Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

One-on-one debates

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Arguments and evidence for deism, theism, and miracles

Post #1

Post by otseng »

We have agreed to debate the following:

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?

And if so, is there sufficient evidence to conclude a theistic worldview whereby this God intervenes in human affairs? Specifically, is there evidentiary justification for concluding that some claims of intervention are authentic whereas others aren't.

---

A thread has been created for followers of this debate to post comments:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=24538
Last edited by otseng on Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Post #2

Post by otseng »

There is going to be a general principle that I will use to determine if an explanation is the most viable. If logic and evidence support explanation A and all other explanations do not have as much support, then it's reasonable to accept explanation A. There is no need to "prove" that explanation A is true, but it is only necessary to show that it is better than all competing alternative explanations. It is granted that there might exist other explanations that we do not currently know about, but for now, it can be claimed that explanation A is a reasonable position to hold.

Also, as a forewarning, my free time is quite limited. So, my responses could take some time. But, I will give priority to this thread over any other debate topic.

I'll post later and start my arguments for deism...

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #3

Post by no evidence no belief »

otseng wrote: There is going to be a general principle that I will use to determine if an explanation is the most viable. If logic and evidence support explanation A and all other explanations do not have as much support, then it's reasonable to accept explanation A. There is no need to "prove" that explanation A is true, but it is only necessary to show that it is better than all competing alternative explanations. It is granted that there might exist other explanations that we do not currently know about, but for now, it can be claimed that explanation A is a reasonable position to hold.

Also, as a forewarning, my free time is quite limited. So, my responses could take some time. But, I will give priority to this thread over any other debate topic.

I'll post later and start my arguments for deism...
I accept the general principle. It is after all at the core of a skeptic's worldview.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Post #4

Post by otseng »

Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?
A deistic god that I'll be arguing for is a creator of our universe. A deistic god would not interact with the universe after the moment of creation. There is also no special relationship between god or any life in the universe, including humans.

The first argument is the existence of the universe and its origin. Even just a hundred years ago, it was not accepted among scientists that there was a beginning to the universe. This neatly avoided the issue of a creator God. Since there was no beginning, there was no need for a creator.

Fred Hoyle expressed the idea of the beginning of universe as pseudoscience.
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Now, it's pretty much a fact that there was a beginning to the universe. So, how could the universe have arisen?

Well, as Fred Hoyle pointed out, it speaks of a creator. I'll leave it to NENB to offer alternatives to a deistic god creating the universe.

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #5

Post by no evidence no belief »

otseng wrote:
Is there sufficient evidence to conclude the existence of a deistic God?
A deistic god that I'll be arguing for is a creator of our universe. A deistic god would not interact with the universe after the moment of creation. There is also no special relationship between god or any life in the universe, including humans.

The first argument is the existence of the universe and its origin. Even just a hundred years ago, it was not accepted among scientists that there was a beginning to the universe. This neatly avoided the issue of a creator God. Since there was no beginning, there was no need for a creator.

Fred Hoyle expressed the idea of the beginning of universe as pseudoscience.
He found the idea that the universe had a beginning to be pseudoscience, resembling arguments for a creator, "for it's an irrational process, and can't be described in scientific terms."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle

Now, it's pretty much a fact that there was a beginning to the universe. So, how could the universe have arisen?

Well, as Fred Hoyle pointed out, it speaks of a creator. I'll leave it to NENB to offer alternatives to a deistic god creating the universe.
I am profoundly confused by Otseng's post above.

He had previously said that he would deem an explanation acceptable if logic and evidence supported it better than other explanations.

But no logical argument or evidentiary basis is provided in support of his position/explanation. Indeed, Otseng barely has a position/explanation at all.

Otseng just asserts that an entity that caused the universe, exists. Period. He does not even attempt to deduce, declare or define any of the possible attributes of this hypothetical entity. Is it intelligent? Is it conscious? Is it aware? Does it have a mind? Does it have a brain? Where is it physically located? Does it still exist? Did it stop existing at the point of Big Bang? Is "God" simply a previous universe that imploded into itself, and once it reached the point of maximum density exploded outwards into the Big Bang "giving birth" to the current universe? Is "God" simply the "condition the universe was in prior to the Big Bang"? Is "God" the quantum fluctuation that triggered the exponential inflation at the event horizon? Is "God" simply the infinite warping of space-time caused by the extremely intense gravitational field of the compressed universe at the point of singularity? Is God the "complete absence of anything whatsoever"? What is Otseng trying to persuade us of?

I cannot argue with Otseng's position because there is nothing to agree or disagree with. All he is doing is attaching the three letter label G-O-D to a vague and undefined state of affairs related and possibly antecedent to the Big Bang. Sure, if G-O-D is the catch-all temporary label for "all the stuff we don't understand yet and tentatively speculate about, regarding the origin of the universe", then God played a part in the universe existing. But that's not saying much, is it?

Before we can begin the discussion, Otseng needs to clearly define a deistic God and outline its attributes in a way that differentiates it from any other explanations for the universe. Subsequent to that he has to present logical and evidentiary support for his claim.

This is in full concordance with the "general principle" he outlined at the beginning. First define what "Explanation A" is, then present your case that "logic and evidence support Explanation A". I will then present alternate explanations, and Otseng will have to satisfactorily make the case that logic and evidence support Explanation A to a greater degree than they support alternate explanations.

So, Otseng, please tell us what you know about the pre-big-bang conditions in the universe, and tell us how you know it.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Post #6

Post by otseng »

no evidence no belief wrote: Otseng just asserts that an entity that caused the universe, exists. Period. He does not even attempt to deduce, declare or define any of the possible attributes of this hypothetical entity. Is it intelligent? Is it conscious? Is it aware? Does it have a mind? Does it have a brain? Where is it physically located? Does it still exist? Did it stop existing at the point of Big Bang? Is "God" simply a previous universe that imploded into itself, and once it reached the point of maximum density exploded outwards into the Big Bang "giving birth" to the current universe? Is "God" simply the "condition the universe was in prior to the Big Bang"? Is "God" the quantum fluctuation that triggered the exponential inflation at the event horizon? Is "God" simply the infinite warping of space-time caused by the extremely intense gravitational field of the compressed universe at the point of singularity? Is God the "complete absence of anything whatsoever"? What is Otseng trying to persuade us of?
I'm not claiming many characteristics of god at this point. The deistic god would simply be an intelligent entity that has powers to create. It would not be simply a quantum fluctuation or any non-intelligent, naturalistic cause.
Sure, if G-O-D is the catch-all temporary label for "all the stuff we don't understand yet and tentatively speculate about, regarding the origin of the universe", then God played a part in the universe existing. But that's not saying much, is it?
Of course I'm not saying that. However, I gather from your response that you do not have other alternative explanations.
Before we can begin the discussion, Otseng needs to clearly define a deistic God and outline its attributes in a way that differentiates it from any other explanations for the universe.
I use the term god in the commonly accepted usage of the term. That is, god as a being that is powerful and intelligent. I do not use the term as a catch-all explanation, in particular, I do not use the term god to describe any naturalistic causes.
So, Otseng, please tell us what you know about the pre-big-bang conditions in the universe, and tell us how you know it.
I do not see the relevance of this and the necessity of an answer before you can offer alternative causes of the universe.

If you are unable to provide other explanations, then by default God is the only reasonable explanation.

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #7

Post by no evidence no belief »

otseng wrote:
no evidence no belief wrote: Otseng just asserts that an entity that caused the universe, exists. Period. He does not even attempt to deduce, declare or define any of the possible attributes of this hypothetical entity. Is it intelligent? Is it conscious? Is it aware? Does it have a mind? Does it have a brain? Where is it physically located? Does it still exist? Did it stop existing at the point of Big Bang? Is "God" simply a previous universe that imploded into itself, and once it reached the point of maximum density exploded outwards into the Big Bang "giving birth" to the current universe? Is "God" simply the "condition the universe was in prior to the Big Bang"? Is "God" the quantum fluctuation that triggered the exponential inflation at the event horizon? Is "God" simply the infinite warping of space-time caused by the extremely intense gravitational field of the compressed universe at the point of singularity? Is God the "complete absence of anything whatsoever"? What is Otseng trying to persuade us of?
I'm not claiming many characteristics of god at this point. The deistic god would simply be an intelligent entity that has powers to create. It would not be simply a quantum fluctuation or any non-intelligent, naturalistic cause.
Sure, if G-O-D is the catch-all temporary label for "all the stuff we don't understand yet and tentatively speculate about, regarding the origin of the universe", then God played a part in the universe existing. But that's not saying much, is it?
Of course I'm not saying that. However, I gather from your response that you do not have other alternative explanations.
Before we can begin the discussion, Otseng needs to clearly define a deistic God and outline its attributes in a way that differentiates it from any other explanations for the universe.
I use the term god in the commonly accepted usage of the term. That is, god as a being that is powerful and intelligent. I do not use the term as a catch-all explanation, in particular, I do not use the term god to describe any naturalistic causes.
So, Otseng, please tell us what you know about the pre-big-bang conditions in the universe, and tell us how you know it.
I do not see the relevance of this and the necessity of an answer before you can offer alternative causes of the universe.

If you are unable to provide other explanations, then by default God is the only reasonable explanation.
Ok. You are defining God as an intelligent entity that has the power to create.

Very good. You have now defined "Explanation A" with sufficient clarity for us to begin our discussion.

You are claiming that the universe went from not existing to existing by virtue of the actions of an intelligent entity which created the universe.

The explanation could probably afford some refinement, which I'm sure you'll provide as we move forward (for example, is it safe to assume that you believe this entity is benevolent?), but it's definitely good enough for now.

Go ahead and present the evidence for the existence of this entity, and the evidence that it created the universe.


Also, could you confirm that you hold the position that the universe went from non-existing to existing? If so, do you have evidence for this? Because, as you doubtlessly know, the Big Bang does not constitute the process of the universe going from not existing to existing. It constitutes the process of the universe going from being very very small to being very very big. Exponential increase in size does not equal beginning of existence. Are you saying that this intelligent entity guided the expansion of the universe, or are you saying that prior to the explosion which we call Big Bang, this entity created the ultra-compressed universe which subsequently exploded?


You mentioned that you would like me to present some alternate explanations. I'd be happy to do that. I already hinted at a few of them.

1) Big Bounce. The expansion of the universe is the direct result of the compression of a previous universe, which in turn had once upon a time exploded from a highly compressed state which had been the result of a compression of a previous universe.

2) Gravitational fields slow time. This is a fully tested and confirmed phenomenon called Gravitational Time Dilation. This means that the closer a gravitational field, the slower time passes at its location. Thus, what is perceived as an instant at a location a few miles from a black hole, is perceived as millions of years from a location a few parsecs from a black hole. If the entire universe were condensed into a single point, the gravitational field at that point would warp space-time to such a degree that time would stop altogether and eternity would be indistinguishable from a nanosecond. Thus, the statement "the universe existed in a pre-big bang state for eternity prior to exploding into the big bang" would be no more and no less true than "the universe existed for only a single instant of time prior to the big bang". Under such conditions, there is no necessity to posit an external entity upstream in a causal link that does not exist.

3) Zero-Energy-Universe theory. The total net energy of the universe is ZERO, all positive forms of energy (light, heat, matter, etc) are perfectly cancelled out by negative (potential/gravitational) energy. Thus the universe is just a current manifestation of net nothingness, manifesting in this particular way at this particular time because of no more than a mere uncaused quantum fluctuation.

4) Vacuum genesis. This is outlined in detail here It's an offshoot of the Zero Energy Universe theory.

5) Universe caused by collapse of a 4 dimensional star, creating a 4-D black hole. Much like 3D black holes in the universe have a 2D membrane called "event horizons", an hypothetical 4D black hole would have a 3D inflating event horizon, which is what our universe would be


There is some empirical evidence (albeit far from conclusive) supporting all of these hypotheses, which I can present briefly if you like.

If one were to make bigger stretches of the imagination, additional alternatives to the "Intelligent entity with the power to create" theory:

6) There are 16 intelligent entities and they worked together to create the universe.

7) There is a whole village of intelligent entities, and anytime they sneeze or fart, they create big bangs and thus there are numerous parallel universes created by a village of intelligent entities who aren't even aware of the repercussions of their flatulence and sneezing.

(I have zero empirical evidence supporting these far fetched ideas, of course. I just present them here to illustrate the point that probably you have as little evidence for your single creator as I do for the team of 16 creators or the village of unaware creators. I'd love to be proven wrong)


But enough about my ideas! We now have a functional definition of "Explanation A" the deistic God! Please go ahead and provide the evidence for it.

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20499
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 336 times
Contact:

Post #8

Post by otseng »

no evidence no belief wrote: The explanation could probably afford some refinement, which I'm sure you'll provide as we move forward (for example, is it safe to assume that you believe this entity is benevolent?), but it's definitely good enough for now.
For now, I'm not claiming any other attributes for the deistic god, including benevolence.
Go ahead and present the evidence for the existence of this entity, and the evidence that it created the universe.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean additional evidence?

The only line of reasoning I've brought up so far is that there a point in time that our universe began to exist. And we're only exploring the possible explanations to account for a beginning to our universe.
Also, could you confirm that you hold the position that the universe went from non-existing to existing?
Yes, I claim this. You don't?
If so, do you have evidence for this? Because, as you doubtlessly know, the Big Bang does not constitute the process of the universe going from not existing to existing. It constitutes the process of the universe going from being very very small to being very very big.
How long has the universe existed being very very small? If it's not eternally in the past, then it must've been some finite time in the past. If it's a finite point in the past, then the universe had a beginning in time.
Exponential increase in size does not equal beginning of existence. Are you saying that this intelligent entity guided the expansion of the universe, or are you saying that prior to the explosion which we call Big Bang, this entity created the ultra-compressed universe which subsequently exploded?
Actually, I haven't made any claims about the Big Bang yet. The only thing I've brought up is that there is a beginning to the universe.
1) Big Bounce. The expansion of the universe is the direct result of the compression of a previous universe, which in turn had once upon a time exploded from a highly compressed state which had been the result of a compression of a previous universe.
Cyclical models are not viable.

"Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_f ... e_universe
2) Gravitational fields slow time. This is a fully tested and confirmed phenomenon called Gravitational Time Dilation. This means that the closer a gravitational field, the slower time passes at its location. Thus, what is perceived as an instant at a location a few miles from a black hole, is perceived as millions of years from a location a few parsecs from a black hole. If the entire universe were condensed into a single point, the gravitational field at that point would warp space-time to such a degree that time would stop altogether and eternity would be indistinguishable from a nanosecond. Thus, the statement "the universe existed in a pre-big bang state for eternity prior to exploding into the big bang" would be no more and no less true than "the universe existed for only a single instant of time prior to the big bang". Under such conditions, there is no necessity to posit an external entity upstream in a causal link that does not exist.
If the entire universe was condensed into a single point (no volume), and time would stop, then what caused the time to start? If gravitational field strength was infinite, then how could the universe expand from the singularity? Why would the universe have existed for an infinite time in the past as a singularity, and then at some point explode into the Big Bang?
3) Zero-Energy-Universe theory. The total net energy of the universe is ZERO, all positive forms of energy (light, heat, matter, etc) are perfectly cancelled out by negative (potential/gravitational) energy.
I assume you mean that gravity is energy that can cancel out other forms of energy. Please present evidence where gravity can join with other forms of energy to nullify each other.
4) Vacuum genesis. This is outlined in detail here It's an offshoot of the Zero Energy Universe theory.
From your source, "This was treated as a joke at the time, but Tryon hadn't been joking." And from what I can tell, it's not treated very seriously by many others.
5) Universe caused by collapse of a 4 dimensional star, creating a 4-D black hole. Much like 3D black holes in the universe have a 2D membrane called "event horizons", an hypothetical 4D black hole would have a 3D inflating event horizon, which is what our universe would be
From your source, "new findings from the European Space Agency found fluctuations in ancient microwaves that match the Big Bang theory but not this new black hole theory."
There is some empirical evidence (albeit far from conclusive) supporting all of these hypotheses, which I can present briefly if you like.
All the other explanations would most likely fall into the classes you've already presented: oscillating universe, eternal universe, spontaneous generation, and alternative universes. If you have something else that does not fall into these, you can present those.
If one were to make bigger stretches of the imagination, additional alternatives to the "Intelligent entity with the power to create" theory:

6) There are 16 intelligent entities and they worked together to create the universe.
Could be. But I'm not making any claims about that either. It could be one intelligent entity or it could be a committee of them.
I just present them here to illustrate the point that probably you have as little evidence for your single creator as I do for the team of 16 creators or the village of unaware creators. I'd love to be proven wrong)
That's the point of the thread, to present and discuss the evidence. We've only just started.

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #9

Post by no evidence no belief »

otseng wrote:
no evidence no belief wrote: The explanation could probably afford some refinement, which I'm sure you'll provide as we move forward (for example, is it safe to assume that you believe this entity is benevolent?), but it's definitely good enough for now.
For now, I'm not claiming any other attributes for the deistic god, including benevolence.
Fair enough.
otseng wrote:
Go ahead and present the evidence for the existence of this entity, and the evidence that it created the universe.
What do you mean by this? Do you mean additional evidence?
No. I mean evidence.

You are proposing two things:
1) The universe went from not existing to existing (A flagrant violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics).
2) This transition from non-existence to existence was caused by an intelligent entity with the power to create.

You have presented some logical argument (flawed, not based on evidence but based on speculation, but still) for the universe having begun, which I will address below. But you have presented no argument, no evidence, no model, no explanation, no reason whatsoever to believe that intelligence was in any way involved in this process. You have just asserted that an intelligent entity or group of entities with the power to create caused the universe to begin existing. I must assume that justification for this assertion is forthcoming. I understand that you want to first address the preliminary notion that the universe began to exist, but evidence for intelligent agency will have to be presented at some point, because it certainly hasn't been presented yet.
otseng wrote:The only line of reasoning I've brought up so far is that there a point in time that our universe began to exist.
Right. You've presented no line of reasoning, logical argument or evidentiary support for the assertion that intelligence was in any way part of this process. I understand that we're just doing preliminary exploration at this point, but I'm assuming that you agree that this is germane to the discussion and you will present some argument and evidence at some point.
otseng wrote:
Also, could you confirm that you hold the position that the universe went from non-existing to existing?
Yes, I claim this. You don't?
No. I do not claim this. For matter/energy to go from non-existing to existing is an egregious violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Mind you, I am not asserting that the universe did NOT begin to exist. I am just saying that at our current level of knowledge, the hypothesis that energy/matter came into existence faces the insurmountable problem of conflicting with the laws of physics. Energy/matter CANNOT be created or destroyed.
otseng wrote:
If so, do you have evidence for this? Because, as you doubtlessly know, the Big Bang does not constitute the process of the universe going from not existing to existing. It constitutes the process of the universe going from being very very small to being very very big.
How long has the universe existed being very very small? If it's not eternally in the past, then it must've been some finite time in the past. If it's a finite point in the past, then the universe had a beginning in time.
You're thinking in pre-Einsteinian terms. If space-time is warped by a sufficiently strong gravitational field, eternity=an instant, and therefore all your speculations regarding infinite time prior to big bang versus finite time prior to big bang is meaningless. You are asking "For what amount of time was the universe in a pre-big-bang state". In an environment where time does not exist, the answer "an instant" and the answer "for eternity" are both equally true, equally false, equally meaningless. We do not know much about the origin of the universe. But we know for SURE that Gravitational Time Dilation is a fact.

Gravitational time dilation is a fact. And it renders statements about the "amount of time (finite vs infinite) the universe existed before the Big-Bang" meaningless.

The First Law of Thermodynamics is a fact. And it renders statements about "matter/energy coming into existence" impossible.

These two ironclad empirical facts render assertions about a pre-big-bang creation of the universe very problematic indeed. Before we can speculate on (let alone accept) the notion that matter/energy went from non-existing to existing, and that such a process - which inevitably is a process-over-time - somehow took place in a time-free environment, we must first dispense with the First Law of Thermodynamics and with Einsteinian Relativity, both of which are squarely at odds with the hypothesis you present.
otseng wrote:
Exponential increase in size does not equal beginning of existence. Are you saying that this intelligent entity guided the expansion of the universe, or are you saying that prior to the explosion which we call Big Bang, this entity created the ultra-compressed universe which subsequently exploded?
Actually, I haven't made any claims about the Big Bang yet. The only thing I've brought up is that there is a beginning to the universe.
Right. And this assertion is in contradiction with the First Law of Thermodynamics and with General and Special Relativity. Before the notion that there was a beginning to the universe can be entertained, such a notion must be reconciled with these fully verified and empirically supported laws of nature.
otseng wrote:
1) Big Bounce. The expansion of the universe is the direct result of the compression of a previous universe, which in turn had once upon a time exploded from a highly compressed state which had been the result of a compression of a previous universe.
Cyclical models are not viable.

"Theoretically, the cyclic universe could not be reconciled with the second law of thermodynamics: entropy would build up from oscillation to oscillation and cause heat death."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_f ... e_universe
You objection is out of date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bounce ... the_theory

There is far from a consensus in the scientific community that the Big Bounce theory is not viable.
otseng wrote:
2) Gravitational fields slow time. This is a fully tested and confirmed phenomenon called Gravitational Time Dilation. This means that the closer a gravitational field, the slower time passes at its location. Thus, what is perceived as an instant at a location a few miles from a black hole, is perceived as millions of years from a location a few parsecs from a black hole. If the entire universe were condensed into a single point, the gravitational field at that point would warp space-time to such a degree that time would stop altogether and eternity would be indistinguishable from a nanosecond. Thus, the statement "the universe existed in a pre-big bang state for eternity prior to exploding into the big bang" would be no more and no less true than "the universe existed for only a single instant of time prior to the big bang". Under such conditions, there is no necessity to posit an external entity upstream in a causal link that does not exist.
If the entire universe was condensed into a single point (no volume), and time would stop, then what caused the time to start?
Uncaused random quantum fluctuation.
otseng wrote:If gravitational field strength was infinite, then how could the universe expand from the singularity?
I'm not sure.
otseng wrote: Why would the universe have existed for an infinite time in the past as a singularity, and then at some point explode into the Big Bang?
The universe didn't exist for an "infinite amount of time" as a singularity. You're thinking in pre-Einstenian terms again. If time doesn't exist, an "infinite amount of time" is the same as an instant.
otseng wrote:
3) Zero-Energy-Universe theory. The total net energy of the universe is ZERO, all positive forms of energy (light, heat, matter, etc) are perfectly cancelled out by negative (potential/gravitational) energy.
I assume you mean that gravity is energy that can cancel out other forms of energy. Please present evidence where gravity can join with other forms of energy to nullify each other.
I'm sorry Otseng, but here you are displaying lack of knowledge of basic classical physics. I give you my word that the notion that gravitational (potential) energy has negative value (as opposed to matter and other forms of energy which have positive values) is completely uncontroversial. We've known about this since the 19th century. The level of certainty about this, is comparable to the level of certainty that the planet is globe shaped and not pizza shaped.

The controversial part is that it is asserted that the total positive energy (which definitely exists) and the total negative energy (which definitely exists) are equal in value, resulting in a net zero-energy-universe.

I don't want to contaminate the debate by turning it into a lecture on classical physics. I promise you that the foundational facts of potential energy are firmly established, unquestioned and uncontroversial. I recommend that you simply google "classical physics" or "potential energy" and educate yourself on the matter. Id be happy to assist you through PM, but I'd rather not pollute the debate by introducing a topic that is simply not open to debate.
otseng wrote:
4) Vacuum genesis. This is outlined in detail here It's an offshoot of the Zero Energy Universe theory.
From your source, "This was treated as a joke at the time, but Tryon hadn't been joking." And from what I can tell, it's not treated very seriously by many others.
5) Universe caused by collapse of a 4 dimensional star, creating a 4-D black hole. Much like 3D black holes in the universe have a 2D membrane called "event horizons", an hypothetical 4D black hole would have a 3D inflating event horizon, which is what our universe would be
From your source, "new findings from the European Space Agency found fluctuations in ancient microwaves that match the Big Bang theory but not this new black hole theory."
Right. But the model is being tweaked.
otseng wrote:
There is some empirical evidence (albeit far from conclusive) supporting all of these hypotheses, which I can present briefly if you like.
All the other explanations would most likely fall into the classes you've already presented: oscillating universe, eternal universe, spontaneous generation, and alternative universes. If you have something else that does not fall into these, you can present those.
If one were to make bigger stretches of the imagination, additional alternatives to the "Intelligent entity with the power to create" theory:

6) There are 16 intelligent entities and they worked together to create the universe.
Could be. But I'm not making any claims about that either. It could be one intelligent entity or it could be a committee of them.
I just present them here to illustrate the point that probably you have as little evidence for your single creator as I do for the team of 16 creators or the village of unaware creators. I'd love to be proven wrong)
That's the point of the thread, to present and discuss the evidence. We've only just started.
Ok, let's recap where we stand:

You wish to assert that an intelligent entity caused the universe to go from non-existence to existence.

The first step in this process is to present a justification for believing that whether caused by intelligence or not, the universe DID begin to exist. If we cannot reasonably conclude that the universe began to exist, then the whole part about intelligence being involved is a moot point.

In order to reasonably conclude that the universe began to exist, you have to first disprove the First Law of Thermodynamics, which makes the proposition impossible, and you then have to disprove Einstenian Relativity, which makes the proposition meaningless. Either disprove these scientific facts, or find a way to reconcile your proposition with these facts which squarely contradict it.

Once you've successfully established that it's reasonable to assume the universe began to exist, we will be ready to discuss the evidence for the cause of this transition from non-existence to existence was an intelligent entity.

The first thing we agreed to in this debate was your general principle: "If logic and evidence support explanation A and all other explanations do not have as much support, then it's reasonable to accept explanation A".

If "the universe began to exist" is part of Explanation A, then it is NOT supported by logic and evidence at all. Thermodynamics and Relativity squarely conflict with Explanation A.

Other explanations, such as cyclical universes, zero-energy-universe, 4D black hole models, etc, certainly do NOT have sufficient empirical backing, and do not adequately dispense of internal problems, and thus fail to meet the bar for acceptance in the very strict world of science. But what little logical and evidentiary support they do have, is certainly greater than the logical and evidentiary support for the "universe went from non-existence to existence" model, and therefore by the very general principle that was submitted by you, they surpass Explanation A in credibility.

The bottom line is that exploring and speculating about circumstances beyond the event horizon is very very difficult. The truth is that as of right now we simply do not know enough about the early universe to assert the validity of any model with any reasonable amount of confidence. Nonetheless, if somebody put a gun to my head and told me to guess, it would be reasonable for me to rule out models that conflict with Thermodynamics and Relativity, in favor of models which, while incomplete and problematic, are nonetheless less fatally flawed than the portion of Explanation A we've gotten into.

And this is all before we even get into the mountains of problems involved with positing an intelligence existing in a pre-big-bang environment.

no evidence no belief
Banned
Banned
Posts: 1507
Joined: Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

Post #10

Post by no evidence no belief »

Hey Otseng, just a quick note.

In this post on a head-to-head debate with McCulloch on a very similar topic to our current one, you write this:
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.
This statement, that I agree with 100%, seems to be in conflict with some of the statements you've made so far in our exchange, such as this:
How long has the universe existed being very very small? If it's not eternally in the past, then it must've been some finite time in the past. If it's a finite point in the past, then the universe had a beginning in time.
In your other thread you make rather sophisticated arguments about multidimensional timelines and whatnot, and yet in our thread, while not specifically using the phrase "before the big bang", you imply that such a concept makes sense.

By saying "how long has the universe existed [in a "before the big bang" state]?" you are ignoring your very own statement: There is no such thing as a "before" if space-time does not even exist.

(To be precise, it's not that at a singularity space-time doesn't exist, it's just that it is infinitely warped. But the spirit of your proposition still stands despite your small semantic inaccuracy).

I think this is what we know with a reasonable level of confidence:

1) We know that statements such as "before the big bang" are meaningless. Including statements such as "The universe began to exist at some point before the big bang".

2) We know the Big Bang happened, and we know it was the process of an existing universe going from small to big and from hot to cold, in a process of expansion and cooling that is still happening to this day. It was not a process of the universe going from not existing to existing.

3) We know that something cannot begin existing once it already exists (obviously, lol)

It seems to me there are only three statements one can make, all of which are false/meaningless.

Statement 1: "The universe began to exist before the big bang". We agree that this is a meaningless statement.

Statement 2: "The universe began to exist AT the big bang". We know that this is not true. The big bang is just the process of an existing universe becoming bigger and cooler.

Statement 3: "The universe began to exist AFTER the big bang". This is self-evidently absurd.

If the universe didn't begin existing before the big bang (meaningless), at the big bang (empirically demonstrated to be not true) or after the big bang (patently absurd), then the only logical conclusion is that the universe did not begin to exist.

NOTE: This does not mean that the universe existed for eternity, because eternal existence is a necessary result of not having begun to exist only under the simplified model of reality wherein time is constant, and NOT in an Einsteinian model - supported by empirical evidence - wherein space-time is affected by gravitational fields.

In conclusion, I really believe that you will be hard pressed to demonstrate that, as per your general principle, logic and evidence support the notion that the universe began to exist, to a greater degree than logic and evidence support the notion that the universe did NOT begin to exist.


Now, If the evidence available is insufficient for you to clear the first hurdle of demonstrating that the universe began to exist, then you will have a hard time indeed demonstrating that not only it began existing, but that the event was triggered by some kind of intelligent agency.

I'm not saying that definitely the universe didn't begin to exist and that therefore definitely an intelligent entity was not involved in an event that didn't happen. I'm just saying that we have very little evidence to work with, since this is an area you and I specifically and humanity as a whole know very little about, and that the little empirical data we do have and the few logical arguments we can formulate on its basis, are insufficient for any particular explanation to meet the requirements of your general principle, and that therefore your claim that a deistic God caused the universe to start existing fails to meet the very burden of proof you introduced.

I apologize for this additional post. I realize that by publishing it I run the risk of splintering the debate into multiple segments. Please see if you can incorporate responses to this post and to my previous one in your next post, with my renewed apologies for doubling the workload of my already busy debate opponent :)

Post Reply