Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1654
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 14 times
Been thanked: 35 times
Contact:

Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #1

Post by EarthScienceguy »

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator in light of the following?

1. The universe without a creator breaks the law of conservation of mass and energy.

The question that needs to be answered: Where did all of the energy come from? I am using space and energy as synonymous terms because energy comes from space.

2. The universe without a creator breaks the second law of thermodynamics.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why we are individuals and not a Boltzmann brain?

3. The universe without a creator breaks all laws of probability.

The question that needs to be answered is: Why do the constants of nature have the values that they do? Or why do we have laws of nature?

There are more but we will stop at three.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #101

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 1:33 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #99]
So we are left with three options:

1. The presence of the universe really does not have an explanation.
2. The universe (in some form or other) has simply always existed.
3. The presence of the universe has an explanation but not a scientific explanation.

All we can do is pick one of these.
You've left out this option:

4) We don't yet know how the universe came into existence so cannot define the mechanism yet. It is an open problem.

The answer may well be a scientific one, and just because humans have yet to positively elucidate the mechanism in no way rules out a potential scientific explanation. Unsolved problems do not automatically default to a supernatural explanation ... the mistake so many theists make when trying to advance arguments like this (eg. the ontological argument for God is an example).
No, I did not leave it out, it is invalid.

That we "don't yet know" is true of 1, 2, and 3, admitting that we don't know isn't an option when we already know that we don't know!

I often wonder if the atheists that challenge me in this area really have any idea what's being discussed.

Do you understand when I say "we cannot explain the presence of laws by using laws in that explanation"?

For example, here is an example of a law of physics:

Image

The law relates material quantities c, T and so on, it expresses how these measurable things are always related, they are always related as that law describes, however the matter is conformed, planets, moons, dust clouds, galaxies, the relationship between those quantities is always as it is in that law.

Now if there were no material quantities like c, T and so on, if they did not already exist, then how could we have a law? any law?
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 843 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #102

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #101]
No, I did not leave it out, it is invalid.

That we "don't yet know" is true of 1, 2, and 3, admitting that we don't know isn't an option when we already know that we don't know!

I often wonder if the atheists that challenge me in this area really have any idea what's being discussed.
We can just see through the fallacy of it. None of your three options allow for an as yet to be found scientific solution. You've claimed that there is no scientific solution (ie. it is impossible) with no valid argument to support that conclusion. I simply pointed this gross error out and added it as an option to your list. What the scientific solution may be I didn't speculate, but you cannot rule out a scientific solution because you have no basis to do so.
Do you understand when I say "we cannot explain the presence of laws by using laws in that explanation"?
This is irrelevant to the existence, or not, of any scientific explanation for origin of the universe. The speed of light is a measured quantity that we usually represent using a lowercase letter c. Why it has the value of 2.99792458e10 cm/s has never been used to explain itself.
For example, here is an example of a law of physics:
Yes ... everyone is familiar with this form of the Einstein field equations (without the term on the left of metric tensor times the cosmological constant). It is a set of field equations that describe gravity as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy. Why is Newton's gravitational constant G present? I thought you had canceled him already as falsified and obselete.
Now if there were no material quantities like c, T and so on, if they did not already exist, then how could we have a law? any law?
What do you even mean by c, T, etc. already "existing"? c is a number representing the speed of light in a vacuum. It is a measured quantity that happens to be the speed an electromagnetic wave travels through spacetime. When photons appeared on the scene (or other massless particles/waves ... eg. gravity waves travel at c as well) their speed of travel through spacetime had some value that Maxwell sorted out theoretically with his great work on EM. It did not "begin to exist." Tuv is the stress-energy tensor and also did not "begin to exist" ... it describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in General Relativity. It is a mathematical construct. A human developed the equation you posted to describe something, and the various symbols and their meanings are handy for us humans to represent ideas and physical events and properties.

The argument that you can't explain the origin of the universe using physics, because certain physical constants had to first "begin to exist", is nonsensical.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #103

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #101]
No, I did not leave it out, it is invalid.

That we "don't yet know" is true of 1, 2, and 3, admitting that we don't know isn't an option when we already know that we don't know!

I often wonder if the atheists that challenge me in this area really have any idea what's being discussed.
We can just see through the fallacy of it.

None of your three options allow for an as yet to be found scientific solution.
How can there ever be a scientific explanation for something when such an explanation requires that something to already exist?
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm You've claimed that there is no scientific solution (ie. it is impossible) with no valid argument to support that conclusion.
The argument has been presented if you cannot understand it then so be it.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm I simply pointed this gross error out and added it as an option to your list. What the scientific solution may be I didn't speculate, but you cannot rule out a scientific solution because you have no basis to do so.
Science explains things in terms of other things, if no things exist then you can't have a scientific explanation.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm
Do you understand when I say "we cannot explain the presence of laws by using laws in that explanation"?
This is irrelevant to the existence, or not, of any scientific explanation for origin of the universe. The speed of light is a measured quantity that we usually represent using a lowercase letter c. Why it has the value of 2.99792458e10 cm/s has never been used to explain itself.
OK so you deem it irrelevant, but the question was do you understand it? The speed of light is a law of physics, it emerges from Maxwell's field equations - laws of physics - it, but what of it?
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm
For example, here is an example of a law of physics:
Yes ... everyone is familiar with this form of the Einstein field equations (without the term on the left of metric tensor times the cosmological constant). It is a set of field equations that describe gravity as a result of spacetime being curved by mass and energy. Why is Newton's gravitational constant G present? I thought you had canceled him already as falsified and obsolete.
What caused the law to exist? if it exists for some scientifically meaningful reason then there must be a law that gives rise to other laws, but if the only way to explain the laws of physics if to postulate other laws, then we have infinite regress and scientific theories that yield infinity are universally regarded as flawed, but I already told you that, it didn't seem to matter to you.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm
Now if there were no material quantities like c, T and so on, if they did not already exist, then how could we have a law? any law?
What do you even mean by c, T, etc. already "existing"? c is a number representing the speed of light in a vacuum. It is a measured quantity that happens to be the speed an electromagnetic wave travels through spacetime.
Is the speed of light a measurable thing? yes. what caused measurable things to exist? what led to them being here?
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm When photons appeared on the scene (or other massless particles/waves ... eg. gravity waves travel at c as well) their speed of travel through spacetime had some value that Maxwell sorted out theoretically with his great work on EM. It did not "begin to exist."
So electromagnetic waves have always existed? there was never a time when they did not exist? if that's your position then you have selected what I labelled as Option 2 " The universe (in some form or other) has simply always existed." if that's your chosen option just say so.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm Tuv is the stress-energy tensor and also did not "begin to exist" ... it describes the density and flux of energy and momentum in General Relativity.
Ditto: So energy has always existed? there was never a time when it did not exist? if that's your position then you have selected what I labelled as Option 2 " The universe (in some form or other) has simply always existed." if that's your chosen option just say so.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm It is a mathematical construct. A human developed the equation you posted to describe something, and the various symbols and their meanings are handy for us humans to represent ideas and physical events and properties.
So there are no laws of physics? they don't exist? is that what you now say?
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 3:08 pm The argument that you can't explain the origin of the universe using physics, because certain physical constants had to first "begin to exist", is nonsensical.
I'm sorry you feel that way, I really can't think of any further simplifications to help you, we are it seems at an impasse.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 843 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #104

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #103]
How can there ever be a scientific explanation for something when such an explanation requires that something to already exist?
The root question in the OP concerned origin of the universe (or existence of the universe). A scientific explanation for origin of the universe does not require that the universe already existed. That is the very question being debated.
The argument has been presented if you cannot understand it then so be it.
See above. You are confusing not agreeing with you with not understanding your point.
Science explains things in terms of other things, if no things exist then you can't have a scientific explanation.
That is making up definitions so that you can rule out anything but your desired answer. Science explains things via the various scientific disciplines that have evolved over time, with physics being the discipline most relevant to origin of the universe. If the mechanism for that event is not known, then you can't rule out all physical mechanisms as physics is not so complete that we know everything already. We don't know what dark energy and dark matter are, but that doesn't stop scientists from postulating explanations for testing to try and find out. By your logic there can be no scientific explanation for these two things because we don't already understand those things.
The speed of light is a law of physics, it emerges from Maxwell's field equations - laws of physics - it, but what of it?
But if didn't "begin to exist" when Maxwell did his work. It existed when the first massless particles/fields (in QFT these are the same thing) came into existence that moved at that speed. The entire concept of the speed of light requires that these massless particles/fields existed as something that could move at that speed, but it has nothing to do with the scientific explanation for the first existence of these massless particles/fields in the first place.
What caused the law to exist? if it exists for some scientifically meaningful reason then there must be a law that gives rise to other laws, but if the only way to explain the laws of physics if to postulate other laws, then we have infinite regress and scientific theories that yield infinity are universally regarded as flawed, but I already told you that, it didn't seem to matter to you.
What does that first sentence even mean? The speed of light exists because massless particles/fields can move at that speed. What caused them to move at that speed rather than some other? I don't know and it doesn't matter to me. You're making up another requirement that can only lead to the point you want to make. There is no infinite regression of physics laws that you describe. There can be mathematical singularities that show the math breaks down at some point (eg. the Big Bang at t = 0), but that doesn't mean we should abandon that model entirely. It means we need some smart physicists to refine the model to resolve the singularity, or produce a better model. Infinities can often be resolved in some way (look at renormalization in physics).
Is the speed of light a measurable thing? yes. what caused measurable things to exist? what led to them being here?
See above. The speed of light exists because there are things that move at that speed in a vacuum. What caused those things to exist? That is the origin question and we don't know a full answer yet. The problem of the mechanism for origin of the universe is an open scientific problem, and a closed problem in many religions (ie. whatever the holy book says).
So electromagnetic waves have always existed? there was never a time when they did not exist?
We don't know, hence my option #4. That is the whole debate about the mechanism for origin of the universe.
So there are no laws of physics? they don't exist? is that what you now say?
I didn't say that. But I totally disagree with your argument that physics laws begatting other laws is an infinite regress. Whatever the mechanism for origin of the universe, there's no reason to conclude that the physics that did operate required any supernatural input or that such input was necessary to "set up" physical constants, etc.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1645
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 49 times
Been thanked: 84 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #105

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #103]
How can there ever be a scientific explanation for something when such an explanation requires that something to already exist?
The root question in the OP concerned origin of the universe (or existence of the universe). A scientific explanation for origin of the universe does not require that the universe already existed. That is the very question being debated.
Of course it does, something material has to exist in order for any kind of material process to take place, that is if we confine ourselves to scientific explanations.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm
The argument has been presented if you cannot understand it then so be it.
See above. You are confusing not agreeing with you with not understanding your point.
Science explains things in terms of other things, if no things exist then you can't have a scientific explanation.
That is making up definitions so that you can rule out anything but your desired answer. Science explains things via the various scientific disciplines that have evolved over time, with physics being the discipline most relevant to origin of the universe. If the mechanism for that event is not known, then you can't rule out all physical mechanisms as physics is not so complete that we know everything already. We don't know what dark energy and dark matter are, but that doesn't stop scientists from postulating explanations for testing to try and find out. By your logic there can be no scientific explanation for these two things because we don't already understand those things.
What do you think I "made up"? Science does use reductionism, a scientific explanation is reductionist, I most certainly did not make this up!
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm
The speed of light is a law of physics, it emerges from Maxwell's field equations - laws of physics - it, but what of it?
But if didn't "begin to exist" when Maxwell did his work. It existed when the first massless particles/fields (in QFT these are the same thing) came into existence that moved at that speed.
Right so it began to exist and it began to exist when "massless particles/fields" began to exist, or as you put it "came into existence", did these material things just pop into existence magically? or did they begin to exist because of some law that existed than made them inevitable? if so did that law just pop into existence without any law? if so then we have no scientific explanation, no theory because scientific theories in physics are not based the assumption that stuff just pops into existence, that laws just pop into existence.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm The entire concept of the speed of light requires that these massless particles/fields existed as something that could move at that speed, but it has nothing to do with the scientific explanation for the first existence of these massless particles/fields in the first place.
What caused the law to exist? if it exists for some scientifically meaningful reason then there must be a law that gives rise to other laws, but if the only way to explain the laws of physics if to postulate other laws, then we have infinite regress and scientific theories that yield infinity are universally regarded as flawed, but I already told you that, it didn't seem to matter to you.
What does that first sentence even mean? The speed of light exists because massless particles/fields can move at that speed. What caused them to move at that speed rather than some other? I don't know and it doesn't matter to me. You're making up another requirement that can only lead to the point you want to make. There is no infinite regression of physics laws that you describe. There can be mathematical singularities that show the math breaks down at some point (eg. the Big Bang at t = 0), but that doesn't mean we should abandon that model entirely. It means we need some smart physicists to refine the model to resolve the singularity, or produce a better model. Infinities can often be resolved in some way (look at renormalization in physics).
Do you claim that "massless particles" can spontaneously pop into existence from nothing? that mass is therefore not conserved? is that your position?

You either do or you do not:

You do: In which case you advocating a non-scientific explanation, magic in fact.

You do not: In which case there has to be a scientific explanation for massless particles appearing to pop into existence. But if that's the case then the massless particles are not the origin of the universe, the origin must be that which led to the particles popping into existence.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm
Is the speed of light a measurable thing? yes. what caused measurable things to exist? what led to them being here?
See above. The speed of light exists because there are things that move at that speed in a vacuum. What caused those things to exist? That is the origin question and we don't know a full answer yet.
If the cause was material, a scientific cause, then by definition that material (in the general sense of the term) would itself need to be explained. If we explain that by recourse to other material then that too remains to be explained and we get infinite regress.

At every point that we think we have an explanation we have to refer to as-yet unexplained things and this is infinite regress unless we postulate nothing and an uncaused popping into existence which is what I'd call "magic".

A magic explanation is not a scientific explanation.
DrNoGods wrote: Mon Jan 24, 2022 6:22 pm The problem of the mechanism for origin of the universe is an open scientific problem, and a closed problem in many religions (ie. whatever the holy book says).
So electromagnetic waves have always existed? there was never a time when they did not exist?
We don't know, hence my option #4. That is the whole debate about the mechanism for origin of the universe.
So there are no laws of physics? they don't exist? is that what you now say?
I didn't say that. But I totally disagree with your argument that physics laws begetting other laws is an infinite regress. Whatever the mechanism for origin of the universe, there's no reason to conclude that the physics that did operate required any supernatural input or that such input was necessary to "set up" physical constants, etc.
If the infinite regress is absent as you seem to really think, then how can we logically have a cause for things existing yet not seek a cause for that cause existing?

You cannot escape infinite regress, this is no longer physics either it is metaphysics, philosophy, like I said science can't help us here, science can't be used to explain science.

I can see you're struggling with all this, but that's unavoidable if you've been hoodwinked into adopting a philosophical materialist position.

Seriously, can you seriously argue that matter/energy can spring into existence without some kind of material process being involved?

Let me show you the first draft of my "Scientific Theory of Everything":

Image

See? no equations, why? because until we have something to work with we don't have anything to work with.

Feel free to edit that draft, I'd be delighted to incorporate any ideas you might have.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 498 times
Been thanked: 1138 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #106

Post by William »

Science is the means by which we interact with the universe.
The argument that the universe is the product of Mind should be able to be tested through science by looking for evidence which supports the notion.

Due to the nature of Mind, materialist scientists only deal with material, not having the will to develop such device, when gold is better invested in materialist space ventures.. one does get the impression theist are not welcome on the planet as the world would be better off without then.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 843 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #107

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #105]
You cannot escape infinite regress, this is no longer physics either it is metaphysics, philosophy, like I said science can't help us here, science can't be used to explain science.
Let's boil this down. My argument is that we don't yet know the exact mechanism for origin of the universe. Therefore we cannot rule out a scientific explanation. Simple as that. You are countering that with an infinite regress argument as if that somehow negates a scientific explanation, when it cannot because there may well be new physics that we have no knowledge of yet. Your philosophical argument that "science can't explain itself" seems to me to be analogous to the ontological argument for god ... it makes assumptions that are not valid and then reaches a (faulty) desired conclusion.

Do you believe that virtual particles exist, and that they can spontaneously produce photons? Or that the dynamical Casimir effect exists (it has been demonstrated). How do you define "nothing"? A scientific explanation for origin of the universe cannot be ruled out until we know a lot more about physics than we currently do. An infinite regression argument also applies to gods of course ... and a big thread on this website is still going (although it long ago took an off ramp away from a god existing focus).

I'd bet on a scientific explanation for origin of the present universe before I'd bet on any god being ever being shown to actually exist.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 498 times
Been thanked: 1138 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #108

Post by William »

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #107]
Let's boil this down. My argument is that we don't yet know the exact mechanism for origin of the universe. Therefore we cannot rule out a scientific explanation. Simple as that.
That is a reasonable argument until one realizes that the mechanism may not be able to be scientifically explained until such a time as humans have developed their understanding of the universe far more completely than they currently do.

Therefore the statement - while reasonable - still relies on a perceived future event which will allow for this to occur.

Meantime it is just wishful thinking and filling in the gaps with the junky bi-products of materialism.

Whether humans await this promised event, or for Jesus to return, or some such other thing to occur, is pretty much-the-much.

_________________________

The way I see it currently, is that the explanation of The Seed of Origin is the best.
An infinitesimal object germinated and thereby released the data within as information which we see now as "heavenly objects".

What I also know is that numbers don't lie.

There is no such thing as true randomness

The outward expression of an inward reality.

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the best...

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1938
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 358 times
Been thanked: 843 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #109

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to William in post #108]
That is a reasonable argument until one realizes that the mechanism may not be able to be scientifically explained until such a time as humans have developed their understanding of the universe far more completely than they currently do.

Therefore the statement - while reasonable - still relies on a perceived future event which will allow for this to occur.
I think this is exactly what I said ... we need to learn a lot more physics (indeed a perceived future event, but given our progress so far is reasonable to expect) in order to rule out a scientific explanation. Sherlock Holmes has ruled it out already, closing the door on a scientific explanation while we're still woefully short of understanding "all" of physics. My point is that we don't yet know enough to close that door.
In human affairs the sources of success are ever to be found in the fountains of quick resolve and swift stroke; and it seems to be a law, inflexible and inexorable, that he who will not risk cannot win.
John Paul Jones, 1779

The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read.
Mark Twain

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10522
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 498 times
Been thanked: 1138 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #110

Post by William »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:19 pm [Replying to William in post #108]
That is a reasonable argument until one realizes that the mechanism may not be able to be scientifically explained until such a time as humans have developed their understanding of the universe far more completely than they currently do.

Therefore the statement - while reasonable - still relies on a perceived future event which will allow for this to occur.
I think this is exactly what I said ... we need to learn a lot more physics (indeed a perceived future event, but given our progress so far is reasonable to expect) in order to rule out a scientific explanation. Sherlock Holmes has ruled it out already, closing the door on a scientific explanation while we're still woefully short of understanding "all" of physics. My point is that we don't yet know enough to close that door.
And my point is that we don't know enough to close any door and leave those rooms unexplored...

Post Reply