Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 1640
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 34 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
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #121

Post by Diagoras »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:54 pmThe only rational explanation for the presence of the universe is to postulate a non-material cause, an agency that does not require causality, laws, that is not subject to laws, that is the source of laws, is the source of material, it is not scientific, it is not mechanistic because that requires that something material already exists.
<bolding mine>

It's not rational to invent an uncaused cause that is absolved from obeying any known physical law, process or principle. Far more rational - and intellectually honest - to simply declare that our present understanding of the universe (i.e. its beginnings) is incomplete.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #122

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #111]
So there is clearly nothing "outside" or "beyond" the universe because the term is defined to mean all, everything that exists - mass, fields, laws, everything material or that has material, measurable properties.
With that definition you can't even consider the concept of an "origin" of the universe. This eliminates all of the ideas of things like multiverses, parallel universes, universes that continually expand and contract, etc. None of these have been shown to be valid, but the very fact that we don't know how the universe came into existence allows for all kinds of idea to be tossed out there, no matter how crazy. But one of them may turn out to have some legitimacy if we ever get to the point of understanding things better.

In post 120 you really laid your cards on the table, and all this argument against science not being able to explain itself, or explain the origin of the universe, is just a way to support your belief that a god being exists and this entity created the universe. But the problem with this idea is that you're arriving at it by arguments similar to the ontological argument for god, or the idea that since science can't yet explain something a god must be the default answer.

This kind of thing persists because we don't yet know the answer, which allows any hypothesis to be presented with the main two being a god being is responsible, or a scientific explanation exists which has yet to be elucidated. You're in the former camp, and I'm in the latter. You claimed, but certainly have not shown, that a scientific explanation for origin of the universe is impossible, and can't because we don't know everything about physics to be able to draw that conclusion.
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: 1547
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #123

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:18 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 2:54 pmThe only rational explanation for the presence of the universe is to postulate a non-material cause, an agency that does not require causality, laws, that is not subject to laws, that is the source of laws, is the source of material, it is not scientific, it is not mechanistic because that requires that something material already exists.
<bolding mine>

It's not rational to invent an uncaused cause that is absolved from obeying any known physical law, process or principle. Far more rational - and intellectually honest - to simply declare that our present understanding of the universe (i.e. its beginnings) is incomplete.
Rational:
A thinking process that uses logical, systematic methods in drawing a conclusion.
The conclusion that the universe was created by a will not a law, that laws and mechanistic processes cannot be the source of themselves - is arrived at by an entirely rational argument.
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Sherlock Holmes
Under Suspension
Posts: 1547
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:42 am
Has thanked: 41 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #124

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #111]
So there is clearly nothing "outside" or "beyond" the universe because the term is defined to mean all, everything that exists - mass, fields, laws, everything material or that has material, measurable properties.
With that definition you can't even consider the concept of an "origin" of the universe. This eliminates all of the ideas of things like multiverses, parallel universes, universes that continually expand and contract, etc. None of these have been shown to be valid, but the very fact that we don't know how the universe came into existence allows for all kinds of idea to be tossed out there, no matter how crazy. But one of them may turn out to have some legitimacy if we ever get to the point of understanding things better.
Postulating another cosmos as the cause of our cosmos obviously requires that that other cosmos already exists. The term "multiverse" is a misnomer, pop-science, a better term would be "multicosmos" because that is what they mean. The universe means all matter, energy, etc that exists, I showed you the ESA definition.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm In post 120 you really laid your cards on the table, and all this argument against science not being able to explain itself, or explain the origin of the universe, is just a way to support your belief that a god being exists and this entity created the universe.
Even if that were my reason for saying what I say that fact would not invalidate what I say. You are using what is known as the "genetic fallacy" that the way a belief arose or the reason one holds a belief somehow proves the belief to be false, it doesn't. This came up during a debate on science and God between Bill Craig and Dr. Atkins a professor of Chemistry:



Clearly Prof. Atkins is unschooled in philosophy, logic and debating.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm But the problem with this idea is that you're arriving at it by arguments similar to the ontological argument for god, or the idea that since science can't yet explain something a god must be the default answer.
Not at all, in fact the statement you make right there "since science can't yet explain something" is an expression of faith. It is faith that given sufficient time we will find a material explanation (not to mention that no amount of time can make the logically impossible possible).
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm This kind of thing persists because we don't yet know the answer, which allows any hypothesis to be presented with the main two being a god being is responsible, or a scientific explanation exists which has yet to be elucidated. You're in the former camp, and I'm in the latter.
But the latter is illogical, if you don't see that, if you can't bring yourself to admit that then we must agree to disagree I suppose.
DrNoGods wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pm You claimed, but certainly have not shown, that a scientific explanation for origin of the universe is impossible, and can't because we don't know everything about physics to be able to draw that conclusion.
We don't yet know all the digits of Pi yet we can and do prove that Pi is irrational, we can prove that no matter to how many digits you evaluate it is irrational, your argument is that if we continued to compute digits for Pi we might eventually prove that it actually is rational, that after umpteen billion decimal places the digits stop and they are always zero thereafter.

But mathematicians have proven that no matter how much time you spend computing digits there will always be more digits, so there's no need or point in computing digits day in and day out, it is futile, using logic we can show that we know 100% that Pi is irrational. The infinite sequence of digits is a reality, proven without any need to compute them endlessly.

Do you actually know what a scientific explanation is? perhaps you can explain to us all, go ahead, explain to me what a scientific explanation is, lets see where this goes...
When one has eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

User avatar
Diogenes
Scholar
Posts: 304
Joined: Sun May 24, 2020 12:53 pm
Location: USA
Has thanked: 120 times
Been thanked: 233 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #125

Post by Diogenes »

EarthScienceguy wrote: Tue Oct 05, 2021 2:17 pm 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.
More? There are not even those as claimms, yet they are presented as givens. Posing a creator accomplishes NOTHING. It is a mere claim, a label without substance. One might as well say "A creator without a creator breaks the laws of . . . whatever. No 'laws' are broken with no creator. A universe that has always been in existence is at least as plausible as a "creator" that has always been.

As for breaking the laws of probability, positing more than the universe is an unnecessary extra step.
NONE of the assumptions of the First Post are valid; they are unsupported claims and nothing more . . . unless you add 'silliness.' I'll concede that; they are silly.

User avatar
William
Savant
Posts: 10472
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2012 8:11 pm
Location: Te Waipounamu
Has thanked: 494 times
Been thanked: 1128 times
Contact:

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #126

Post by William »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #120]
Whatever you call it, the Seed of Origins, the allstuff, whatever, the fact that something has always existed and simply makes up all the things we think about as needing causes, is itself not subject to causality.
Assuming that the Seed of Origins had no cause, we are left with the magical. It always existed as the seed but something caused it to germinate and become the universe as we presently see the universe.

[it has not finished becoming.]
What seems flat invalid to me is saying, because causality, the universe needs a cause, but God does not.
Yes. That seems unreasonable. Yet even if the seed had always existed, the product of its germination has not.

Search "Meaning of God"
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
2.
(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshipped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.


The Seed of Origin could be understood as being a 'God'.

Since it held everything that exists in the universe, as a potential, and then geminated, this means that things such as Consciousness, [mind] morals, language, mathematics et al, existed as a potential within the seed, and upon germinating, that potential then manifested as real.

Even if one accepted the theory that the universe has always existed in one form or another, and we are simply experiencing one of those manifestations - one of those beginning/ending cycles - this is still infinite regress - which I myself have no problem with.

I have more of a problem with the notion that something came from nothing.

But if something has always existed, there is no reason I can see why mind has not always existed alongside/in congruity with matter, as this also solves the hard problem of consciousness.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #127

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #124]
We don't yet know all the digits of Pi yet we can and do prove that Pi is irrational, we can prove that no matter to how many digits you evaluate it is irrational, your argument is that if we continued to compute digits for Pi we might eventually prove that it actually is rational, that after umpteen billion decimal places the digits stop and they are always zero thereafter.
That analogy is not even remotely close to believing that science may find solutions to problems that are currently unsolved and is not my argument at all (you're making stuff up again). The fact that there are proofs that pi is irrational is enough to conclude that there is no expectation that if we keep counting digits we'll find an end and a rational number. Why you thought this was an analogy I can't imagine, especially since you then commented that the proofs that pi is irrational eliminate any need to expect it to somehow be rational via an argument I (never) made.

We can take the historical track record of science solving problems and explaining things, and conclude that science has indeed done these things. So it is perfectly reasonable to expect that it might continue to do so, because of this very history of success. If you can't see the difference between that, and your ridiculous pi analogy, I can't help.
Do you actually know what a scientific explanation is? perhaps you can explain to us all, go ahead, explain to me what a scientific explanation is, lets see where this goes...
Here's an example of what is NOT a scientific explanation .... God did it. The way science works is that a hypothesis is made to explain something, and this hypothesis is extensively tested in order to find out whether it is valid, or not. If it stands up to exhaustive testing and scrutiny, by many people who have the capability to test it, it may become a theory. If a hypothesis becomes a theory then it has reached a state of consensus by the scientific community and is accepted as a correct explanation until shown otherwise. A "scientific explanation" is the theory that results from this process. It could also be something a lot simpler, for example a description of why mixing an acid and a base produces a salt plus water.

Did you not already know how this process works? What do you think a scientific explanation is? Does it also include supernatural inputs or gods?
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
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #128

Post by Diagoras »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:51 pmThe conclusion that the universe was created by a will not a law, that laws and mechanistic processes cannot be the source of themselves - is arrived at by an entirely rational argument.
No, it's not. You need an uncaused cause in there at some point, and you seem perfectly comfortable in having one and ascribing to it all kinds of peculiar properties that break just about every known fact about how the universe works.

How was this 'will' created? Did it just will itself into existence, or is it eternal (a separate class of problems, if so)? If we are to accept that an uncaused cause can exist and create itself, then why can't the universe itself be that uncaused cause?

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1107
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 131 times
Been thanked: 378 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #129

Post by Diagoras »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 4:07 pm The explanation for the presence of the universe can be found in Genesis, it is there expressed as it can only be expressed.

<snip>

There is no other way to put this, that God created everything we see and hear and feel, cannot be "explained" it can only be asserted, ...
<bolding mine>

If I've got this form of argument correct, you're saying that the Bible asserts that God created the universe, but cannot offer an explanation. Have I got that right? Because if so, then I agree.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Guru
Posts: 1902
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Tucson, AZ
Has thanked: 347 times
Been thanked: 804 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #130

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #120]
There is no other way to put this, that God created everything we see and hear and feel, cannot be "explained" it can only be asserted, it can only be stated, the familiar ideas and concepts that we insist must comprise the explanation cannot be used because they are the things that were created.
Then what is the point of attempting to debate evolution, possible mechanisms for origin of the universe, or virtually any other aspect of actual science? That is all utterly pointless if you're going to simply assert a god creation explanation to start with and fall back on that as the ultimate response.
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

Post Reply