Whence came the order in the cosmos?

[QED]

Self-organization is a widely recognized and well understood principle. It can operate over a vast range of scales in any dynamic system that is far from thermal equilibrium. One example of this is our biosphere which is driven away from thermal equilibrium by the Suns radiant energy. Self-organization arises from various feedback mechanisms such as those operating within our biosphere serving as a good (and very large) example: the energy output from the Sun has fallen by some 30% while the average temperature within the biosphere has remained far more constant over the same period.

What may not be so widely recognized is that the principles of self-organization extend much further up in scale than our planet: Galaxies are ecology's in their own right within which stars are born and die. Carbon plays a central role in the self-regulation and evolution of galactic systems. So it turns out that we ourselves are riding on this carbon regulated merry-go-round of stellar evolution.

In principle there is no upper limit on the scope of self-organization. Astronomers have started to recognize structure in the distribution of galaxies hinting at higher levels of organization. So, it seems that a sound philosophical conclusion can be drawn here: self-organization is a natural principle within the cosmos as it can be seen operating over some 40 or so orders of magnitude. A few more orders would take this to the entire extent of our universe and, according to Professor Lee Smolin and others, there is good reason to believe that our universe is but one of a vast collection representing yet higher opportunities for self-organisation.

Now, what strikes me about all this is that we have potential answers to some very fundamental questions here. We should not be surprised to find order among the chaos. As a natural principal of the cosmos it should be expected for life to emerge. Now that we're here it is not surprising that we find ourselves looking upon order and chaos and speculating over such matters as good and evil. The simple fact is that goodness and order are prerequisites for our existence and they are born out of nothing more fancy than feedback in systems far from thermal equilibrium.

I would like this to stimulate a debate over the implications this has for the opposing worldviews of theists and atheists.

[Cephus]

For example, Alvin Plantinga provided a half dozen (or so) ontological arguments for God's existence.

The problem with using Plantinga or one of the many Christian apologists is that they start, a priori with the assumption that God is real, then set out to explore only those arguments that satisfy themselves that they were right to begin with. People like Plantinga, William Alston, William Craig, Peter van Inwagen, etc. really aren't seeking out the truth, they are seeking only to prove what they already believe to be true. That means that they ignore the massive holes in their arguments and all of the arguments against them, simply because they don't want them to be valid.

[harvey1]

The problem with using Plantinga or one of the many Christian apologists is that they start, a priori with the assumption that God is real, then set out to explore only those arguments that satisfy themselves that they were right to begin with. People like Plantinga, William Alston, William Craig, Peter van Inwagen, etc. really aren't seeking out the truth, they are seeking only to prove what they already believe to be true. That means that they ignore the massive holes in their arguments and all of the arguments against them, simply because they don't want them to be valid.

That's a pretty broad side of a barn that you're painting with that brush. I think we all question the motives of everyone on the opposite side of what we happen to believe, that's just human nature. Rather than dealing with the argument we try and determine if that person has a motivation for their belief. If we see they have a motivation, then it's easy to write their ideas off. In my view, this amounts to an ad hominem attack whenever it is used to justify a belief or counter-belief. An exception to that might be if it can be shown that a group is ignoring arguments, then it might be argued that they are ignoring an argument because it is psychologically not satisfying to them. That's not an ad hominem attack if that can be shown.

[harvey1]

But what in the name of all that is good has a 5 minute old universe stocked with memories got to do with anything I'm proposing? You obviously see it as a damming indictment against multiple universes as you keep on bringing it up over and over again but I can never get my head around it. The improbability of all the atoms acquiring their exact quantum sates (position, spin velocity etc.) out of all the other possible states they might otherwise have is what tells us that it is unlikely that we might find ourselves living in a 5 minute old universe stocked with memories.

Remember, though, the reason for the atheist referring to an infinite universe is to explain the coincidental values in the physical constants. However, an infinite universe that "just is" also explains the universe up to 5 minutes ago perfectly well too. The fact that this kind of explanation is used with the power to explain a 5-minute old universe should be reason enough to become very skeptical of such an atheistic belief. Add to that the conviction by many atheists that this must be the answer, and theists have all the more reason to wonder why atheists have this kind of conviction. Listening to some of the people posting here, I'm convinced that they would believe in a 5-minute old universe before they would ever entertain a universe with a God.

You are proposing some process whereby our (the one and only) universe is created. I say a process because we must both agree that there is something (ultimately a brute fact) which transforms nothingness into somethingness. You propose a hyper-intelligence that is capable of rigging-up a process such that it delivers the precise tuning we all know about.

Not really. Mind is necessary because there are principles that cannot be true unless there is a Mind, so the introduction of Mind meets a criteria. Notice, this is not the case with an infinite number of universes that some atheists are seriously proposing. The infinite universes are just a brute fact with no explanation whatsoever. Mind can be seen as having an "explanation."

I don't like this on account of not being able to see where the smarts come from in order to get the interesting universe we do (Galaxies etc.).

I gave reason on why and how this is possible. What is wrong with that reason?

I don't buy that only goodness can drop out of your OI on account of consistency or whatever.

What is goodness? Please define it. Perhaps that another new thread, but I think what you'll find is that any definition reduces to moral consistency.

I'm therefore proposing a process which is freed from these problems by virtue of it following from the universal principles of evolution that we are already comfortable with. The only requirement is that the process delivers a prototyping area from which embryonic universes can form and evolve. I think you ought to realise that more sophisticated state spaces can in turn evolve with these universes meaning that working backwards, we will expect to see lesser and lesser sophistication of state spaces. The selection criteria is what gives the universes their character and this would suggest that the properties of our universe are also critical to the continued regeneration. As a consequence we arrive at the fine tuning in just the same way that the evolution of life leads to apparently improbable complex structures like eyes (which seem to be the favourite naysayers example).

Biological evolution started with a pretty complex state of affairs. If you are proposing an initial state (e.g., an infinite number of universes), then you have something far, far more complex than a simple principle of causation. But, here's what I don't understand. Why reject a simple principle of causation? We both know that you'd accept it in a second if it produced an atheistic universe. This makes it seem that you just don't want a God, and that leads to suspicion that this is a psychological issue. I don't mean to be insulting in suggesting this, but I find it very difficult to understand why someone would reject such a simple principle in favor of an infinite number of universes that "just exists."

[Cephus]

That's a pretty broad side of a barn that you're painting with that brush. I think we all question the motives of everyone on the opposite side of what we happen to believe, that's just human nature. Rather than dealing with the argument we try and determine if that person has a motivation for their belief. If we see they have a motivation, then it's easy to write their ideas off. In my view, this amounts to an ad hominem attack whenever it is used to justify a belief or counter-belief. An exception to that might be if it can be shown that a group is ignoring arguments, then it might be argued that they are ignoring an argument because it is psychologically not satisfying to them. That's not an ad hominem attack if that can be shown.

It has nothing to do with writing their ideas off, it has to do with going where the evidence leads, as opposed to picking a position and only looking for evidence to support it. Don't make me go quoting Plantinga and the rest, they are all clearly Christian first, philosophers second. They simply don't care where the evidence leads, it isn't going to change their religious beliefs, any more than it would change yours.

[harvey1]

It has nothing to do with writing their ideas off, it has to do with going where the evidence leads, as opposed to picking a position and only looking for evidence to support it. Don't make me go quoting Plantinga and the rest, they are all clearly Christian first, philosophers second. They simply don't care where the evidence leads, it isn't going to change their religious beliefs, any more than it would change yours.

Your argument doesn't hold any water. You have to show how others are contradicting themselves or not responding to arguments. That's the bottom line.

[Cephus]

Your argument doesn't hold any water. You have to show how others are contradicting themselves or not responding to arguments. That's the bottom line.

Since last I checked, people like Alvin Plantinga weren't posting in this forum, it's a little difficult to show them not responding to arguments, isn't it? Have you actually read what they've written or just snippets from web sites? Plantinga starts out making statements about the existence of God from a Christian perspective, he's not out looking for truth, he thinks he started out with it and is only looking for ways to defend it.

Kind of like you, Harvey.

[harvey1]

Kind of like you, Harvey.

Okay, enough talking to you, Cephus. I need debates to be more than mere personal opinion and subtle ad hominem attacks. May things go well for you always.

[Scrotum]

Thats funny, i had a friend whom i spoke to about "god" and christianity, and he did a "harvey" and just ran away when he was forced to show the reasoning for his beliefs...

Or rather, i can make a simple generalization there, most Christians run away or simple refuse talking about it...... Wonder why?

[QED]

Remember, though, the reason for the atheist referring to an infinite universe is to explain the coincidental values in the physical constants. However, an infinite universe that "just is" also explains the universe up to 5 minutes ago perfectly well too.

Ah! Perhaps you think I'm calling on something akin to Everett's Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? That is very different to the sort of evolution of universes that I'm talking about here. Each universe to me would be like an individual living creature in biological evolution terms and there are a finite number of those.

The fact that this kind of explanation is used with the power to explain a 5-minute old universe should be reason enough to become very skeptical of such an atheistic belief.

Well I hope you can see that what I'm proposing earns its power of explanation in the same way that biological evolution earns its power to explain our complex and otherwise unlikely features. Indeed, strip away all the proposed mechanisms and the principle remains. Another thing to note is that this explanation would not cover the 5-minute old universe so you will have to drop your skepticism on that score.

Add to that the conviction by many atheists that this must be the answer, and theists have all the more reason to wonder why atheists have this kind of conviction. Listening to some of the people posting here, I'm convinced that they would believe in a 5-minute old universe before they would ever entertain a universe with a God.

Well that would be absurd to me and now you just seem to be getting bitter. I'm disappointed to see that you still regard my opinions as other than a sincere attempt to reason out the puzzle we are faced with by our existence. Having distinguished my view of a finite collection of evolved universes from the pre-existing infinite set which you would seem to have lumbered me with I hope you will be more sympathetic to my own personal conviction.

Not really. Mind is necessary because there are principles that cannot be true unless there is a Mind, so the introduction of Mind meets a criteria.

I think this ought to be taken up in theOn What Basis is an Intelligent God Possible w/o Evolution? thread. If it is a proven fact that mind must be a precursor to anything that can constitute a mind I think we're all in trouble.

Notice, this is not the case with an infinite number of universes that some atheists are seriously proposing. The infinite universes are just a brute fact with no explanation whatsoever. Mind can be seen as having an "explanation."

Not the same sort of "explanation" that we've become accustomed to though Harvey. It seems to me that you've redefined the term here.

I don't like this on account of not being able to see where the smarts come from in order to get the interesting universe we do (Galaxies etc.).

I gave reason on why and how this is possible. What is wrong with that reason?

I don't recall seeing where you demonstrate a priori why a universe such as ours would be expected without reference to anything else. By this I mean that if I study my own unlikely features (!) I can see references from more primitive versions of life. To get to me without such references would imply that there was something inevitable about me. I think that it's entirely reasonable to view our universe in the same way if it is to have a logical explanation emerging from the sort of reasoning you're using.

I don't buy that only goodness can drop out of your OI on account of consistency or whatever.

What is goodness? Please define it. Perhaps that another new thread, but I think what you'll find is that any definition reduces to moral consistency.

And what do you do with the moral consistency of things that do not match up with your particular preferences? I think I'm over dignifying your argument by posing such questions. The problem is how to convince anyone that a stable and bountiful universe is to be expected as an outcome of the satisfaction of some complete set of truths -- even if your language of disembodied mind did make sense (which I don't believe it does).

Biological evolution started with a pretty complex state of affairs.

But note that it is far more complex now that it's been up and running for a few billion years.

If you are proposing an initial state (e.g., an infinite number of universes), then you have something far, far more complex than a simple principle of causation.

Yet if, as an initial state, I am proposing a universe prototyping principle (why don't I call it a principle of causation) then I have presented a believable mechanism whereby we eventually get a bountiful and stable universe without resorting to a mystery mind that cleverly figures out how to do it right off the bat.

But, here's what I don't understand. Why reject a simple principle of causation? We both know that you'd accept it in a second if it produced an atheistic universe.

Right on Harvey. There's something rather than nothing -- that much seems pretty clear to me. And I'm well versed in what would seem to be a timeless and inevitable piece of logic called evolution. So it's not that I've got some grudge against all those Archbishops in their purple frocks -- it's just that all the non-theistic pieces that we've got lying around already fit the puzzle. And it makes a lot more sense to me when completed in this way. I don't blame the Archbishops or anyone else for drawing analogies between mans creativity and that of some ultimate creator. But it's just too obvious to be true when, at the same time, it takes so much philosophical effort to patch it into a reasoned argument in the way that you do.

This makes it seem that you just don't want a God, and that leads to suspicion that this is a psychological issue. I don't mean to be insulting in suggesting this, but I find it very difficult to understand why someone would reject such a simple principle in favor of an infinite number of universes that "just exists."

Well now that I've corrected you over the "infinite number of universes" misunderstanding I hope you'll reconsider my proposal in the light it was always meant to be seen in.

I think we all question the motives of everyone on the opposite side of what we happen to believe, that's just human nature. Rather than dealing with the argument we try and determine if that person has a motivation for their belief. If we see they have a motivation, then it's easy to write their ideas off. In my view, this amounts to an ad hominem attack whenever it is used to justify a belief or counter-belief.

So let's quit with the psychological BS and focus on the merits of the arguments. The real answer to all this might lie in a synthesis of the ideas we're both putting forward here. I don't mind conceding a "God" if that God is stripped away of all the classical nonsense that I can detect and quite likely becomes as unfamiliar to me as it does to you.

[harvey1]

Thats funny, i had a friend whom i spoke to about "god" and christianity, and he did a "harvey" and just ran away when he was forced to show the reasoning for his beliefs... Or rather, i can make a simple generalization there, most Christians run away or simple refuse talking about it...... Wonder why?

You and Cephus don't present arguments. So, I don't waste my time. I've proven that I can debate issues with intelligent people. I let my debates speak for themselves.