the dice being fair is greater than the probability that a set of fair dice would produce a series of forty-seven identical rolls, so he answers that the odds are much, much larger than one in thirty-six.

So, I have to wonder, along with Einstein, whether whether God had any choice in the creation of the world. I therefore offer that there must be a third option added to our list of options.

There seems to be [strike]two [/strike] three 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.
3. There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is.

I apologize. This added option contradicts what I had already agreed to. I've changed my mind.


______________________________
I am not admitting in this the existence of the traditional concept of God, but using God as a metaphor.

[otseng]

Let's for argument sake assume that God is on another time dimension.

Actually, by specifying that God has intent and plans, you have put God on some kind of time-like dimension.

OK, for argument sake, let us assume God is in a time-like dimension.

But, likewise, the statement that humans are only material beings would also be considered an opinion.

That humans are material beings, I hope, is not up for debate.

That's why I emphasized only. Yes, humans are made of matter. But, I believe there is also a non-material aspect to humans. Basically, I believe in a form of dualism. My point is that one cannot prove that humans are strictly comprised of only matter.

Is there going to be a definition of spiritual entity or are we dropping the use of that term?

OK, I can drop the term spiritual entity. I'll present the term "dualism" instead.

"Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute."
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/dualism.htm

By lifeless, I mean without biological life forms. So, in order to avoid further debate on this particular item, can we agree that vast amounts of our galaxy is lifeless?

Well, I go even further. I believe that all of the other parts of our galaxy is lifeless. I also wonder why you only mention "our galaxy"? Why not also include all galaxies?

I apologize. This added option contradicts what I had already agreed to. I've changed my mind.

OK, so I guess we're back to two options.

[McCulloch]

OK, for argument sake, let us assume God is in a time-like dimension.

Agreed. It is good to see that you will accept the implications of your own assertions, for argument sake.

I believe there is also a non-material aspect to humans. Basically, I believe in a form of dualism. My point is that one cannot prove that humans are strictly comprised of only matter.

One cannot prove that yeast are strictly comprised of only matter either. What evidence do you have that there is some non-material aspect to any particular life form?

I can drop the term spiritual entity. I'll present the term "dualism" instead.

"Dualism is the concept that our mind is more than just our brain. This concept entails that our mind has a non-material, spiritual dimension that includes consciousness and possibly an eternal attribute."
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/dualism.htm

I'm not really sure that this helps a whole lot. What is it that you mean by spiritual dimension? Are you assuming that consciousness arises from something other than our brain?

I believe that all of the other parts of our galaxy is lifeless. I also wonder why you only mention "our galaxy"? Why not also include all galaxies?

I limited it to only the galaxy that we have any chance of validating the data. Another galaxy may be teeming with life, but we'll never know due to the vast distance.

I apologize. This added option contradicts what I had already agreed to. I've changed my mind.

OK, so I guess we're back to two options.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm going back on my previous agreement to limit our discussion to two options. I now realize that I was wrong to agree to that limit and beg your indulgence to extend it to the three listed above.

[otseng]

I'm not really sure that this helps a whole lot. What is it that you mean by spiritual dimension? Are you assuming that consciousness arises from something other than our brain?

How about let's put this on hold until later so that we can focus on fine-tuning and the cause of the universe for now?

I limited it to only the galaxy that we have any chance of validating the data. Another galaxy may be teeming with life, but we'll never know due to the vast distance.

I think it depends on the type of life. If any planet is teeming with bacteria, even if it was in our own galaxy, we'd have no chance of validating it without actually landing on the planet. But if an advanced lifeform in another galaxy had developed radio technology millions of years ago, we could theoretically detect it.

3. There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being the way it is.

No, that's not what I meant. I'm going back on my previous agreement to limit our discussion to two options. I now realize that I was wrong to agree to that limit and beg your indulgence to extend it to the three listed above.

OK, let's discuss this third one then. What evidence is there that the cause of the fine-tuning is some underlying unity? What is the underlying unity? Why should it be necessary for sentient life to exist in a universe?

[McCulloch]

Here is my summary of where we are with the fine tuning argument:

There have been three explanations put forward to account for the apparent fine tuning of the universe:

1. The universe could not have been any other way.
   There has been no evidence put forward supporting the idea of a theory of everything that this option would require.
2. Our universe is one of many universes.
   There has been no evidence put forward speaking to the existence of any other universe or to any kind of space containing these multiple universes.
3. It is the deliberate planned action of a supernatural being, God.
   There has been no evidence put forward speaking to the existence of God, to the existence of a realm outside of the universe or to the idea that the universe was deliberately planned.

In such situations many reasonable people turn to an English Franciscan friar William of Ockham. Until any evidence surfaces, he claimed that we should select from the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question. Using the good friar's method, the options listed above have been listed in descending order of their acceptability.

Option 1 requires no more entities than the one universe we know to exist and assumes a theory of everything, and progress has been made in that direction: theories of electricity and magnetism have been combined in electromagnetism; theories of electromagnetism and the weak force have been combined in the electro-weak force at very high energy levels; several alternate theories combining electro-weak and the strong force have been proposed.

Option 2 requires no more types of entities other than what is already known to exist, universes and required no assumptions of the meta-universe that would contain the set of all universes. This model has some similarities with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, accepted by over half of the leading experts in QM.

Option 3 requires a realm outside of our universe with at least one time-like dimension and a being in that realm with intelligence and intent.

Unless I have missed something or misrepresented something, I am willing to leave the topic of the fine-tuned universe argument and move on to whatever is next.

[McCulloch]

I'm not really sure that this helps a whole lot. What is it that you mean by spiritual dimension? Are you assuming that consciousness arises from something other than our brain?

How about let's put this on hold until later so that we can focus on fine-tuning and the cause of the universe for now?

OK. But please don't raise issues that you are not willing to debate yet. You bring up the unsupported assertion that there is some kind of spiritual dimension in context of the fine-tuning argument and then counter a request for clarification about what you mean by that for later.

I limited it to only the galaxy that we have any chance of validating the data. Another galaxy may be teeming with life, but we'll never know due to the vast distance.

I think it depends on the type of life. If any planet is teeming with bacteria, even if it was in our own galaxy, we'd have no chance of validating it without actually landing on the planet. But if an advanced lifeform in another galaxy had developed radio technology millions of years ago, we could theoretically detect it.

You assume that an advanced life form would have developed radio technology. I suppose by that you mean to imply that Earth had no advanced life forms until the 1890's. Our own galaxy could have hundreds of civilizations as advanced as the Roman Empire and we would not detect them.

Remind me why this point is at all relevant to the fine tuned argument.

OK, let's discuss this third one then.
What evidence is there that the cause of the fine-tuning is some underlying unity?

The evidence for the third option is about the same as for the other two.

What is the underlying unity?

If I knew that, I would be on my way to Stockholm soon.

Why should it be necessary for sentient life to exist in a universe?

I don't quite understand. I don't think that I have in any way asserted that it is necessary for sentient life to exist at all. Do you feel that sentient life is necessary?