Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
EarthScienceguy
Guru
Posts: 2192
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2018 2:53 pm
Has thanked: 33 times
Been thanked: 43 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: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #141

Post by Diagoras »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:13 am
Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:12 pm
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.
That's what "will" is, perhaps we can use the term "spirit" too as these two are often used interchangeably in scripture.
So the universe was created by a 'will' or a 'spirit', according to you. And you base this on what is written in the Bible. Are you sure you want to keep debating this in the Science sub-forum, because the Bible isn't considered an authority here.

Free will is an uncaused cause, that's typically how we understand free will.
So, libertarian free will, then? Possibly better suited to the Philosophy sub-forum, but as the video explains, holding that view is incompatible with hard determinism.

I do not know the origin of God, but I do know that God is the origin of the material realm.
Well, I can suggest some general ideas for God's origin:

1) He just created himself.
2) He's eternal - never had a beginning.
3) Some other agent (whether a will, a spirit or something else) caused him.
4) ?

Which of those do you favour?

And as for 'knowing God is the origin of the material realm', we await a non-biblical source to back up that claim.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #142

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #139]
Searching for a material explanation for the presence of material is clearly futile, one needs to invoke the very thing that one is striving to explain the origin of - it is incredible if you are unable to grasp this point.
I grasp the point you're trying to make ... I just don't buy it. You keep repeating it as if it is an unrefutable fact and I expect that is the crux of your problem in not understanding why eveyone just doesn't accept it as well.
Give me an example from anywhere, any branch of science or epistemology were the existence of X is explained in terms of X, a self referential explanation, a recursive explanation.

If you can do that then you might have a refutation and I'd be happy to dive into that with you here, fair enough?
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm For all we know the entire universe could have consisted of some sort of vacuum quantum field with no material matter of any kind.
Yes and in that case we'd not be explaining the presence of the universe only how an already existing universe (the "vacuum quantum field with no material matter of any kind") changed into a different state.

As I said a hundred times all explanations (including the hypothetical one you just suggested) must presuppose something material (in the general sense of things with physical properties) must already exist.

Your problem is to explain it by starting with nothing, no material properties, no "fields" nothing and that is logically impossible.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm but with some small anisotropy that led to an event similar to the Big Bang. I just made that up, but it is just as valid as imagining a god being doing something similar.
Here you go again postulating a physical property ("anisotropy") as the starting point. Of course we can always develop theories that presume some initial material state, that is not disputed.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm What is god made of?
I don't know how to answer that question or even if the question has meaning.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm
Now if God actually did create the universe and did so via his will, desire, intent then "God created the universe" is - like it or not - an explanation, not materialistic, not scientific, but still is an explanation, telling us something about reality, it contains knowledge, information.
But it is meaningless without some evidence that a god being of any type can exist in the first place.
Well a large complex law driven universe that cannot have crated itself, strikes me as pretty good evidence.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm You used "his will" as if this being were a male. How can you possibly know the sex of this being?
Very well "it" if that helps.
DrNoGods wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 5:31 pm If it has a sex then it must be made of matter, and you're back to the problem of what created the matter that god is made of. It doesn't work as an explanation, and certainly no better than the idea that science may someday figure this all out and find a purely natural explanation that does not involve gods or the supernatural.
The natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #143

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

Diagoras wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:55 pm
Sherlock Holmes wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 10:13 am
Diagoras wrote: Tue Jan 25, 2022 11:12 pm
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.
That's what "will" is, perhaps we can use the term "spirit" too as these two are often used interchangeably in scripture.
So the universe was created by a 'will' or a 'spirit', according to you. And you base this on what is written in the Bible. Are you sure you want to keep debating this in the Science sub-forum, because the Bible isn't considered an authority here.
We each have sources of authority that others may not have. That you attach no authoritative significance to the Bible does not alter that fact that I do, also since I do regard it as a source of authority it is clearly wrong for you to claim "the Bible isn't considered an authority here" you can only speak for yourself.

My reference to "will" or "spirit" is how I express a non causal agency, actions that are not the result of laws, actions that take place without laws existing, that's why I use the term, to convey that concept.
Diagoras wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:55 pm
Free will is an uncaused cause, that's typically how we understand free will.
So, libertarian free will, then? Possibly better suited to the Philosophy sub-forum, but as the video explains, holding that view is incompatible with hard determinism.
Yes, I know it is incompatible with determinism, what of it? What can explain the existence of determinism? clearly not determinism.
Diagoras wrote: Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:55 pm
I do not know the origin of God, but I do know that God is the origin of the material realm.
Well, I can suggest some general ideas for God's origin:

1) He just created himself.
2) He's eternal - never had a beginning.
3) Some other agent (whether a will, a spirit or something else) caused him.
4) ?

Which of those do you favour?

And as for 'knowing God is the origin of the material realm', we await a non-biblical source to back up that claim.
The Bible indicates that it is 2.

The existence of the universe and its fine tuning constitute non-Biblical sources of "back up" IMHO.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #144

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #142]
Give me an example from anywhere, any branch of science or epistemology were the existence of X is explained in terms of X, a self referential explanation, a recursive explanation
That is not what I'm suggesting. You are ruling out X coming from Y, where Y is not X (and Y is not "material"). The example of a vacuum quantum field pervading spacetime for eons and then some anisotropy or asymmetry reaching a threshold where a Big Bang like event happens is just one made up scenario, but so is a god explanation. You keep insisting that material must come from material, then claiming that since that is impossible therefore a god explanation is the only default answer. Material things may come from nonmaterial things, assuming material means some kind of physical matter.
Your problem is to explain it by starting with nothing, no material properties, no "fields" nothing and that is logically impossible.
So you're now placing quantum fields into the category of material things? If "everything" is considered "material", including quantum fields that are not manifest as anything material in the normal sense, then you're dictating that there had to be literally "nothing", then a universe began. We don't know that this was the case for the universe we live in, and we don't know the mechanism for how it began. We don't know enough physics to answer the question yet, so you can't just declare that there had to be "nothing" before this universe began to support a god argument.
I don't know how to answer that question or even if the question has meaning.
Just call it "something" and define it however you like, just like you've done with the words "material", and "nothing." If god is a "he", then he must be made of something material, correct? I've just learned that you are now defining virtually anything known to physics as "material", including fields or quantum effects we don't yet know anything about.
The natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.
My point is not that it is forever inexplicable, but that science is working on this open problem and it can't be concluded yet whether there is a scientific explanation or not. You are defining words like material, and nothing to infer a god explanation and then claiming (like the ontological argument) that you must be correct by logical deduction. The supernatural is not the default answer just because we can't yet work out a scientific one.

As for your comment in another post about the Bible not being authorative, that is from the guidelines for the Science and Religion section:

"This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."
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

Sherlock Holmes

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #145

Post by Sherlock Holmes »

DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am [Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #142]
Give me an example from anywhere, any branch of science or epistemology were the existence of X is explained in terms of X, a self referential explanation, a recursive explanation
That is not what I'm suggesting. You are ruling out X coming from Y, where Y is not X (and Y is not "material").
No I'm not, that is what I've been proposing all along!, a non-material agency - Y is God.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am The example of a vacuum quantum field pervading spacetime for eons and then some anisotropy or asymmetry reaching a threshold where a Big Bang like event happens is just one made up scenario, but so is a god explanation. You keep insisting that material must come from material, then claiming that since that is impossible therefore a god explanation is the only default answer. Material things may come from nonmaterial things, assuming material means some kind of physical matter.
So you're not a materialist after all?

I mean by "material" anything that has physical properties, measurable physical properties, this includes anything we'd deem to have mass or energy including particles, waves and fields these are all "material" things.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am
Your problem is to explain it by starting with nothing, no material properties, no "fields" nothing and that is logically impossible.
So you're now placing quantum fields into the category of material things?
Of course, that's what physics deals with, that is what materialism means, science deals wholly with materialism.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am If "everything" is considered "material", including quantum fields that are not manifest as anything material in the normal sense, then you're dictating that there had to be literally "nothing", then a universe began. We don't know that this was the case for the universe we live in, and we don't know the mechanism for how it began. We don't know enough physics to answer the question yet, so you can't just declare that there had to be "nothing" before this universe began to support a god argument.
But that isn't what I said. I said that you cannot explain the existence of material by reference to material, if you need to assume that something with physical properties has to exist already as part of your explanation then you cannot have an explanation.

So although we may not know what happened we do know what didn't happen - laws, matter, fields, energy and waves played no part in the laws, matter, fields, energy and waves coming to exist.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am
I don't know how to answer that question or even if the question has meaning.
Just call it "something" and define it however you like, just like you've done with the words "material", and "nothing." If god is a "he", then he must be made of something material, correct? I've just learned that you are now defining virtually anything known to physics as "material", including fields or quantum effects we don't yet know anything about.
I did not define materialism, this is what it means and always has, besides I have called it out several times, I have tried to be clear and explicit.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am
The natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.
My point is not that it is forever inexplicable, but that science is working on this open problem and it can't be concluded yet whether there is a scientific explanation or not. You are defining words like material, and nothing to infer a god explanation and then claiming (like the ontological argument) that you must be correct by logical deduction. The supernatural is not the default answer just because we can't yet work out a scientific one.
Nobody is working on this open problem! There is no scientific solution because science cannot explain science, we can't explain using laws why laws exist at all. It is logically impossible.
DrNoGods wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 10:34 am As for your comment in another post about the Bible not being authoritative, that is from the guidelines for the Science and Religion section:

"This subforum is designed to foster debate on issues which intersect science and religion. While posters may certainly take positions based on religious doctrine, the Bible or other religious writings are not to be considered evidence for scientific claims."
Yes and I never quoted scripture as evidence of a scientific claim, I totally support that forum rule here.

I have not for example argued "We did not evolve because the Bible says God created Adam and Eve".

I said all along that the universe is evidence for God. I have never used scripture as the basis for a claim about the natural world, I have referred to it after the fact, I may have drawn attention to verses that I think mirror or are consistent with some scientific fact or hypothesis.

If the rule was that one cannot quote scripture then I'd be fine with that too, so far as this theme goes about explaining the presence of the universe, the Bible is largely incidental.

User avatar
Diagoras
Guru
Posts: 1392
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2019 12:47 am
Has thanked: 170 times
Been thanked: 579 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #146

Post by Diagoras »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:26 pmYes and I never quoted scripture as evidence of a scientific claim, I totally support that forum rule here.

I have not for example argued "We did not evolve because the Bible says God created Adam and Eve".

I said all along that the universe is evidence for God. I have never used scripture as the basis for a claim about the natural world, I have referred to it after the fact, I may have drawn attention to verses that I think mirror or are consistent with some scientific fact or hypothesis.

If the rule was that one cannot quote scripture then I'd be fine with that too, so far as this theme goes about explaining the presence of the universe, the Bible is largely incidental.
Sherlock Holmes wrote:The Bible indicates that it is 2.
Seems to me that you're relying on the Bible there, even if you're not quoting from it directly.

User avatar
brunumb
Savant
Posts: 5993
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:20 am
Location: Melbourne
Has thanked: 6607 times
Been thanked: 3209 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #147

Post by brunumb »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:45 am The natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.
Given the limited intelligence that human beings possess it is logical to conclude that there are going to be aspects of reality that will remain ultimately inexplicable. Creating a domain called the supernatural is just a means of collecting the unknown and allowing people to invent answers to questions that have no support based in reality. God is just such an invented answer. When you invent a being and give it the ultimate attribute of being able to do anything, you automatically answer every imaginable question while actually explaining nothing.
George Orwell:: “The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”
Voltaire: "Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."
Gender ideology is anti-science, anti truth.

User avatar
DrNoGods
Prodigy
Posts: 2716
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2017 2:18 pm
Location: Nevada
Has thanked: 593 times
Been thanked: 1642 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #148

Post by DrNoGods »

[Replying to Sherlock Holmes in post #145]
No I'm not, that is what I've been proposing all along!, a non-material agency - Y is God.
And hence the problem. I think you are in the wrong section of the forum if this is your argument, unless you can somehow show that Y (a god) actually exists and is not just one of the thousands of such entities humans have invented over the millennia that all have the same ability to hide from our discovery.
I mean by "material" anything that has physical properties, measurable physical properties, this includes anything we'd deem to have mass or energy including particles, waves and fields these are all "material" things.
Is consciousness material? What about spirit, will, mind? These can't be measured with any scientific equipment, but they are also not "nothing" as you seem to be defining nothing (ie. the complete absence of virtually anything of any kind). I happen to believe that consciousness is nothing more than an emergent property of a working brain, but there are others on this forum who argue strongly against that and some I think would claim it is a material thing in and of itself.
But that isn't what I said. I said that you cannot explain the existence of material by reference to material, if you need to assume that something with physical properties has to exist already as part of your explanation then you cannot have an explanation.
I don't think anyone is making that assumption but you, based on your own definitions of "nothing" and "material." We don't know the mechanism of how our present universe came into existence, or if there was something before it appeared, or many things before it appeared. That is the whole point ... we don't know the answer yet and despite that fact you argue that you can claim that a god created it by defining virtually anything known to physics as a material thing whether made of matter, or not, and then arguing that it is impossible for the universe to have arisen via natural means because in your view it simply could not have happened that way. This incredulity leads you to default to a creator god as an explanation. There just isn't enough information to rule out a scientific, natural solution, and a creator god solution has far less basis.
I did not define materialism, this is what it means and always has, besides I have called it out several times, I have tried to be clear and explicit.
The word in question is material, not materialism, and material usually means something made of matter.
Nobody is working on this open problem! There is no scientific solution because science cannot explain science, we can't explain using laws why laws exist at all. It is logically impossible.
Of course they are, many of them. It is a major open problem in theoretical and observational physics and has been for a very long time. It is logically impossible only via the faulty arguments you are presenting based on unusual definitions of certain words and (mainly) an ontoligical argument for god type of reasoning.
Yes and I never quoted scripture as evidence of a scientific claim, I totally support that forum rule here.
I didn't post the forum guideline for any reason other than in response to your comment in post 143 " ... also since I do regard it as a source of authority it is clearly wrong for you to claim "the Bible isn't considered an authority here" you can only speak for yourself." He wasn't only speaking for himself.
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
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #149

Post by Purple Knight »

Sherlock Holmes wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 9:45 amThe natural cannot explain why there is a natural, this is why it is rational to infer the supernatural, it is the only rational way to frame an explanation unless you prefer that reality is inherently, ultimately inexplicable which you are free to do.
Does this logic keep working all the way up? In other words, all the godness of God cannot be explained within that godness, why should that be, so there must be a god-god?

Or do you expect that it only works until you get to a the first chaos layer where logic wouldn't apply?

User avatar
Purple Knight
Prodigy
Posts: 3465
Joined: Wed Feb 12, 2020 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1129 times
Been thanked: 729 times

Re: Absurdity of the universe without a creator

Post #150

Post by Purple Knight »

Purple Knight wrote: Thu Jan 27, 2022 6:23 pmOr do you expect that it only works until you get to a the first chaos layer where logic wouldn't apply?
I should probably clarify that I'm not being entirely critical here. If we define the supernatural in a certain way it could definitely follow, because what we're talking about is fundamentally that chaos is stronger than logic, which is because chaos can create logic, but logic cannot create chaos.

If we're to use this to infer that we're merely a pocket in which logic works or even happens to work, outside of which is probably chaos, I would say that's a decent induction. If we're using droplets to infer waterfalls, that's a decent droplet to start with and a decent waterfall to get to.

We could also have a series of pockets with more and more lenient laws all the way up until there are no laws and it's chaos on top.

What we should see if this is the case, are pockets of even stricter laws within our pocket. And in a way we do. For example, we see pockets we call militiaman life, in which the temperature will always be very close to a certain value. Following this process down until we hit law bedrock, we should see pockets of increasingly strict laws - more and more that is vetoed and can't exist - until nothing can be at all.

Post Reply