Yawheh is the only solution for a rational universe.

[EarthScienceguy]

Jim Al-Khalili in his book "Paradox" made the following statement on page 148.

"Both our future and our past -indeed all of time must exist together and are all equally real" He also concluded on page 149, "Time is like a DVD movie in which one can jump around."

Al-Khalili goes on to say that there would be no such thing as free will if this is all there was to the universe because of the fact that past present and future all exist and be equally real."

He proposes a solution to this paradox on page 151 and 152. The quantum multiverse. "An infinite number of parallel universes all piled on top each other. And every time a choice is made you are thrown into that universe that looks exactly the same except for that one different choice that you made.

Question does this help the problem of free will?

There are only 2 possible solutions that can happen here.

1. All the alternative universes have to exist there for their past present and future also have to exist.

This solution only exacerbates the creation problem. Not only would our universe have to be created but every other universe almost infinite number of universes would have to be created.

2. We are all God's and every decision we make creates a new universe. The universe that we all perceive we are in right now is nothing more than someones good decision that they made since Earth Science guy is in this one.
This also brings into question what exactly is a universe if they can be created by the thought of so many beings.

As this options is thought through absurdity soon finds its home.



The only answer to a universe in which we perceive to find ourselves is a a universe in which God created every point on the timeline at the same time. This would give everyone the free will they desire and God the Sovereignty that He says that He has in His word.

Conclusion the only answer to this universe is Yahweh.

[Diagoras]

One of the great problems in cosmology today is trying to describe an universe with the physical constants that this universe has.

This ‘problem’ only exists for Creationists that still believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago.

Creationist are not the only ones speaking of the fine tuning of the universe

An appeal to popularity - not a refutation of the argument.

But He did do something He wrote a book that has changed the world. He uses the same book to communicate with His created men and He is actively involved in the world of men directing events to the day of His coming.

Difficult to read things into people’s posts, but the above strikes me as much more of an emotional, rather than reasoned response from you. I offer an apology if I touched a nerve with my previous comment (about god only being in your head) but need you to understand that I’m not interested in diverting a scientific debate about the nature of the universe into one about whether ‘god wrote a book’ or not.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 141 by Diagoras]

EarthScienceguy wrote:
One of the great problems in cosmology today is trying to describe an universe with the physical constants that this universe has.

This ‘problem’ only exists for Creationists that still believe, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the universe was created only a few thousand years ago.

No not really.

Here is a physicist named Leonard Susskind, he and Stephen Hawking disagreed about information theory and Leonard Susskind was proven correct and Hawking was wrong. He is also one of the developers of string theory.

Quote:
Creationist are not the only ones speaking of the fine tuning of the universe

An appeal to popularity - not a refutation of the argument.

You just said that creationist were the only one with a problem with the constants. Oh never mind.

[Diagoras]

[Replying to post 142 by EarthScienceguy]

A brief thread recap for those people wondering why information theory has cropped up:

We started with the author of the OP questioning the idea of multiple universes, and by Post #6, he introduced the further (unproven) claim that God transcends time. This led into his ideas about entropy in Post #7, and somehow into how various things (the Sun, Mercury, life) formed by Post #14.

There was a brief return to the OP’s topic in Post #18, but the very next post took up the theme of star formation again, and didn’t look back for a few pages. It wasn’t until Post #74 that a few other different topics sprang up: lithium and galaxy formation, and subsequently ‘anthropic gods’ and miracles (Post #79), the Cosmic Background Radiation (Post #81) and then inflation and quasars (Post #99).

One might have thought that any of these topics on their own would be sufficient for a stimulating debate, but by Post #108, we were also dealt the fine tuning argument, plus the Cambrian Explosion to consider. Post #109 added a new gravity model into the mix, and then Post #110 reminded us that there was still a ‘light travel problem’, and of course, the Creationist’s failsafe: the ‘origins’ problem. By Post #115, we were back to specific physical laws, but then we had to be reminded (in Post #116) that “this whole discussion is about origins�, which certainly confused those of us who’d read the OP wrongly and thought multiple universes were somehow still relevant to the thread.

Entropy reared its head again in Post #119. “God wasn’t made� was claimed in Post #123. The concept of omnipresence was claimed for God in Post #131 - possibly worth its own thread in either Philosophy or ‘C&A’? Perhaps the latter, as we were invited to consider the claim of a ‘unique biblical account’ by Post #133, which doesn’t really belong in a Science forum. However, we soon circled back to the fine-tuning argument (again) in Post #136, so perhaps Philosophy would be ok after all.

That’s apparently where we left it, but information theory seems to be the next shiny thing on offer in this increasingly diverse ‘flight of ideas’. I’m not exactly sure how this directly relates to the fine-tuning argument - the topic choice looks very much like a random process to me. Ironic, considering who argues so vehemently against random processes.

If you enjoyed the history of this thread, check out this video to put things into perspective.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 143 by Diagoras]

I’m not exactly sure how this directly relates to the fine-tuning argument - the topic choice looks very much like a random process to me.

This is what almost has to happen when someone is trying to support an idea (young earth creationism, YEC) that has been so thoroughly disproved it cannot possibly be salvaged with any legitimate set of arguments. A resulting whack-a-mole game as the subject is constantly changed to avoid producing a scientifically compatible answer, and (ultimately) resorting to the issue of origins with the suggestion that because science has yet to solve the origin problems completely (of the universe, and life on this planet) that the default answer is therefore that a god is responsible.

The same game plays out whatever the original subject ... always resorting to unsolved (or only partially solved) science problems as if that were somehow sufficient proof to support the YEC scenario. Or, just as bad, dredging up nonsense from creation "scientists" like Russell Humphreys and defending that as proper science. The YEC's are still trying to fight a battle that was lost (convincingly) long ago. The "ECs" might still be able to present debatable arguments, although they are fighting an uphill battle as far as evidentiary support. But the YECs have been soundly defeated by modern science.

[Danmark]

I had to laugh when I read the title of this subtopic. A rational universe? By what measure is it 'rational?' 'Chaos' is a more accurate modifier. Matter certainly has certain forces men have deduced and given names to. We can't really explain it, but gravity exists. There are multiple forces at work within the atom.

But to call this a 'rational' universe is to claim there is a God that created it all. Thus the claim of the OP is precisely circular.

What many men have done for centuries is to make the logical error of claiming THIS particular universe with the infinite possibilities it worked out exactly as it has, is the ONLY way it could have happened; therefore 'god' must have done it.

This is backward reasoning. It's like saying a random flip of coins with their pattern of trillions of heads and tails, is the ONLY way it could have happened and thus a 'god' must have predetermined that exact order. This is a masterful display of poor logic.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Danmark]

I mean exactly what I say. Rational. All other theories do not yield an universe in which humans are actual individual entities. Humans become nothing more than random energy inside a some sort of boltzmann brain. Or perhaps we are some sort of super aliens computer game waiting for them to turn off.

I call both of those options irrational, but those are the choices that modern physics produces.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 146 by EarthScienceguy]

What's wrong with the typical big bang -> inflation -> solar formation -> abiogenesis -> evolution explanation? Is this theory not yielding an universe in which humans are actual individual entities? Is this option rational or irrational?

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 147 by Bust Nak]

What's wrong with the typical big bang -> inflation -> solar formation -> abiogenesis -> evolution explanation? Is this theory not yielding an universe in which humans are actual individual entities? Is this option rational or irrational?

First this does not give any universe at all. The Big Bang only refers to events that happen immediately after space and energy were created. But even if we start at this point it does not create a universe like the one we know and love because of the Boltzmann Brain paradox.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 148 by EarthScienceguy]

Boltzmann Brain doesn't help on the universe front either, such a brain still need an existing universe. As for simulation, all that does is push the question one level up, the simulation exists in an existing universe.

As for your second point, I don't really know what you are referring to, why can't the universe that we know an love come about in the way modern science thinks it did? At worse it just vastly less likely than the Boltzmann Brain scenario.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to post 149 by Bust Nak]

As for your second point, I don't really know what you are referring to, why can't the universe that we know an love come about in the way modern science thinks it did? At worse it just vastly less likely than the Boltzmann Brain scenario.

Because a universe like ours has a higher entropy than an universe in which we are nothing more that a boltzman brain.