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]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #19]

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.).

How can a process be understood unless the initial conditions are known?

The Big Bang model does not start until after the bang.
The CMB is blackbody radiation that can also be caused by acceleration. Actually, constant acceleration would describe the CMB better because of the slight variations in the CMB.

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.

Here is Sean Carroll's description of the initial state that caused the universe.

An example of fine-tuning well beyond anthropic constraints is the initial state of the universe, often characterized in terms of its extremely low entropy.[22] Roughly speaking, the large number of particles in the universe were arranged in an extraordinarily smooth configuration, which is highly unstable and unlikely given the enormous gravitational forces acting on such densely-packed matter. While vacuum energy is tuned to one part in 10120, the entropy of the early universe is tuned to one part in ten to the power of 10120, a preposterous number. The entropy didn’t need to be nearly that low in order for life to come into existence. One way of thinking about this is to note that we certainly don’t need a hundred billion other galaxies in the universe in order for life to arise here on Earth; our single galaxy would have been fine, or for that matter a single solar system.

That doesn’t mean that we can’t possibly explain the low entropy of our early universe by invoking the multiverse; it just means that the explanation must rely on detailed dynamical properties of the multiverse, rather than simply the requirement that life can exist. What we would need to show is that, in the context of the particular multiverse scenario under consideration, when life arises at all it typically does so in the aftermath of an extremely low-entropy event like our Big Bang. This is a challenge, but not obviously an insuperable one, and researchers are actively tackling this question.[23]

The initial conditions of the universe are very difficult to achieve without trillions of universes.

As Swinburne says:

To postulate a trillion trillion other universes, rather than one God in order to explain the orderliness of our universe, seems the height of irrationality.[20]

If anything, the much-more-than-anthropic tuning that characterizes the entropy of the universe is a bigger problem for the God hypothesis than for the multiverse. If the point of arranging the universe was to set the stage for the eventual evolution of intelligent life, why all the grandiose excess represented by the needlessly low entropy at early times and the universe’s hundred billion galaxies? We might wonder whether those other galaxies are spandrels – not necessary for life here on Earth, but nevertheless a side effect of the general Big Bang picture, which is the most straightforward way to make the Earth and its biosphere. This turns out not to be true; quantitatively, it’s easy to show that almost all possible histories of the universe that involve Earth as we know it don’t have any other galaxies at all.[24] It’s unclear why God would do so much more fine-tuning of the state of the universe than seems to have been necessary.

The best argument Sean Carrol can come up with is that God created too much stuff. Really. The "excess" was to give men an idea of how big God is?

Anyway here is Sean Carroll's article. Maybe it will give some argument ideas.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #21]

How can a process be understood unless the initial conditions are known?

That's the whole point. The initial conditions are NOT known (yet) so we have various hypotheses that are yet to be proven. One is the Big Bang, and another is a creator god. You have the same initial condition problem with both (a singularity for BB, and no evidence that gods of any kind exist now or ever did exist). At least there is some evidence for the BB, but as yet no evidence for the existence of gods, which makes it a weaker hypothesis.

The CMB is blackbody radiation that can also be caused by acceleration. Actually, constant acceleration would describe the CMB better because of the slight variations in the CMB.

References?

Here is Sean Carroll's description of the initial state that caused the universe.

Sean Carroll is one physicist out of many thousands. What is the consensus among them all based on peer-reviewed publications to date? The initial state that "caused the universe" is not yet known, which is why physicists come up with ideas all the time to see if they stick. Who wouldn't want to win a Nobel Prize for coming up with the correct answer to how the universe came into being? My guess is that it won't be awarded to a creationist (or sorted out anytime soon).

[William]

How is the universe not absurd (or possible) without a creator

How is the universe not absurd, even with a Creator? I see no evidence that shows us that the Universe - and our position within it, is anything but absurd.

[Difflugia]

Most of the time it is intentionally ironic.

I see.

Yeah, Edward's paper from the 70's,

On a first-name basis with Dr. Tyron?

I read it already. It was shot down

"Shot down?" When and by whom? Remember that your initial set of goal posts was that the universe necessarily violates the conservation of energy. To show that, you need to demonstrate that all otherwise valid cosmologies do so and the whole reason to propose zero energy cosmology in the first place is to avoid violating the conservation of energy. From Tyron's paper:

The preceding remarks indicate that our Universe may have zero net values for all conserved quantities. If this be the case, then our Universe could have appeared from nowhere without violating any conservation laws.

As far as I'm aware, no peer-reviewed article has shown (or even suggested) that zero energy cosmology is invalid in principle. Feel free to correct me, though. Since any such article would be pretty much required to cite Tyron, exactly that set might be a good place to start.

did not read Albert's article from New York times he talks all about that.

All what?

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.

First, that's what I meant about "intentional irony." You brought up Krauss' book to complain about its lack of peer review despite the presence of hundreds of peer-reviewed sources about the subject. Then when challenged to discuss other sources, you linked an article from the popular press and a blog post, of all things, that also just diss Krauss. Now you're doubling down with the critique that I didn't read them? Do you not know what I find ironic about that or are you just beating your gag to death, subtle though it is?

Second, assuming that you're seriously offering these as important sources, where does Albert discuss or even imply a violation of energy conservation as you claim? Please quote that for us.

David Alberts (Confirmed atheist)

What on earth, then, can Krauss have been thinking?

Apparently Albert doesn't think much of Krauss' book. Maybe he's right. I haven't read it, so I don't know. Now, what part of your argument does that support?

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.

That's right. If the universe is a closed system, then zero energy cosmology preserves the conservation of energy. If brane cosmology is true, then the universe isn't closed, so isn't bound as a whole by the conservation of energy. Whence your objection?

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?

If this is meant as a rhetorical assertion, its only support is your personal incredulity. If it's not, look it up yourself, then tell us what you find and how it supports your assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy.

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?

I'm not even sure the statement is meaningful. How are you defining "created," "omnipresent," and "omnipotent?" Without definitions relating these theological terms to physics, it's just word salad.

For anything to be eternal it has to be omnipotent, otherwise, it could not be eternal.

"For anything to be delicious, it has to be transcendant, otherwise, it could not be delicious."

If something made everything, then it has to be omnipresent.

Was that in the New York Times article, too? I missed it.

Yes, I agree the whole thing is rubbish.

Then how could it possibly support your unrelated assertion that the universe violates the conservation of energy?

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

Thanks.

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.

So, do you mean that you've been referring to a god other than the Protestant Christian concept of God or are you now just being disingenuous? If you mean us to understand some other concept of "creator God," then how does it differ from even the vague and malleable, apologetic definitions of the Christian God?

[Diagoras]

The evidence does indicate that the universe popped into existence <...>

Interesting.

What evidence do you have for this, and when did it happen?

[brunumb]

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.

Now you just have to demonstrate that the universe was actually created.

[Gracchus]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]
Something exists. (At the very least, "Cogito ergo sum.") Let us assume that the universe is all that is real and that spacetime is all that is directly observable, and that spacetime is a continuous n-dimensional manifold that is a projection of a closed but finite p-dimensional manifold where p>n. Then spacetime is a Hilbert Space, that is, between any distinct points there is a distance greater than zero but less than infinity. That distance may be perceived as space-like, time-like or some combination depending on the relative reference frames involved. Thus, the distance can be indefinitely large but not infinite. The universe is all that is real, and so it exists and is one thing.
Moreover, at any point a force exists that is the Fourier sum of periodic forces at a spacetime distance c=s/t where "s" is spatial displacement, "t" is temporal displacement and "c" is the reference frame invariant speed of light. And any point of spacetime is locally Euclidean.
And, if we define the universe as all that is existent, then "God" is either in the universe or does not exist.

[Diogenes]

[Replying to EarthScienceguy in post #1]
Just at the moment I cannot think of a more silly or ridiculous claim or claims made in the OP. All of the claims are obviously false. They do not merit definitive analysis. None of them withstand either physical or logical scrutiny.

It is enough to say, along with Stephen Hawking, the universe has always existed, in one form or another. The contrary view is that it sprang into being from absolute nothingness. There is a 3d view, lapped up by the religious, that is the least logical of all because it contains an inherent contradiction.

That 3d opinion makes a special pleading. It denies that the universe has always existed while at the same time claiming 'mystery X' or 'God' has 'always existed' and caused the universe to begin. If one cannot instantly sense the absurd and total inconsistency of such a proposition, there is no power in the universe capable of explaining it to those who promote it.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #28]

It is enough to say, along with Stephen Hawking, the universe has always existed, in one form or another.

Ok finally, you are saying that the universe has eternally existed. On what grounds are you basing this belief?

Because we exist?

That 3d opinion makes a special pleading. It denies that the universe has always existed while at the same time claiming 'mystery X' or 'God' has 'always existed' and caused the universe to begin. If one cannot instantly sense the absurd and total inconsistency of such a proposition, there is no power in the universe capable of explaining it to those who promote it.

The inconsistency that always amazes me is that those that believe in an eternal universe believe that this eternal universe has all the same qualities that God has.

Again
1. An eternal universe that has created everything has to be all-powerful all energy must come from it. Omnipotent
2. An eternal universe that has created everything everywhere has to be present everywhere to do that. Omni present.
3. An eternal universe has to exist outside of our universe and operate using different laws of physics that are in operation in this universe. So the physical make-up of this eternal universe of yours can consist of the same material that is in our universe. (according to Sean Carroll)
4. You have to believe that there is an eternal universe that has created an eternality of other universes so that our universe can have the constants that it does.
(whereas me being a believer all I have to do is believe that there is a God in heaven that gave the constants the values that they have to create the life that He wanted to create.)

Number 4 is really the only difference between the two views.

I just do not have that much faith in a mindless universe. You have much more faith than I have.

[EarthScienceguy]

[Replying to Gracchus in post #0]

Something exists. (At the very least, "Cogito ergo sum.") Let us assume that the universe is all that is real and that spacetime is all that is directly observable,

1 You are missing the point. Spacetime is part of this universe which because of the Hubble constant we know had a beginning. So whatever created this universe has to exist outside of this universe and it has to operate by different laws. This has already been established by even atheist cosmologists like Sean Carroll.

and that spacetime is a continuous n-dimensional manifold that is a projection of a closed but finite p-dimensional manifold where p>n.
Then spacetime is a Hilbert Space, that is, between any distinct points there is a distance greater than zero but less than infinity. That distance may be perceived as space-like, time-like or some combination depending on the relative reference frames involved. Thus, the distance can be indefinitely large but not infinite. The universe is all that is real, and so it exists and is one thing.

2. Your p-dimensional manifold has to be infinite, not finite.
3. It appears you are assuming that your p-dimensional manifold is the same type of space-time as what we exist in. You are also assuming that there is a space-time outside of our space-time. The Bible describes God as a non-material spirit being so God would not need space-time to exist. The Bible also describes time as having a beginning and end. So you cannot make the assumption that there is a p-dimensional manifold because space-time does not have to exist outside of the spacetime we actually inhabit in our n-dimensional manifold projection.

Moreover, at any point a force exists that is the Fourier sum of periodic forces at a spacetime distance c=s/t where "s" is spatial displacement, "t" is temporal displacement and "c" is the reference frame invariant speed of light. And any point of spacetime is locally Euclidean.

4. The only place where c has to equal s/t is in our n-dimensional manifold. In your p-dimensional manifold, the laws of nature have infinite values in the infinite number of universes that your infinite p-dimensional manifold universe spawned. It could be that c is infinite which means that the spatial displacement would be infinite.

And, if we define the universe as all that is existent, then "God" is either in the universe or does not exist

5. Your definition of existence assumes that anything that exists has to be made of matter. God is not made of matter. Because you are limiting existence to material objects. Only material objects need space to exist. Anything that does not need space to exist does not need a universe to exist in so God can and does exist outside of your p-manifold universe.