Does God exist? (9 Viewers)

[Slidey]

Just a random point:

'Information' (patterns, which is arguably all life is) occur spontaneously all the time in complex systems. I've delved into it in this thread before (chemical equilibria, cellular automata, fractals, evolutionary computer algorithms, etc), but many complex systems develop what is called 'emergent' behaviour; patterns and order that is seemingly completely out of place in the chaos and complexity around it and which produced it. The book you ordered details this phenomenon far more eloquently than I can in a single post.

I refer back to the cellular automata called the "Game of Life", which is a very simply example of how simple competing rules can consistently produce unexpected order out randomness (it has been shown that many cellular automata are in fact all-purpose programming languages, too): http://www.bitstorm.org/gameoflife/

Try all speeds (I'd recommend faster than 'slow') and the various different patterns. Then try pressing stop and throwing down a random bunch of dots (try and cluster them a bit so they actually compete). Use a tiny grid so patterns are easier to see. It's quite amazing.

Edit: In fact, as Frontiers of Complexity points out, the patterns on many sea snails shells are almost identical to the patterns that emerge from one of the documented cellular automata. This is not surprising given that, as I said above, cellular automata are global programming languages; they can be converted into every other language, such as neural nets or whatever. This property is called being a 'universal Turing machine'. While a universal Turing machine can replicate the logic of any language or computer designed with on/off in mind, I believe quantum computing has a separate universal Turing machine. I'll have to check if one is a subset of the other.

Ah. I checked. It isn't known either way. It's similar to the P vs NP problem (it's another part of complexity theory... don't ask)

Ah, here it is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton#Natural_biotic_types

Quick comparison:
The rule 30 CA cellular automata:

The pattern produced by the Conus Textile's cellular automata (probably in fact 30 CA combined with small amounts of randomness from the environment and organism itself):

Also, as said in the wiki link, plants open and close the stomata in their leaves to minimise water loss and maximise oxygen intake in a way that looks like somebody (somebody extremely smart or a computer) is actually controlling it, or the plant is intelligent. What's actually going on is a cellular automata network, which as stated above is fully capable of performing very complex calculations with ease.

 

[BradCube]

Before I start in a reply, I have to ask whether you realize that writing in caps is interpreted as shouting on the internet? I feel like I am being assaulted each time I read a reply from you.

Well let's see if you can show me how...

I believe I have through my point that an absence of God leaves far more problems than an absence of fairies.

There's something 'special' about love aparently right? Then perhaps that 'specialness' comes about through these magic pixies. I mean there are A LOT of 'unanswerable' questions out there. To be honest though, the questions still are answerable without a God... just they're more an alteria hypothesis than any solid denunciation of fact.

Well you haven't specified what type of love you are talking about, but either way, I fail to see why you would introduce fairies to explain something which is already understood such as love.

Even if the only options were "I don't know" or "Supernatural Explanation of some Type" I don't think it makes the supernatural explanation any more likely to be true.

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the degree of lack of knowledge. I personally would prefer to believe in something than choose to simply ignore those questions (especially when ignoring those questions allows to you to form an atheistic point of view).

There are PLENTY of naturalistic explanations, they just don't explain EVERYTHING. You want a theory of EVERYTHING, you're NEVER going to get that.

Correct, which is why I must put faith in the side which I believe is more reasonably probable.

a) Science has a record of delivering.
b) I don't put faith in the idea that science will, I just say I don't know... science has answered questions I haven't had answers for in the past... so maybe it will again in the future.

a) It also has a recording of revising and changing what it delivered
b) If you just say you don't know then you can't maintain your atheism. Atheism implies that you have reason not to believe in God. You must at least have some agnosticism somewhere.

It's truer than that we are existing on the planet earth. Truer than that the sun goes around the earth. Truer than gravity.

So you're saying that it is truer that supernatural occurrences cannot happen than that gravity exists? Why? I don't follow.

You haven't understood me at all. The current evidences are for a beginning of OUR OWN UNIVERSE, this doesn't speak at all as to the nature of any meta-reality from which this known universe of ours may have spawned.

As far as I was aware the big bang describes all natural reality than has ever existed. Theories beyond this go into pseudo-science as I mentioned earlier. Essentially, all you have done is push forward the description of universe and forced it to apply only to the big bang thereby implying that it is obvious that there is a natural cause for more than just our "universe".

What I'm saying is that you're saying humans 'information add' right? Well so do stars when they create planets/new materials through fusion. Now when I say this, you'll probably say "yea, but what makes the star do that".

I can just as easily do the same with a human being.

Difference lies in the definition of information then.

I'm as atheist about God as I am of the concept that I'm really a woman hooked up to the matrix... when you ask me whether I'm a man or a woman though, I'll tell you I am a man.

The non-existance of God again raises more problems than the non-existance of the matrix. In fact the non-existance of the matrix relies on properly basic beliefs.

Essentially your argument seems to be - God does not exist since belief in God is ridiculous since God cannot exist.

MW interpretation of Quantum Physics

Linkies please?

 

[advanced sam]

alright then

 

[BradCube]

Perfectly "tuned"? How so? The laws are the laws; tuned any other way, and the universe wouldn't exist.

I think this has probably been answered now but what I have quoted from you is the entire point. Why are the laws the way they are? As you pointed out, if they were anything but what they are, the universe and reality would not exist (not to even mention life within that reality)

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Before I start in a reply, I have to ask whether you realize that writing in caps is interpreted as shouting on the internet? I feel like I am being assaulted each time I read a reply from you.

I write in caps cause it's an easier way of noting emphasis than underlining... I don't spend a long time writing my responses and try to just communicate as I would talk to you on MSN for instance - No insult is meant by it. I'm by no means any sort of naturally gifted intellectual, if I decided to make my responses as logically structured, primmed and proper as I could then it would take me a while to post. I generally hope it's not so bad that it effects people responding to me too bad.

I believe I have through my point that an absence of God leaves far more problems than an absence of fairies.

Why does it matter how many questions the existence of God solves? I really don't get it.

Well you haven't specified what type of love you are talking about, but either way, I fail to see why you would introduce fairies to explain something which is already understood such as love.

Well personally my understanding is that love is generally understood to have some sort of mystical component to it. But either way it's really no less illogical imo to believe that God makes the ground quake now than it was before we knew about plate tectonics, it just gives us an answer instead of saying "I don't know".

Maybe, maybe not. Depends on the degree of lack of knowledge. I personally would prefer to believe in something than choose to simply ignore those questions (especially when ignoring those questions allows to you to form an atheistic point of view).

How does it depend on the degree of lack of knowledge? So the less we know about something you're proposing the more likely it becomes that it could be something supernatural? That seems a fairly odd idea based off of nothing.

a) It also has a recording of revising and changing what it delivered

To be honest, while this is true... the amount of revision isn't imo as huge as you'd like to make it out to be. For the most part darwins theory of evolution is, at least in the thrust of it, the same as it has always been -- But honestly if you want to throw out the achievements of science like that go ahead...

b) If you just say you don't know then you can't maintain your atheism. Atheism implies that you have reason not to believe in God. You must at least have some agnosticism somewhere.

Philosophically if you really want to talk about theory of knowledge type stuff I am an extremely sceptical agnostic, but in practice it's silly to call myself an agnostic imo when the truth is I do not believe in God and am certain of this as much as I am certain there is not a magical pink unicorn behind my head right now.

-------------------

So you're saying that it is truer that supernatural occurrences cannot happen than the that gravity exists? Why? I don't follow.

Out theory of gravity is based off a few assumptions regarding our ability to observe/measure things. If there can possibly exist supernatural entities which defy our observable natural laws then gravity can no longer be a stable theory at all - Ergo, we know it must be true that there are no supernatural entities, or we do not know it is true gravity exists.

As far as I was aware the big bang describes all natural reality than has ever existed. Theories beyond this go into pseudo-science as I mentioned earlier. Essentially, all you have done is push forward the description of universe and forced it to apply only to the big bang thereby implying that it is obvious that there is a natural cause for more than just our "universe".

The big bang describes all natural reality that we know of comming into existence. Is it possible there's something beyond that? I think so, but I personally don't have a lot of proof other than this nagging thought that something can't come from nothing, unless that something always existed. It's in response to your positing of a creator, so I don't see why it's wrong for me to bring it up? My point is not to show we have scientific proof for how the universe began, merely to show that it's as easy to posit a steady state meta universe as it is some magical being.

The non-existance of God again raises more problems than the non-existance of the matrix.

Doesn't matter.

In fact the non-existance of the matrix relies on properly basic beliefs.

I don't get your point?

Essentially your argument seems to be - God does not exist since belief in God is ridiculous since God cannot exist.

My argument is that God does not exist because we have as much proof for his existence as we do for any other supernatural entity and that's enough for me to (in any practical sense) not believe they exist.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

(assuming, hypothetically, that other arrangements are at least possible, in a broad sense.

See I don't get how we can do this when we're saying that there's nothing beyond our 'universe'.

 

[Slidey]

Brad: Did you know that the observable universe (the part of the universe it will ever be physically possible even know about in any concrete form, given very favourable projections for the survival of the human race, due to the speed of light being slower than the expension of the universe) appears to be miniscule in comparison to the projected size of and density of the actual universe (based on expansion rates and density at the edges of the known universe - which is still fairly uniform, implying that it goes on like that for a fuckload of time, containing many millions or more such universes the size of our observable universe).

It is estimated that the observable universe contains 10^80 particles. It also contains 80 billion galaxies (and you know how fucking big a galaxy is). That equates to about 10^22 stars (such as the sun) so about 10^23 planets in total.

Do you know how big 10^23 is? It is 100,000 million million million, or 100,000 billion billion, or 100 sextillion. That is: you'll never be able to conceive of just how large the number of planets in the observable universe is. No human can.

Now you extrapolate that to the number of planets in the entire universe? Probably 10 billion observable universes at least... can you see what is happening? Can you see the sheer power of numbers at work here? That's 1 million billion billion billion planets.

And you don't think randomness could produce life somewhere on just one of those 1 million billion billion billion planets in the entire universe at any time in the 13.4 billion years it has been around for?

 

[HalcyonSky]

Brad: Did you know that the observable universe (the part of the universe it will ever be physically possible even know about in any concrete form, given very favourable projections for the survival of the human race, due to the speed of light being slower than the expension of the universe) appears to be miniscule in comparison to the projected size of and density of the actual universe (based on expansion rates and density at the edges of the known universe - which is still fairly uniform, implying that it goes on like that for a fuckload of time, containing many millions or more such universes the size of our observable universe).

It is estimated that the observable universe contains 10^80 particles. It also contains 80 billion galaxies (and you know how fucking big a galaxy is). That equates to about 10^22 stars (such as the sun) so about 10^23 planets in total.

Do you know how big 10^23 is? It is 100,000 million million million, or 100,000 billion billion, or 100 sextillion. That is: you'll never be able to conceive of just how large the number of planets in the observable universe is. No human can.

Now you extrapolate that to the number of planets in the entire universe? Probably 10 billion observable universes at least... can you see what is happening? Can you see the sheer power of numbers at work here? That's 1 million billion billion billion planets.

And you don't think randomness could produce life somewhere on just one of those 1 million billion billion billion planets in the entire universe at any time in the 13.4 billion years it has been around for?

ta for reaffirming our inadequacy

 

[SashatheMan]

Even if our universe is unique, how is the 'fine tuning' anything of a surprise? To me our universe exists and it has Y properties and needs Y properties to exist, if it did not then it simply would not be our universe.

It's like being surprised at (though I'm aware the tuning is finer... I hope you get my basic point) the existence of a triangle because if you added just 1 more side to it it would no longer be so.

Well put it this way, i can see clearly the argument that earth doesn't necessarily have to be unique to sustain life, because even though it's conditions seem so fine tuned eg distance from the sun, size, atmosphere, rotation etc, this can be explained by probability with the amount of stars and planets in the universe.

I guess what it cames down to in my mind is the question of why does a universe exist at all as apposed to not existing? why does the only universe we are aware of have the constant that are just right for it to exist?
If science and especially cosmology does progress to a point where there is evidence for something that explaines away the unique property of our universe by showing we are simple one in many possible types of universes, or that there couldn't be a universe with any other set of properties because of something, then it would put a stop to fine tuning once and for all. But for now little of that is known.

 

[KFunk]

I'm inclined to agree with Sashatheman. The fact that we exist does not diminish the question 'why does a universe which can support life exist at all?', which more or less reduces to 'why does this universe with set 'x' of constants exist?'

These questions do not become any less substantial once we acknowledge that we exist. Actually, it is largely the fact that we exist that makes it reasonable to ask these questions in the first place.

 

[Kwayera]

Brad: Did you know that the observable universe (the part of the universe it will ever be physically possible even know about in any concrete form, given very favourable projections for the survival of the human race, due to the speed of light being slower than the expension of the universe) appears to be miniscule in comparison to the projected size of and density of the actual universe (based on expansion rates and density at the edges of the known universe - which is still fairly uniform, implying that it goes on like that for a fuckload of time, containing many millions or more such universes the size of our observable universe).

It is estimated that the observable universe contains 10^80 particles. It also contains 80 billion galaxies (and you know how fucking big a galaxy is). That equates to about 10^22 stars (such as the sun) so about 10^23 planets in total.

Do you know how big 10^23 is? It is 100,000 million million million, or 100,000 billion billion, or 100 sextillion. That is: you'll never be able to conceive of just how large the number of planets in the observable universe is. No human can.

Now you extrapolate that to the number of planets in the entire universe? Probably 10 billion observable universes at least... can you see what is happening? Can you see the sheer power of numbers at work here? That's 1 million billion billion billion planets.

And you don't think randomness could produce life somewhere on just one of those 1 million billion billion billion planets in the entire universe at any time in the 13.4 billion years it has been around for?

You are awesome. I think the problem is, however, that the numbers ARE so inconceivable; therefore they are irrelevant. Or something.

I keep on trying to get the point across that we're not particularly special, but that never seems to dampen the natural species arrogance of various believers.

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

The problem for me is that you're trying to apply some sort of notion of 'probability' to ultimate reality (if our one universe is all there is). It is reality, I can't see how we can have the possibility of another ultimate reality... If we don't have multiple universes then I would say whatever laws govern our ultimate reality would probably have to be necessarily the way they are.

 

[SashatheMan]

Have you guys read 'Pale Blue Dot' by Carl Sagan?

I love the first chapter of the book. It really puts earth and human existence into perspective in regards to the whole of the universe.

There's a little audio book snippet read by Carl Sagan himself on youtube.
You guys should check it out, the background music and the famous photograph of earth taken from the furthest ever point in space, really is a moving experience. Sagans voice is very hypnotic!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p86BPM1GV8M

 

[BradCube]

Brad: Did you know that the observable universe (the part of the universe it will ever be physically possible even know about in any concrete form, given very favourable projections for the survival of the human race, due to the speed of light being slower than the expension of the universe) appears to be miniscule in comparison to the projected size of and density of the actual universe (based on expansion rates and density at the edges of the known universe - which is still fairly uniform, implying that it goes on like that for a fuckload of time, containing many millions or more such universes the size of our observable universe).

It is estimated that the observable universe contains 10^80 particles. It also contains 80 billion galaxies (and you know how fucking big a galaxy is). That equates to about 10^22 stars (such as the sun) so about 10^23 planets in total.

Do you know how big 10^23 is? It is 100,000 million million million, or 100,000 billion billion, or 100 sextillion. That is: you'll never be able to conceive of just how large the number of planets in the observable universe is. No human can.

Now you extrapolate that to the number of planets in the entire universe? Probably 10 billion observable universes at least... can you see what is happening? Can you see the sheer power of numbers at work here? That's 1 million billion billion billion planets.

And you don't think randomness could produce life somewhere on just one of those 1 million billion billion billion planets in the entire universe at any time in the 13.4 billion years it has been around for?

Yeah I can appreciate what you are saying here but there are a few things worth mentioning. Firstly as has been mentioned in the above posts - the existance of life is not the only problem. The existance of a universe that doesn't collapse upon itself or that exists in the first place is where the original dilemma comes back to.

As sashatheman said, if it could be shown that there are laws that govern the laws created in the beginnings of a universe than the theory would fall flat. (Although I suppose we should be asking where those external laws come from also?)

Secondly, the fact that you mention other parts of the universe that are not observable means that we have no way of measuring the probability of life arising there (It could be more, less or exactly the same). With that in mind I would be inclined to base the probabilities on that which we can observe and measure.

Thirdly, and this is not so much of a rebuttal but just for interests sake. If these other parts of the universe are not observable in anyway, then how do we know that they exist? Surely knowing they exist means we have been able to observe them in some fashion.

 

[BradCube]

That seems to be roughly in line with my second suspicion - i.e. that your use of 'information' seems to refer back to intelligent interpreters, making it a problematic relational concept. Naturally I won't hold you to this one definition (you are free to revise it!) but I figure that I will point out some potential problems.

"Information is data which has been given order and meaning by something external to it."

Firstly, a similar question arises "what is data?" (if not something akin to information?) but I will ignore this. More important is where you say "... has been given order and meaning by something external to it". You then give the clarifying of language where the individual words (signs) are imbued with meaning by virtue of an appropriate relation between us and the sign in quesiton. In other words, these signs have no intrinsic meaning but can be deemed meaningful in the right relational context (say, in a context in which some intelligent beings attribute a certain meaning/proposition/command/whatever to the particular sign).

Note, then, that this seems to invalidate your argument from analogy, because we don't need to tell a fancy story about how genes came to contain information of this sort. Your account shows that they contain information provided they bear the right sort of relation to some external intelligent being. But then it appears that they bear this relation to us! This seems to be the case because we have learnt to interpret DNA in terms of amino acid sequences and proteins (and everything else in between) and thus view these corresponding physical structures as somehow being abstractly coded for by DNA. Certainly, DNA does 'code' for proteins in the right circumstances (with the appropriate cellular machinery, etc.), in so far as it produces them, but it does not seem to intrinsically represent anything like haemoglobin or sodium ion channels. If we can thus identify that (a) this type of information is not intrinsic to DNA, (b) information is generated through an appropriate kind of relation and (c) DNA bears this relation to humans, then it is not necessary to invoke the existence of god in order to explain why DNA contains information / is meaningful.

I've been thinking about this today and getting lost within it. Here's what I think you are saying (and please correct me if I am wrong!): Humans are what associate information with intelligence and since we are essentially talking about the birth of life that lead to humans we cannot stipulate that the cause there is also intelligent.

If this is what you are saying then I think I would say that this is a properly basic belief. It's on the same level to me as asking me to affirm my own logic without using logic. The problems lies in that we can only experience our life from a human perspective, so discounting an idea such as intelligence in the origin of life simply because we are also agents of intelligence seems a little illogical to me.

 

[BradCube]

I keep on trying to get the point across that we're not particularly special, but that never seems to dampen the natural species arrogance of various believers.

Wouldn't arrogance imply that there is an external life to ours that our attitudes could be measured against?

Either way I don't think you will find that most people believing in the improbability of life on earth treat it arrogantly. I myself would be more comfortable saying privileged or lucky. Arrogance implies that I believe it should have and only could have been this way.

 

[SashatheMan]

The problem for me is that you're trying to apply some sort of notion of 'probability' to ultimate reality (if our one universe is all there is). It is reality, I can't see how we can have the possibility of another ultimate reality... If we don't have multiple universes then I would say whatever laws govern our ultimate reality would probably have to be necessarily the way they are.

Like i previously mentioned scientists are actually able to manipulate the constants within a computer setting and see how the universe pans out. So we can conceive of other realities, but the question remains, are there such realities?

I am not saying that probability is the only explanation for the way the universe is.
Looking at the anthropic principle article on wiki.

I found this to be an expansion of what i was saying in regards to different explanations for fine tuning. I just mentioned B & C as i see them to be most likely explanations.

Paul Davies has discussed fine-tuning at length, and in his book The Goldilocks Enigma (2006) he summarises the current state of the debate in detail. He concludes by enumerating the alternative responses:

* A - The absurd universe - It just happens to be that way.
* B - The unique universe - There is a deep underlying unity in physics which necessitates the universe being this way. Some 'Theory of Everything' will explain why the various features of the Universe must have exactly the values that we see.
* C - The multiverse - Multiple Universes exist which have all possible combinations of characteristics, and we naturally find ourselves within the one that supports our existence.
* D - Intelligent Design - An intelligent Creator designed the Universe specifically to support complexity and the emergence of Intelligence.
* E - The life principle - There is an underlying principle that constrains the universe to evolve towards life and mind.
* F - The self-explaining universe - A closed explanatory or causal loop: 'perhaps only universes with a capacity for consciousness can exist'.
* G - The fake universe - We are living in a virtual reality simulation.

Being intellectually honest, this to me personally seems like a very a deep question.

You seem to lean towards B, suggesting the laws are just the way they are, and can't be any other way. I certainly think this could be a possibility, i just will admit for now science cannot answer that, and i will have to remain agnostic about the possibility of other answers aswell even some form of ID.

 

[BradCube]

We define the notion of intelligence relative to our own intellectual capabilities. How is it illogical to say that our own definition of intelligence (mostly pattern recognition) shouldn't be tackled when it comes to dealing with the concept of a divine creator?

For the same reason that it is illogical to prove that our logic is logical. We only have our intelligence to rely on in all interpretations of data, so if we discount it in recognising what we would normally regard as intelligence why not disregard it for anything for which itelligence is required?

 

[BradCube]

The word of the day is 'objectivity' not pragmatism.

So then, you're asserting that logic is objective while intelligence is not?

 

[youBROKEmyLIFE]

Like i previously mentioned scientists are actually able to manipulate the constants within a computer setting and see how the universe pans out. So we can conceive of other realities, but the question remains, are there such realities?

They're changing physical aspects / laws of our universe, but the question of the rules in an ultimate 'constant reality' or meta universe or whatever laws are present at the formation of reality are not known.

You can't say that the laws of our universe could be different without knowing whether the mechanism for creating these laws is in any way probabilistic. If it is probabilistic then I'd say this necessitates multiple universes. If it is not, then our laws as they are are the only way they could be.

You seem to lean towards B, suggesting the laws are just the way they are, and can't be any other way. I certainly think this could be a possibility, i just will admit for now science cannot answer that, and i will have to remain agnostic about the possibility of other answers aswell even some form of ID.

Well obviously I'm agnostic too and for the most part my guess is that it's either B or C. The question of whether it's some sort of supernatural force seems imho to be nothing much different to B (or at least my account of it)....