Absurdity of the universe without a creator

[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.

[EarthScienceguy]

[[url=./viewtopic.php?p=1052127#p1052127]Replying to benchwarmer in post

“If you have literally forever to wait, you’ll get essentially every single possible thing fluctuating into existence,” says Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology in Pasadena. That includes Boltzmann brains.

The idea is that given infinite time, more brains will fluctuate into existence than evolve, so most conscious observers would be the result of fluctuations. In such an old universe, then, the odds are that we are such brains, too.

That is Sean Carroll's description. Below are two videos on the idea of Boltzmann Brain.



Read more: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... z78Wo4q8ki

How is an imagined, invisible creator more probable than something that's always existed which is now our universe? A creator just always existing seems to break more laws of probability. It has even more problems than an unthinking something that expands into our universe. Now you have to explain how a conscious being can exist nowhere and pull energy out of nothing to make stuff.

1. What is it that you are saying is eternal?
2. How would a Creator always exist, break the laws of probability? When there is 100% chance that something has existed from eternity past.
3. Anything that exists eternally be definition has to be omnipotent.

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?
One answer might be that's just the way it is. It would be like asking why a creator god exists (if one were to actually exist).

1. We know that the universe had a beginning. Because it had a beginning something had to set the values of the constants that this nature has.
2. Something has had to exist from eternity past and has no beginning and no end. Whatever it is that is eternal then one could say it is the way it is.

[Purple Knight]

...the reverse should be possible and people really should be able to pull rabbits out of hats, provided they do it two at a time and they pull one positive rabbit and one negative rabbit. Maybe this really can happen (not with rabbits perhaps, but with subatomic particles) but I'll believe it when I see it.

Unless I'm missing something about what you're saying, that's what quantum fluctuations are.

It's still under debate whether this is really particle and antiparticle pairs popping into and out of existence.

https://www.science.org/news/2015/10/ph ... pace-maybe
Some physicists question what the new experiment actually measures, however. The researchers assume that fluctuating optical properties of the crystal reflect the vacuum fluctuations, says Steve Lamoreaux, a physicist at Yale University and one of the first to observe the Casimir effect. But the variations in the crystal's optical properties could have some other source, such as thermal fluctuations, he says. "The material properties will fluctuate on their own," he says, so "how does one attribute these fluctuations to the vacuum alone?"

I also remember reading (but... I can't find it, so I could be wrong) that this phenomenon might be a result of another layer of the universe we're just not seeing, just like electron motion being so wonky might be a result of them going somewhere else.

Maybe I'm engaging in douche skepticism. And I admit this is a result of my own belief that something from nothing is an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence.

[Difflugia]

It's still under debate whether this is really particle and antiparticle pairs popping into and out of existence.

https://www.science.org/news/2015/10/ph ... pace-maybe
Some physicists question what the new experiment actually measures, however.

There are two things going on here. First, the experimental evidence is overwhelmingly that quantum fluctuations are real based on effects that the particles have. The second is that the researchers in your link think they found an experiment that measures the effect in yet another way, but it's not certain that what's being measured is actually quantum fluctuation. If the experiment measured something else, then while it can't be expanded on to gain new information about quantum interactions, it doesn't actually cast doubt on any of the old data.

[Purple Knight]

It's still under debate whether this is really particle and antiparticle pairs popping into and out of existence.

https://www.science.org/news/2015/10/ph ... pace-maybe
Some physicists question what the new experiment actually measures, however.

There are two things going on here. First, the experimental evidence is overwhelmingly that quantum fluctuations are real based on effects that the particles have. The second is that the researchers in your link think they found an experiment that measures the effect in yet another way, but it's not certain that what's being measured is actually quantum fluctuation. If the experiment measured something else, then while it can't be expanded on to gain new information about quantum interactions, it doesn't actually cast doubt on any of the old data.

I'm going to have to go back and read up on this again. The last time I did was in 2016. I remember there being other explanations besides the particle and antiparticle pairs actually arising out of emptiness and working the way negative and positive numbers do, but I'll have to go and reread.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

It's interesting that you're projecting onto me a reliance on popular works, but then criticizing my presumed reliance on popular works. Or did you actually think that the only treatment of the subject is Krauss' book?

No there is this one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/book ... rauss.html

And there is also this one

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... r=1b887aca


The evidence does indicate that the universe popped into existence but the energy to create the universe had to come from somewhere.
All zero joules of it? I bet I have that much in my wallet right now.

Energy is still energy whether it is positive or negative. And there is a lot of energy in this universe. So where did it come from?

If the universe is part of a larger brane system, then the physical universe as we experience it with its inflationary beginning is not a closed system in terms of the conservation of energy.

But then the brane universe system would be a closed system. But how do you know it is not a closed system cut off from the brane. If not the entire brane system would be a closed system.

Where is this brane? What space is this brane occupying?

Let's say that's true. If it is, then it trivially renders your original argument moot. The creationist argument is that since most modern cosmologies claim that our universe had a beginning, something else must have been eternal and that something is Jesus. If the brane system is eternal, then Jesus is superfluous and no longer required. Like the old advertisements for breakfast cereals, you're telling us that a bowl of sugar-frosted Jesus is part of this complete breakfast while ignoring the bacon, eggs, and six mimosas behind Him.

Again where is this brane? Is it occupying some space somewhere or is it expanding space itself? Something having eternality is only part of the problem. But if something is eternal and created everything there is then it also has to be omnipresent and omnipotent. So you can BELIEVE that there is a brane out there that is omnipresent and omnipotent but that still does not solve the other two problems.

Your syllogism here is the most literal form that "god of the gaps" takes. I'm pretty sure the rest of us knew that was your argument all along, but it's nice to see it presented so concisely.

Oh no not the "god of the gaps" argument which is nothing more than a concession that yes all the evidence does point to a creator God because of 2 reasons.

1. When people say ''god of the gaps" they are making an assumption that science does not have any way of knowing what values a solution to a science problem has to have. When the Higgs particle was discovered researchers knew at what energy values they should look at to find the Higgs particle. The same is true of what created the universe. The qualities of what created the universe are known, eternality, omnipotent, omnipresent, and some way to direct the constant to specific values.

The evidence so much points towards an intelligence creating the universe that the idea that we are nothing more than an alien simulation is being seriously considered.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/


2. If evolution were true (which it is not) and far into the future a breed of intelligent chickens evolved and they found a car or "chacar" in chicken. How would the chickens prove that the car was made by intelligent beings that once lived in the past? (assuming the car was not a Ford) If they had no other evidence of humans ever inhabiting the earth the best they could do is prove that the car could not have been made by nature.

Even if we were to accept that's what physicists are doing, your conclusion of "therefore Jesus" is a non sequitur and invalid.

We could debate on whether Jesus existed or not and whether He was God or not, but I think that that would fit in the science section of this forum.

[Difflugia]

No there is this one.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/book ... rauss.html

And there is also this one

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... r=1b887aca

It's hard to tell the difference between when you're being intentionally ironic and, well, let's just say, "otherwise."

This paper is widely considered to be the introduction of the zero energy universe, roughly fifty years prior to Krauss' book. According to Google Scholar, it's been cited by 703 peer-reviewed articles since then.

Energy is still energy whether it is positive or negative. And there is a lot of energy in this universe. So where did it come from?

If the positive and negative energies balance out and the net is zero, then the conservation of energy holds even if the fluctuation came literally from nowhere. Whether or not that fits your gut feeling about how the universe should operate, it doesn't offend the conservation of energy. Your thesis is wrong.

But then the brane universe system would be a closed system. But how do you know it is not a closed system cut off from the brane. If not the entire brane system would be a closed system.

Now you're not even asserting anything. You're just asking me what I would think if all of the cosmologists are wrong. "What if I had a million dollars? I don't, but what if I did? What then, Mr. Science Man?"

Where is this brane? What space is this brane occupying?

Let me Google that for you.

Again where is this brane? Is it occupying some space somewhere or is it expanding space itself? Something having eternality is only part of the problem.

What is your argument? You're just claiming that because you don't know the details of brane cosmology, it's false.

But if something is eternal and created everything there is then it also has to be omnipresent and omnipotent.

{{Citation needed}}

Oh no not the "god of the gaps" argument which is nothing more than a concession that yes all the evidence does point to a creator God because of 2 reasons.

1. When people say ''god of the gaps" they are making an assumption that science does not have any way of knowing what values a solution to a science problem has to have. When the Higgs particle was discovered researchers knew at what energy values they should look at to find the Higgs particle. The same is true of what created the universe. The qualities of what created the universe are known, eternality, omnipotent, omnipresent, and some way to direct the constant to specific values.

What?

The evidence so much points towards an intelligence creating the universe that the idea that we are nothing more than an alien simulation is being seriously considered.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/

That's not evidence, that's conjecture. After a bit of fluff, the crux of that article is that if we are someday able to create a simulation that includes consciousness, then this universe might be a simulation. There are no data supporting anything, just speculation.

2. If evolution were true (which it is not) and far into the future a breed of intelligent chickens evolved and they found a car or "chacar" in chicken. How would the chickens prove that the car was made by intelligent beings that once lived in the past? (assuming the car was not a Ford) If they had no other evidence of humans ever inhabiting the earth the best they could do is prove that the car could not have been made by nature.

What would probably happen is the same thing that happened when humans first found dinosaur bones. They'd probably think that when the great chicken god flooded the Earth (after all, all civilizations have a flood myth), the cars were a kind of creature that wouldn't fit on the Ark (also "chacar" in chicken; it's a very simple language). I'm confident, however, that as their science progresses, their archaeological techniques will improve and they'll begin to realize how much evidence they really have that humans made the cars, probably about the time that they stop persecuting roosters that like to nest with other roosters. It's inevitable that some chickens will resist this information, though, and I expect that some of the the other chickens will patiently do their best to explain to them how science works. In the end, unfortunately, like the experience of that fictional chicken hero, Don Pollote, who famously and vainly pecked at windmills, it's often wasted effort. When the day's done, most of the windmills will sadly still be creationists.

Even if we were to accept that's what physicists are doing, your conclusion of "therefore Jesus" is a non sequitur and invalid.

We could debate on whether Jesus existed or not and whether He was God or not, but I think that that would fit in the science section of this forum.

And that's the point. To arrive at your conclusion, we would have to have a second debate about an entirely unrelated subject. That's why it's a non sequitur.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]

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

A major problem with this assertion is that there has yet to be any confirmation that creators of any kind actually exist. So postulating such an entity as being responsible for the universe and everything in it is equally (I'd argue far more so) as absurd as science's current best hypotheses.

The bottom line is that we don't know exactly how the universe came into existence, and without knowledge of that mechanism we can't draw any conclusions on any of the 3 points you listed. You can postulate as you've done, but a creator is not the default answer just because science has yet to get to the bottom of things.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #17]

A major problem with this assertion is that there has yet to be any confirmation that creators of any kind actually exist. So postulating such an entity as being responsible for the universe and everything in it is equally (I'd argue far more so) as absurd as science's current best hypotheses.

The bottom line is that we don't know exactly how the universe came into existence, and without knowledge of that mechanism we can't draw any conclusions on any of the 3 points you listed. You can postulate as you've done, but a creator is not the default answer just because science has yet to get to the bottom of things.

Are you saying that science has no idea what qualities an object or entity would have to have to create a universe like ours? Cosmologists do know what qualities they are looking for, just like physicists did when they were looking for the Higgs particle.

Whatever it is that created the universe
1. Has to be eternal.
2. Has to be omnipotent
3. Has to be omnipresent
4. Has to be able to give the constants of nature their values.

Sounds like God to me.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #18]

Are you saying that science has no idea what qualities an object or entity would have to have to create a universe like ours? Cosmologists do know what qualities they are looking for, just like physicists did when they were looking for the Higgs particle.

Scientists look for supporting evidence to validate (or not) a hypothesis. The Higgs field was predicted in the 1960s and the Higgs boson was a missing piece in the Standard Model of physics. It was expected to be there, but at near 126 GeV it was outside of the range of colliders until LHC came along. So yes ... there were calculations showing roughly where its mass-energy would lie and it was indeed found.

Origin of the universe is a completely different scenario and not at all analogous to the Higgs situation. We don't know how the universe formed which is why it is an ongoing area of research. The "Big Bang" model is a leading hypothesis because there is some evidence for it (present expansion of the universe, CMB, predictions from General Relativity, etc.).

But as far as I know, scientists are not wasting time trying to define the "qualities" an object or entity would need to create a universe. They are looking for evidence that might lead to better understanding of possible mechanisms, not to define any qualities of a "creator." There is no assumption of a creator or that the universe was created ... that is a religious approach.

Science is trying to learn how it happened, and that would lead to information on other aspects of the problem such as was there something before the "Big Bang" (if that is even a correct model), was there not and the Big Bang model or some variation of it is correct, and other things as well (eg. did inflation happen as proposed now?). It is a sequential process where pieces of the puzzle are added when they are found, and eventually this process can lead to a full understanding of the problem. Filling in blanks with supernatural explanations isn't part of the process.

Whatever it is that created the universe
1. Has to be eternal.
2. Has to be omnipotent
3. Has to be omnipresent
4. Has to be able to give the constants of nature their values.

Sounds like God to me.

You're assuming it was created, and also that (apparently) only one god exists that did the deed (ie. capital G God). Until you can prove both of these, there's no point in listing the qualities of this supposed creator.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #0]

It's hard to tell the difference between when you're being intentionally ironic and, well, let's just say, "otherwise."

Most of the time it is intentionally ironic.

This paper is widely considered to be the introduction of the zero energy universe, roughly fifty years prior to Krauss' book. According to Google Scholar, it's been cited by 703 peer-reviewed articles since then.

Yeah, Edward's paper from the 70's, I read it already. It was shot down did not read Albert's article from New York times he talks all about that.

Energy is still energy whether it is positive or negative. And there is a lot of energy in this universe. So where did it come from?
If the positive and negative energies balance out and the net is zero, then the conservation of energy holds even if the fluctuation came literally from nowhere. Whether or not that fits your gut feeling about how the universe should operate, it doesn't offend the conservation of energy. Your thesis is wrong.

You did not read either one of my articles, did you. That is too bad because Albert talks about this also.

David Alberts (Confirmed atheist)
What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking? Well, there is, as it happens, an interesting difference between relativistic quantum field theories and every previous serious candidate for a fundamental physical theory of the world. Every previous such theory counted material particles among the concrete, fundamental, eternally persisting elementary physical stuff of the world — and relativistic quantum field theories, interestingly and emphatically and unprecedentedly, do not. According to relativistic quantum field theories, particles are to be understood, rather, as specific arrangements of the fields. Certain ­arrangements of the fields, for instance, correspond to there being 14 particles in the universe, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being 276 particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being an infinite number of particles, and certain other arrangements correspond to there being no particles at all. And those last arrangements are referred to, in the jargon of quantum field theories, for obvious reasons, as “vacuum” states. Krauss seems to be thinking that these vacuum states amount to the relativistic-­quantum-field-theoretical version of there not being any physical stuff at all. And he has an argument — or thinks he does — that the laws of relativistic quantum field theories entail that vacuum states are unstable. And that, in a nutshell, is the account he proposes of why there should be something rather than nothing.

Dig deeper into the moment.

But that’s just not right. Relativistic-quantum-field-theoretical vacuum states — no less than giraffes or refrigerators or solar systems — are particular arrangements of elementary physical stuff. The true relativistic-quantum-field-­theoretical equivalent to there not being any physical stuff at all isn’t this or that particular arrangement of the fields — what it is (obviously, and ineluctably, and on the contrary) is the simple absence of the fields! The fact that some arrangements of fields happen to correspond to the existence of particles and some don’t is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that some of the possible arrangements of my fingers happen to correspond to the existence of a fist and some don’t. And the fact that particles can pop in and out of existence, over time, as those fields rearrange themselves, is not a whit more mysterious than the fact that fists can pop in and out of existence, over time, as my fingers rearrange themselves. And none of these poppings — if you look at them aright — amount to anything even remotely in the neighborhood of a creation from nothing.

But then the brane universe system would be a closed system. But how do you know it is not a closed system cut off from the brane. If not the entire brane system would be a closed system.
Now you're not even asserting anything. You're just asking me what I would think if all of the cosmologists are wrong. "What if I had a million dollars? I don't, but what if I did? What then, Mr. Science Man?"

Ok, let me just spell it out then. The universe is either a closed system or part of a closed system. There is no other option because there is no other place where energy can come from.

What is your argument? You're just claiming that because you don't know the details of brane cosmology, it's false.

No, actually I was just asking where the brane was. The brane is inside of the bulk. Not the hulk that is another story that is a little more interesting. And these branes and bulk are supposed to occupy higher dimensions of space. So where did this space come from? How would this bulk not be influenced by entropy?

But if something is eternal and created everything there is then it also has to be omnipresent and omnipotent.
{{Citation needed}}

Why? How is this incorrect?

For anything to be eternal it has to be omnipotent, otherwise, it could not be eternal.
If something made everything, then it has to be omnipresent.




EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:45 pm
Oh no not the "god of the gaps" argument which is nothing more than a concession that yes all the evidence does point to a creator God because of 2 reasons.

1. When people say ''god of the gaps" they are making an assumption that science does not have any way of knowing what values a solution to a science problem has to have. When the Higgs particle was discovered researchers knew at what energy values they should look at to find the Higgs particle. The same is true of what created the universe. The qualities of what created the universe are known, eternality, omnipotent, omnipresent, and some way to direct the constant to specific values.
What?
EarthScienceguy wrote: ↑Wed Oct 06, 2021 2:45 pm
The evidence so much points towards an intelligence creating the universe that the idea that we are nothing more than an alien simulation is being seriously considered.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... out-50-50/
That's not evidence, that's conjecture. After a bit of fluff, the crux of that article is that if we are someday able to create a simulation that includes consciousness, then this universe might be a simulation. There are no data supporting anything, just speculation.

Yes, I agree the whole thing is rubbish. But what makes this interesting is that it is in Scientific American. There are top-level researchers that actually believe that we are part of a simulation.



The fact that this idea is even being entertained should tell you the state that cosmology is in right now.


2. If evolution were true (which it is not) and far into the future a breed of intelligent chickens evolved and they found a car or "chacar" in chicken. How would the chickens prove that the car was made by intelligent beings that once lived in the past? (assuming the car was not a Ford) If they had no other evidence of humans ever inhabiting the earth the best they could do is prove that the car could not have been made by nature.

What would probably happen is the same thing that happened when humans first found dinosaur bones. They'd probably think that when the great chicken god flooded the Earth (after all, all civilizations have a flood myth), the cars were a kind of creature that wouldn't fit on the Ark (also "chacar" in chicken; it's a very simple language). I'm confident, however, that as their science progresses, their archaeological techniques will improve and they'll begin to realize how much evidence they really have that humans made the cars, probably about the time that they stop persecuting roosters that like to nest with other roosters. It's inevitable that some chickens will resist this information, though, and I expect that some of the the other chickens will patiently do their best to explain to them how science works. In the end, unfortunately, like the experience of that fictional chicken hero, Don Pollote, who famously and vainly pecked at windmills, it's often wasted effort. When the day's done, most of the windmills will sadly still be creationists.

I knew you would have a great clucky critical comeback on that one. That's funny.

Even if we were to accept that's what physicists are doing, your conclusion of "therefore Jesus" is a non sequitur and invalid.
We could debate on whether Jesus existed or not and whether He was God or not, but I think that that would fit in the science section of this forum.
And that's the point. To arrive at your conclusion, we would have to have a second debate about an entirely unrelated subject. That's why it's a non sequitur.

I never mentioned Jesus you did. The entire premise of the string is that it is absurd to believe that the universe can be made without a creator God. So do not see how having a discussion on Jesus being God is a non sequitur.