Which is more rational? God is real or imaginary?

[otseng]

Proposition: God is a real actual thing, not something merely imagined or written about. God is intelligent and has intentionally created the universe.

Otseng will argue that belief in the truth of the above proposition is more rational than disbelieving it. McCulloch will argue that disbelieving the truth of the proposition is more rational than believing it.

[McCulloch]

I've been thinking about divine intent. Theists claim that God intentionally created the universe. This implies that he had a purpose, an intent for the universe. Can we speculate what that intent might have been? Was our galaxy created to sustain life?

Life, as we know it, exists only in Earth's biosphere which I approximate to be about 2.6 × 10^9 km³. Our galaxy is about 6.73 × 10^51 km³.

I have a vat that I have designed with the purpose of sustaining yeast. My vat is twice the volume of the Earth and it supports a single yeast cell. I am doing better than the alleged God who created this galaxy to sustain life.

It would be very difficult to look at the galaxy and conclude that it was intentionally designed to sustain life. No, quite the opposite.

[otseng]

For now those will do. I cannot think of other viable explanations, but that does not mean there are none.

There is a third.
3. We are in the only possible universe. Uncreated.

What do you mean by this? That our universe has eternally existed? Also, that the fine-tuning "naturally" happens?

[otseng]

I've been thinking about divine intent. Theists claim that God intentionally created the universe. This implies that he had a purpose, an intent for the universe. Can we speculate what that intent might have been? Was our galaxy created to sustain life?

I think we can speculate that the intent is for sentient life to exist in the universe. And as I will attempt to show later, in particular, it would be for humans to exist and that it would be on Earth.

[McCulloch]

For now those will do. I cannot think of other viable explanations, but that does not mean there are none.

There is a third.
3. We are in the only possible universe. Uncreated.

What do you mean by this? That our universe has eternally existed? Also, that the fine-tuning "naturally" happens?

Bear with me, I am going to have to start with some existential definitions.

Let's start with an easy one. Destroyed. To have been destroyed means that at one time the entity in question existed and at a subsequent time, the entity in question did not exist. This can apply to real physical things, my car was destroyed in the collision. Not that the matter that made up the car no longer exists, but that it is now not in a form that could be called a car. It can also be applied to more abstract entities. My feeling of confidence in other drivers was destroyed by the destruction of the car.
Now the flip side: Created. To have been created means that at one time the entity in question did not exist and at a subsequent time, the entity did exist.

Now, can we ask if time could be created or destroyed. No, we cannot. It is absurd. For time itself to have been created, there would have to be a time when there was no time. This is a contradiction. Time itself is uncreated. And, according to general relativity time and space are equivalent. So if space is finite then time is finite. Space is expanding. Therefore, space is finite in that something that is infinite cannot be simultaneously be getting bigger. Therefore, time is finite.

Time is finite and uncreated.

Also the first law of thermodynamics. Energy (and matter since they are equivalent according to general relativity) cannot be created nor destroyed. So all of the energy that has ever been in the universe has always been in the universe, either as energy or as matter. Energy is finite and uncreated.

The universe is getting bigger. It has been for a long time now. It is not getting bigger in the sense that it is filling up space that existed around it, but that space itself is getting bigger. The universe therefore used to be smaller. In fact, according to the current consensus of cosmologists, it used to be so small that quantum physics would have applied.

This is what I mean by a universe that is uncreated. How would the fine tuning happen in such a universe? Perhaps the universe was one a quantum superposition of all possible universes, that collapsed into a stable one.

[otseng]

Your argument rests on your definition of "create".

Now the flip side: Created. To have been created means that at one time the entity in question did not exist and at a subsequent time, the entity did exist.

By providing your own definition that limits something to be created only within our time, you only "define away" the problem. Let's look at other definitions of "create":

"to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create

"make something: to bring something into existence"
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q ... ORM=DTPDIA

"make or cause to be or to become"
"bring into existence"
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=create

Using these definitions, we cannot say our universe is uncreated, but created. Since spacetime had a beginning, we can say it has not always existed. Something must've caused it to come into existence. So, it had to have been created.

Now, can we ask if time could be created or destroyed.

By using common definitions of "create", it is logical to deduce that spacetime was created since it is not eternal.

Also the first law of thermodynamics. Energy (and matter since they are equivalent according to general relativity) cannot be created nor destroyed. So all of the energy that has ever been in the universe has always been in the universe, either as energy or as matter. Energy is finite and uncreated.

The first law of thermo (energy is constant in a closed system) shows that the universe cannot have spontaneously come about without an external cause. This would be further evidence that the causality would be a supernatural creator. What other explanation do you propose?

Perhaps the universe was one a quantum superposition of all possible universes, that collapsed into a stable one.

I am unfamiliar with this hypothesis. Could you explain this more?

[McCulloch]

Let's look at other definitions of "create":

"to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/create

The temporal nature of create is implicit in the words cause and come into being. I do not know of how something could come into being without it at some time not being and then subsequently being.

"make something: to bring something into existence"
http://www.bing.com/Dictionary/search?q ... ORM=DTPDIA

Same objection. to bring is a verb. It implies an action in time.

Using these definitions, we cannot say our universe is uncreated, but created. Since spacetime had a beginning, we can say it has not always existed. Something must've caused it to come into existence. So, it had to have been created.

That's like saying, "where is the endpoint of a circle" or "what came before time". There cannot be a before there was time. We can say that spacetime had a beginning and that it has always existed. Always existed means that there is no time when it did not exist. It seems axiomatic to me that there has never been a time when time did not exist. If you believe otherwise, please do explain.

The first law of thermo (energy is constant in a closed system) shows that the universe cannot have spontaneously come about without an external cause. This would be further evidence that the causality would be a supernatural creator. What other explanation do you propose?

There are two other explanations that we are exploring. One is that the universe has always existed, consistent with the first law. And that it had a beginning, consistent with observation and rational analysis. The other is that there is some realm outside of spacetime, you might call it heaven, I'll call it a meta-universe. You speculate that this realm is inhabited by a supernatural, intelligent intentional being. I make no such speculation. To me the meta-universe could be the space of all possible universes. We have observed one universe, we can mathematically predict the behavior of other possible universes. This model is therefore more parsimonious than the model which you propose.

Perhaps the universe was one a quantum superposition of all possible universes, that collapsed into a stable one.

I am unfamiliar with this hypothesis. Could you explain this more?

Allow me some wild speculation. Quantum theory, at least in some interpretations, requires the multiple universes model. The standard big bang model implies that the universe was once so small that it was entirely the size where quantum effects would apply. Thus, I speculate, that the very early universe, the very very short initial period where the known rules of physics break down, could have been something like a quantum superposition of all possible universes.

Anyway, all of this was in response to your point about there being only two possibilities.

OK, before continuing on, we then have two explanations that I gave earlier:

1. We are in one of a multitude of universes that exist.
2. An intelligent entity created our universe.

I assume you would agree then that these are the only two possible explanations. If not, what other explanation would you add?

I simply wish to note that we should be diligent to avoid a false dichotomy. Perhaps, before we go down an existential cosmological rabbit hole, we should simply note the danger and move on to evaluating the merits of these two possibilities.

We know that one universe exists. Either it is unique or it is one of many. If it is unique, then the apparent fine tuning needs to be explained. Theists typically find that positing some intelligent intentional supernatural being to explain this fine tuning. However, there may be a simpler explanation. Perhaps the fundamental constants of the universe are the product of some, yet undiscovered mathematical constant. We don't say, isn't it lucky that we live in a universe with the particular value of pi. If pi were just a bit larger or a bit smaller, circles would not be round. This kind of thinking seems to me to be far more rational than the other point of view.

[otseng]

The temporal nature of create is implicit in the words cause and come into being. I do not know of how something could come into being without it at some time not being and then subsequently being.

That is why I try to be careful to not use phrases such as "before the Big Bang". I agree that there is no such thing as a "before" if spacetime does not even exist.

The limitation I think is more of our limited perspective and limited language, rather than a fundamental roadblock. Here's an example. Suppose other universes like ours do exist. They would have a spacetime that is completely independent from ours. Their experience of time is also completely independent from ours. Do things happen over there before or after ours? Can things happen at the same time in our universe and in another? These would all not apply since we are not in the same spacetime. So, referring to time outside of our spacetime relative to ours has no meaning. But it does not mean that they do not have their own time.

Another way to think of it is that time in our spacetime is one-dimensional (and also one-directional). But, it could be part of a larger multi-dimensional construct (like a 4 dimensional universe) and also with a larger time-dimension. Time does not only go forward, but it can go in another coordinate besides ours.

That's like saying, "where is the endpoint of a circle" or "what came before time". There cannot be a before there was time.

But, there needs to be an explanation for the cause of spacetime. Let's just take time 0. What can account for matter/energy arising at time 0?

We can say that spacetime had a beginning and that it has always existed.

We can say it has always existed in our experience of time. But, it does not demonstrate it was uncaused.

Always existed means that there is no time when it did not exist. It seems axiomatic to me that there has never been a time when time did not exist. If you believe otherwise, please do explain.

No, I do not believe that our time existed "prior" to the existence of our spacetime.

To me the meta-universe could be the space of all possible universes. We have observed one universe, we can mathematically predict the behavior of other possible universes.

What would those predictions be?

This model is therefore more parsimonious than the model which you propose.

More parsimonious? How many other universes do you posit exist?

Thus, I speculate, that the very early universe, the very very short initial period where the known rules of physics break down, could have been something like a quantum superposition of all possible universes.

If the known rules of physics do not apply, then it'd pretty much be a free for all and anything would be possible.

I simply wish to note that we should be diligent to avoid a false dichotomy.

I do too. That's why I asked if you have any other explanations. From my knowledge, I've only seen the two possibilities that I presented (God and multi-universe).

Perhaps, before we go down an existential cosmological rabbit hole, we should simply note the danger and move on to evaluating the merits of these two possibilities.

We can do that (and with the caveat that other explanations might be presented).

We know that one universe exists. Either it is unique or it is one of many. If it is unique, then the apparent fine tuning needs to be explained.

Yes.

Perhaps the fundamental constants of the universe are the product of some, yet undiscovered mathematical constant.

This would be basing a conclusion on something that might happen in the future. This does not appear to me to be a rational position to take.

[McCulloch]

But, there needs to be an explanation for the cause of spacetime. Let's just take time 0. What can account for matter/energy arising at time 0?

No we do not. Energy did not arise at time zero. The term arise implies that there was some time prior to zero. I rise out of my bed in the morning. Prior to my rising I was in bed.
Anyway, I don't see how the theist position helps with this explanation. God is some kind of entity with no cause and no explanation is invented as an explanation for the existence of the up-until-now unexplained existence of the eternal spacetime continuum.

We can say it [spacetime] has always existed in our experience of time. But, it does not demonstrate it was uncaused.

Nor does it demonstrate that it was caused. What we know is that spacetime and energy existed at time zero.

I do not believe that our time existed "prior" to the existence of our spacetime.

OK. I don't know about any time other than the one in our spacetime. Presumably, if there are other universes, they have their own spacetimes. But even that does not necessitate that the meta-universe has some form of meta-spacetime.

To me the meta-universe could be the space of all possible universes. We have observed one universe, we can mathematically predict the behavior of other possible universes.

What would those predictions be?

The one we are discussing it that if certain of the universal constants were different by a small amount, the universe would expand so quickly that no matter would ever form or the universe would have collapsed upon itself immediately by its own gravitational pressure.

Recently, some physicists [Roni Harnik, Graham Kribs, Gilad Perez] have postulated that a weakless universe might be mathematically possible.

This model is therefore more parsimonious than the model which you propose.

More parsimonious? How many other universes do you posit exist?

We already know and both acknowledge that one universe does indeed exist. Quantum physics suggests that multiple universes exist. The multi-universe model is parsimonious in that it only posits that entities like the ones already know to exist do, in fact, exist. The theist model posits that something completely different from what can be demonstrated to exist does exist.

Thus, I speculate, that the very early universe, the very very short initial period where the known rules of physics break down, could have been something like a quantum superposition of all possible universes.

If the known rules of physics do not apply, then it'd pretty much be a free for all and anything would be possible.

We do not yet know what rules apply at time zero and the very very short period immediately following. That is why what I say is truly wild speculation. However, it is tempered by what is already known. It seems more rational to believe that this unknown time follows laws somewhat consistent with the subsequent applicable laws.

Perhaps the fundamental constants of the universe are the product of some, yet undiscovered mathematical constant.

This would be basing a conclusion on something that might happen in the future. This does not appear to me to be a rational position to take.

[sarcasm]Yes, it is far more rational to believe in something that is unlikely to happen ever. [/sarcasm] Since we cannot either of us prove our positions, it is necessary that we take positions based on evidence that has not yet been found.

[otseng]

But, there needs to be an explanation for the cause of spacetime. Let's just take time 0. What can account for matter/energy arising at time 0?

No we do not. Energy did not arise at time zero. The term arise implies that there was some time prior to zero. I rise out of my bed in the morning. Prior to my rising I was in bed.

Again, I'm not talking about our time before our universe was created. I'm simply asking for what explanation is there that our universe came into being? I propose a supernatural entity. And this would be the same supernatural entity that fine-tuned the universe. This would be two independent lines of evidence to support my position.

God is some kind of entity with no cause

Whether God has a cause or not, I'm not making any claim on. I'm simply asserting that it is rational that a God exists.

Dawkins (and others) uses this argument against the existence of God. And I find it to be a very weak argument. If you ask how something was caused, you presuppose that such a thing already exists. If the thing is presupposed not to exist, then the question is meaningless. Nobody (that I know of) sits around asking how the tooth fairy came into being. Only when something is thought to actually exist would the question be meaningful. So, by asking the question, it implies that God actually exists.

Further, just because we don't know the cause of something does not invalidate anything. For example, the theory of evolution posits the tree of life where all organisms come from a single cell. But, what caused the first cell? Naturalists do not really know. But, does that invalidate the entire theory of evolution? No. Same with the Big Bang theory. What initiated the Big Bang? Naturalists do not know. But, does that invalidate the Big Bang? No. Likewise, I propose that a creator is responsible for creation and fine-tuning. And not having a cause for the creator does not invalidate the rationale for the existence of the creator.

We can say it [spacetime] has always existed in our experience of time. But, it does not demonstrate it was uncaused.

Nor does it demonstrate that it was caused. What we know is that spacetime and energy existed at time zero.

Actually, I'm not even sure that the Big Bang Theory posits that energy existed at time zero. Anything shorter than a unit of Planck time after time 0 is currently unknowable.

"As there presently exists no widely accepted framework for how to combine quantum mechanics with relativistic gravity, science is not currently able to make predictions about events occurring over intervals shorter than the Planck time or distances shorter than one Planck length, the distance light travels in one Planck time—about 1.616 × 10-35 meters. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_epoch

But, anyways, we can say that the universe was caused simply by the fact that there is a time 0 for the universe. If the universe had an eternal past, then we cannot ask what caused it since there would be no time 0.

OK. I don't know about any time other than the one in our spacetime. Presumably, if there are other universes, they have their own spacetimes. But even that does not necessitate that the meta-universe has some form of meta-spacetime.

Here's another way of thinking about it.

Suppose humans discover a way to create another universe (B). Our universe (A) would be independent of B (spacetimes would be different). B would have been created at some point in time in A. But, from B's perspective, it would have no concept of time outside of B. It cannot say what happened "before" B was created relative to B's spacetime. But from A's perspective, A can point to a time before B was created. Now, just because B cannot point to a "before" B was created does not mean it was not created or uncaused.

To me the meta-universe could be the space of all possible universes. We have observed one universe, we can mathematically predict the behavior of other possible universes.

What would those predictions be?

The one we are discussing it that if certain of the universal constants were different by a small amount, the universe would expand so quickly that no matter would ever form or the universe would have collapsed upon itself immediately by its own gravitational pressure.

Yes, so far this is the only fine-tuning parameter that has been brought up. But there are many more (which we'll get to later).

So, would one result of the prediction be that all the other universes do not have sentient life?

We already know and both acknowledge that one universe does indeed exist. Quantum physics suggests that multiple universes exist. The multi-universe model is parsimonious in that it only posits that entities like the ones already know to exist do, in fact, exist.

Since we cannot interact or detect those other universes, it would hard to demonstrate that those universes are like (or unlike) ours.

The theist model posits that something completely different from what can be demonstrated to exist does exist.

Not completely different. Like humans, it must be intelligent and have the ability to create, but on a scale much larger than ours. So, it's more a matter of degree than being completely different.

Since we cannot either of us prove our positions, it is necessary that we take positions based on evidence that has not yet been found.

Where have I based my arguments on evidence that has not yet been found?

[McCulloch]

I'm simply asking for what explanation is there that our universe came into being? I propose a supernatural entity. And this would be the same supernatural entity that fine-tuned the universe. This would be two independent lines of evidence to support my position.

I don't quite understand. We both have referred to the fact that energy cannot be created, yet you ask for an explanation for how the energy in our universe got created. As far as I know, the universe did not come into being. There was never a time when the universe did not exist.

God is some kind of entity with no cause

Whether God has a cause or not, I'm not making any claim on. I'm simply asserting that it is rational that a God exists.

If not as an uncaused explanation for the cause of all that has been caused, then what reason would one have to speculate of a God at all. Philosophically, how does a caused God help you?

Dawkins (and others) uses this argument against the existence of God. And I find it to be a very weak argument. If you ask how something was caused, you presuppose that such a thing already exists. If the thing is presupposed not to exist, then the question is meaningless. Nobody (that I know of) sits around asking how the tooth fairy came into being. Only when something is thought to actually exist would the question be meaningful. So, by asking the question, it implies that God actually exists.

If you believe that God exists, then you must either believe that God was caused or that God has always existed. It is a fair argument against your belief to ask how it is that you think that this God of yours came into existence.

Further, just because we don't know the cause of something does not invalidate anything.

Fair enough. What do you know about this God who's existence you're defending?

Not having a cause for the creator does not invalidate the rationale for the existence of the creator.

I'm mistaken in anticipating a common theist argument. Many theists claim that God must exist because there has to be an ultimate uncaused first cause. If you are willing to forgo using this rather common defense of the God claim, I'll try to remember not to attack it.

Actually, I'm not even sure that the Big Bang Theory posits that energy existed at time zero. Anything shorter than a unit of Planck time after time 0 is currently unknowable.

You are correct. Since energy cannot be created, I presume, without rigorous proof that all of the energy in the universe was not created from nothing in the first Planck period.

But, anyways, we can say that the universe was caused simply by the fact that there is a time 0 for the universe. If the universe had an eternal past, then we cannot ask what caused it since there would be no time 0.

There is a difference between having an eternal past and being uncaused. If time began at time 0, it can still be uncaused. There was nothing before time that caused time to come into being.

So, would one result of the prediction be that all the other universes do not have sentient life?

I don't see any reason why sentient life could not arise in some other universe. Do you?

We already know and both acknowledge that one universe does indeed exist. Quantum physics suggests that multiple universes exist. The multi-universe model is parsimonious in that it only posits that entities like the ones already know to exist do, in fact, exist.

Since we cannot interact or detect those other universes, it would hard to demonstrate that those universes are like (or unlike) ours.

But that's not what we're discussing. One model posits that there may be multiple universes. We know, for a fact, that one universe exists. The other, less parsimonious model posits that at least one universe exists plus something completely outside of the universe, bound by completely different principles, your God.

The theist model posits that something completely different from what can be demonstrated to exist does exist.

Not completely different. Like humans, it must be intelligent and have the ability to create, but on a scale much larger than ours. So, it's more a matter of degree than being completely different.

You're equivocating. What humans create is merely a matter of moving stuff around. What you're convinced that God creates is making stuff from nothing.