• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu Proof of God: Best Arguments

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Just to add to this discussion here is a repost from my thread 'Anti-materialism'


This theory is based on a naive observation at the time of Darwin that single cells were just amorphous blobs that over a long time joined with other blobs, and then the blobs join with others. What Darwin did not know, that a single cell is not an amorphous blob, because he did not have an electron microscope, a single cell is a mind bogglingly complex factory of nanomachinary, so complex that even our latest nanotechnology we cannot build something like it. It consists of 100,000 parts each functioning as a single system, every moment there are hundreds and thousands of processes going on in the cell. In biology it described as analogous to a factory, actually it is like an entire factory city. It consists of a central processing department, memory storage, manufacturing plants, defense and military, power plants, waste disposal unit, supply and shipping. The entire functioning is entirely precise. The central processing units sends the instructions, the ribosome in the manufacturing aspect then according to specific instructions manufacture proteins. There are several millions of these nanomachines that assemble the proteins precisely according to instructions sent by the nucleus​

To illustrate how absurd it is that all of this just assembled all by itself by trial and error is like turning up on an alien planet and finding an entire city abandoned and then saying the city built itself.

Darwin himself set up the condition for the falsification for his theory of evolution by natural selection if we could show him anything that was too complex to arise from natural selection trial and error process. The human eye especially gave him second thoughts. However, had he had access to an electron microscope, he would have seen that even at stage one itself at the level of the single cell or protoplasm, that it was already impossibly too complex to have arisen through natural selection. His fault was as I pointed in the in the second post, to see things in the old 18th century mechanical way, and not understanding as we understand today everything in the universe is a system.

To argue that a single cell just happened to just get that way from the very word go, is very much like turning up on an alien planet and finding an entire abandoned city, and saying the city built itself.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
You might be getting the idea. The point is that 'the universe just exists' is every bit as valid or invalid as saying 'an eternal intelligence just exists' - but the former has the advantage that we have plenty of evidence that the universe does exist.


So, you are saying that a universe suited to giving rise to intelligence needs an intelligence to create it but an intelligence all by itself doesn't need explaining at all.

Back to the doublethink... :rolleyes:

You are still not responding to the argument I made in the OP. I will respond back to you when you do.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
No it doesn't. I never made that argument. If I have, please cite me where I said "Everything needs to be explained" You are basically strawmaning a more sophisticated argument presented in the OP.
Please let me know the parts of your original post that do not require the "Supervising intelligence" to serve as EXPLANATION. Please.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Interesting arguments.

1. Cause and effect is embedded in nature and everything. Nothing "stands still". Everything is in constant formation. When an egg and sperm creates a child, the parents did not create the child because they didnt make the sperm and egg grow but it did on its own. They dont need to be involved for sperm and egg to create a child.

The weather doesnt need anyone to maintain it. It moves on heat and so forth as well and as they dance with each other, things happen. Whether we attribute the movement as a supernatural force is up to the person but our beliefs do not change weather has no creator outside of our belief. Its just there. It forms. It distroys. It brightens. It...

If anything, its better that life as no creator. We appreciate life on life's terms. We become responsible for our causes and experience the karma from the effects based on our actions.

I am aware of this philosophy, the Jains and Buddhists do not require a God in their worldview. However, they face the same problem the materialist does, how do they explain that the universe remains coherent then? For example in the Jain worldview there are infinite spiritual monads, infinite atoms, space-time and the universe is uncreated but how do they explain then why it remains remains coherent so that the monads can navigate in space and time?

Its coherence I argue can only be explained by positing a cosmic intelligence.

Like is harder when we see it without a creator. Most people I know christian and muslim say they cant live or even function without a belief in a creator-an origin.

It develops dependency.

It is not out of a religious or emotional need, but it is predicated by logical thinking. The universe coherence so that life can exist and thrive predicates a cosmic intelligence.

2. Symmetry doesnt explain a creator. It just means we see patterns. Psychologically, thats how our minds put things together such as language and even someones love is based on pattern. The world is not dependant on us. If here were one creator then people would know the basics of the creator regardless of what perspective they see it from. They dont.

I disagree here. The laws of nature, like electricity and gravity are not just psychological patterns, but actual objective patterns that we see and can test. Like we can calculate actual objective figures like a gravitational constant that is independent of the mind.

Our universe and life in general is random. We dont know when we will die why would we think the universe is excluded from this mystery? If anything, we need to be comfortable with surprise. What would you do if there was no god? What wouls happen if you found out life is random.

That's just the matter, it is not random. We can predict the movement of particles to the trillionth of a part using QM, exactly because it is not random. The universe is extremely mathematically precise.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
Well, you have your views, others have theirs. North is North, and South is South, the two never meet. They are in opposite directions.

Mystics don't argue. For Hindus like me (and maybe you) using the intellect to prove or disprove something that is beyond the intellect is like trying to drive a car that has no petrol.
 

A Vestigial Mote

Well-Known Member
You are still not responding to the argument I made in the OP. I will respond back to you when you do.
Alright... since you are so intent on not responding to the detraction from your argument that exists in the form of:

"You say something has be responsible for everything (then posit supervising intelligence as the responsible party), and yet claim that your supervising intelligence is exempt from having anything responsible for it"

I get it. It is a hard one to answer, and you have no answer. Fine. We'll move on. Here's something to ponder as a rebuttal to your OP:

If a supervising intelligence went through all of the trouble to make each and every part of the system work and react to one another in such succinct and AUTOMATED ways, then this supervising intelligence did so for the sake of said AUTOMATION. In other words, the supervising intelligence engineered the universe in the ways that it did in order TO NOT HAVE TO BE AROUND for things to function. Which means, that it actually doesn't matter whether the supervising intelligence exists or not! It isn't around because it engineered the system in order for it to run on auto-pilot going forward. This is a handy explanation for why there is no evidence, and why there is no ongoing interaction with the human race. This actually fits the evidence much better than does the idea that the supervising intelligence is, at all times, keeping things in balance. The amount of work that would require is absolutely absurd - and any "all powerful being" worth its salt wouldn't create a system that required that level of micro-management.
 
Last edited:

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Mystics don't argue. For Hindus like me (and maybe you) using the intellect to prove or disprove something that is beyond the intellect is like trying to drive a car that has no petrol.

But I don't agree that 'God' is beyond the intellect, because if 'God' was beyond the grasp of the intellect, how would we be to have the concept of God in the first place? It is similar to Kant's 'Noumena' he said the Noumena was unknowable. But if it unknowable then how does he have the concept of it in the first place? It is similarly said in the Upanishads that Brahman(God/Noumena) either totally unknowable or totally knowable. Rather, you cannot know it "well" This means some parts of my intellect can grasp God and some parts cannot.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
You are still not responding to the argument I made in the OP.
That's because there wasn't much of an argument at all. That which there was mostly of the form "this seems to need explaining - if I think it's being run by a supervising intelligence, I can stop thinking about it". Lots of waffle about systems and some truly bizarre claims like "there is no such thing as emergence". Oh, and the amazing claim that the consistency of physical laws would needed supervising.

If you think there is anything more substantive hiding amongst it - then point me to it.

I will respond back to you when you do.
I'd think about it anyway - because it's a fundamental flaw in pretty much every god argument that talks about how the universe would need a designer/maintainer/creator...
 

Unveiled Artist

Veteran Member
Its hard for some to think of the universe as random, without a creator, no purpose, and just there. It is what it is. It doesnt need us decide whats a pattern and whats random. If things happen in pattern thereby we can expect X to happen because of Y, why cant we know what will happen tomorrow at our meeting because we see a pattern until today. Thats taking life for granted.
why it remains remains coherent so that the monads can navigate in space and time?

Does not matter to the universe just to humans. People put animals lower then them because they figure they cant reason like us. I find they are the closest to reason we can get because we cant handle change, randomness, and understanding here is nothing "everlasting." We die.

There are no Whys in the universe.

Its coherence I argue can only be explained by positing a cosmic intelligence.

I dont see how those two go together. Ive yet to have a biologist find an intelligence or a creator in a growing tree without projecting their beliefs and patterns onto it. Without them, a tree is a tree.

I disagree here. The laws of nature, like electricity and gravity are not just psychological patterns, but actual objective patterns that we see and can test. Like we can calculate actual objective figures like a gravitational constant that is independent of the mind.

They dont show a creator or intelligence. Its random to he universe. Cancer cells happen just because sometimss. Seizures, which no one has yet to find a cure, are spasms of the nerves. Nothing is permenant. Patterns are that because we see them for a good amount of time. We take life for granted. Then when someoke develops cancer or epilepsy, theres a problem not just the illnesses but the adjustment of the "unpredictability" of it.

Psychological patterns is basic knowledge. I dont know your background knowledge. The human brain makes sense of things by developing patterns. Thats a fact.

Over here we think there are four seasons. Its spring. Now its 61F but two weeks ago one day of snow. We dont know.

Get used to that.

That's just the matter, it is not random. We can predict the movement of particles to the trillionth of a part using QM, exactly because it is not random. The universe is extremely mathematically precise.

The universe isnt based on us. Take humans out of it, given what i said above, where is the pattern?
 
This is a repost from a thread of mine in the Hindu DIR thread. It has taken me a long time to accept that God exists, as I am an ex-atheist and still have strong atheistic tendencies. I have looked at all the main arguments for why God exists cosmological, design and ontological, but it is this argument that convinces me the most.

Argument: The laws of cause and effect require a maintainer that enforces it.

If a law exists, it does not necessarily mean that everybody will follow the law. If there is no maintainer/enforcer/supervisor to enforce that law, then some will deliberately not follow that law, some will forget to follow that law and if the laws are very complex, then may partly follow that law while breaking another law.

Objection: This is an invalid argument, because it makes the mistake of applying how humans laws work to natural laws

Reply: The above is only an analogy to illustrate that laws require a supervising intelligence. Consider how complex natural laws are, the laws of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, sound, nuclear laws, mechanical laws and all these laws operate in tandem perfectly to maintain this universe. If the laws were just blind, why would they do that? Why would they continue to persist, why doesn't gravity just stop working the next moment and all planets fall out of their orbit? Why doesn't some random reaction take place in the sun and the sun explode? Why don't the spin of atoms change by a minuscule amount and all matter just collapses? Why are the physical laws so precisely fine tuned that the universe can exist and humans are around to see it(anthropic principle)

We know that at the quantum level of the uncertainty, how atoms just appear and disappear seemingly randomly every moment, and despite this material flux, still at the non-quantum or manifest level of reality everything coheres. This fact when discovered by Max Plank even compelled him to say in his Nobel prize speech that it can only be explained by a supervising cosmic intelligence

Scientists have now started to acknowledge that the universe is indeed a perfectly fined tuned system for life to exist:

"For more than 400 years, physicists treated the universe like a machine, taking it apart to see how it ticks. The surprise is it turns out to have remarkably few parts: just leptons and quarks and four fundamental forces to glue them together.​

But those few parts are exquisitely machined. If we tinker with their settings, even slightly, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Science now faces the question of why the universe appears to have been “fine-tuned” to allow the appearance of complex life, a question that has some potentially uncomfortable answers.​

So now, I invite you to join me in imagining a universe, a universe slightly different to our own. Let’s just play with one number and see what happens: the mass of the down-quark. Currently, it is set to be slightly heavier than the up-quark.​

(snip)​

This situation is devastating for the possibility of complex life, as in a heavy down-quark universe, the simplest atoms will not join and form molecules. Such a universe is destined to be inert and sterile over its entire history. And how much would we need to increase the down-quark mass to realise such a catastrophe? More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?​

Examining the huge number of potential universes, each with their own unique laws of physics, leads to a startling conclusion: most of the universes that result from fiddling with the fundamental constants would lack physical properties needed to support complex life.​

Things get worse when we fiddle with forces. Make the strength of gravity stronger or weaker by a factor of 100 or so, and you get universes where stars refuse to shine, or they burn so fast they exhaust their nuclear fuel in a moment. Messing with the strong or weak forces delivers elements that fall apart in the blink of an eye, or are too robust to transmute through radioactive decay into other elements,​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

And there is another structural issue to consider – our universe is flying apart. Two things affect the rate of expansion: the amount of matter which acts as a brake, and dark energy which acts as an accelerator. Dark energy is winning so our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.​

What this means is that in the early days of the universe, the rate of expansion was slower, slow enough to allow matter to condense into stars, planets and people. But if the universe had been born with only a touch less matter, it would have rapidly expanded, thinning out to less than one hydrogen atom per universe.​

On the other hand, if the universe had been born with only a touch more matter, that would have caused it to re-collapse before the first stars could form. In short, the early universe was on a knife-edge, poised between these possible outcomes. What emerged was the Goldilocks expansion rate: not too fast, not too slow.​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

Symmetry

Next, we come to a consideration of the symmetry displayed in our universe. In everyday life the word symmetry describes how something stays the same when you change your viewpoint; think of the appearance of a perfect vase as you circumnavigate the table it’s sitting on. It demonstrates rotational symmetry.​

In physics, we find other types of symmetries hidden in mathematics. For instance, there is a symmetry that ensures the conservation of electric charge: in every experiment we perform, equal amounts of positive and negative charges are produced. Other symmetries dictate the conservation of momentum, and there are others for a whole host of quantum properties. Some symmetries are perfect, others contain slight imperfections. And we would not be here without them.​

In a perfectly symmetric universe, the hot fires of the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This means protons and antiprotons would have completely annihilated each other as the universe cooled leaving a universe empty of its atomic hydrogen building block.
Somewhere hidden in the physics of protons there must be a slight asymmetry that resulted in protons outnumbering antiprotons by one in a billion.​

But why does our universe possess a perfect symmetry with respect to charge but a slight asymmetry with respect to matter and antimatter? Nobody knows! If the situation was reversed and our universe was born with zero protons, but with a net excess of charge, the immense repulsive action of the electromagnetic force would prevent matter present from collapsing into anything resembling stars and galaxies.​

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here. Deviate ever so slightly from them and the universe would be sterile – or it may never have existed at all. What explanation can there be for this fine-tuning?​



What is now known to science in the latest research from empirical facts we declared purely using reasoning more than a thousand years ago. We argue similarly, the laws of nature function because there is a supervising intelligence. In fact we can also provide you empirical proof of this. Take the body for example. As long as the intelligence that is regulating the body exists, the body functions and remains coherent, but as soon as that intelligence leaves, the body stop functioning and falls apart. Thus, extending this argument to the body of the universe, its functioning and coherence can only be possible if there is a supervising intelligence.
So this seems to actually be two arguments, not one. First, the laws of the universe require a maintainer, and second that the universe has been fine tuned for (our sort of) life.

Unfortunately you have built your argument that the truth of premise two serves as evidence of premise one, but you haven't cogently explained why, so I'll disregard premise/argument one and move on to two.

Unfortunately, many many people have beat me to this one, the fine tuning argument has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday.

I'll just sum it up with a paraphrased quote - Is the hole in which a puddle sits 'find tuned' to the shape of the water that fills it?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
@Spirit_Warrior I am Advaita and ant-materialist myself, so I read everything you wrote with a sympathetic eye. Arguments for God through science should probably not be called 'proof' as the objectors can challenge things ad infinitum. The argument from complexity for example is very strong to me but I would not call it proof. And even so, these arguments don't tell us much about God. Only human consciousness in its transcendent state can tell us about the true nature of reality. And the objectors will never accept such things as proof.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
If a supervising intelligence went through all of the trouble to make each and every part of the system work and react to one another in such succinct and AUTOMATED ways, then this supervising intelligence did so for the sake of said AUTOMATION. In other words, the supervising intelligence engineered the universe in the ways that it did in order TO NOT HAVE TO BE AROUND for things to function. Which means, that it actually doesn't matter whether the supervising intelligence exists or not! It isn't around because it engineered the system in order for it to run on auto-pilot going forward. This is a handy explanation for why there is no evidence, and why there is no ongoing interaction with the human race. This actually fits the evidence much better than does the idea that the supervising intelligence is, at all times, keeping things in balance. The amount of work that would require is absolutely absurd - and any "all powerful being" worth His salt wouldn't create a system that required that level of micro-management.

The problem with your analogy here is you are talking of a closed mechanical system like a machine.However the universe is a open dynamic system that has constant novelty, i.e., it changes every moment and yet that remains in dynamic equilibrium, therefore it requires a constant supervising intelligence which simultaneously knows every single part of the system, to keep it in balance. We symbolise this in Hinduism with this image:

cern-shiva.jpg


This is known as "Nataraja" or dance of Shiva. There is a reason why it has been adopted by CERN, because it is based on the same principle of dynamic equilibrium in particle physics. Every moment the dance of Shiva creates and destroys particle, but because it is a dance because there is a rhythm behind this process, which demands perfect concentration and balance. In the image one hand hold a drum which creates the vibrations that creates the atoms in the universe, in the other hand there is a fire which destroys the atoms in the universe, one foot is raised in air representing the fine balance, the other stands and crushes the human ego representing how we can never comprehend this infinitely complex dance of the universe and the expression on the face is of serenity, representing how effortless it is for Shiva to maintain this universe.

I am simply coming to exactly the same conclusion that Max Plank came to. We must posit a cosmic intelligence to account for how particles remain in dynamic equilibrium even though every moment they are created and destroyed.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Unfortunately, many many people have beat me to this one, the fine tuning argument has been debunked 6 ways from Sunday.

I'll just sum it up with a paraphrased quote - Is the hole in which a puddle sits 'find tuned' to the shape of the water that fills it?

This is actually not a refutation of the argument. In your analogy the "puddle" is us and the "hole" is the universe, and just because we happen to exist in a universe where we can exist does not imply the universe was created for us. This argument presupposes though that there are many universes where life does not exist, and this just happens to be a universe where life can exist. This argument begs the question, as you first need to prove other universes exist where there is no life.

As argued in the OP and in the article I referenced. It tests simulations of universes where even if a single factor is off matter would not arise for humans to exist. Hence, if there is only one universe how does it just happen to be absolutely right for humans to exist? Why is every factor, ratio, constant as such that life can exist? It necessarily leads to the conclusion that there is a supervising intelligence that guides the universe towards forming life

This is an argument from inference based on common observation. We can observe very clearly that if an intelligence is required to operate a fine-tuned system e.g. The human body. The human body is an infinitely complex system where every single part in the body functions in dynamic equilibrium. When the intelligence departs from the human body? The entire body falls apart. Therefore, by the method of agreement and disagreement I can infer: When intelligence is present, body functions; when intelligence is absent, body ceases to function. Therefore intelligence is the cause for functioning of the body.

Now, if you argue that a computer can function without intelligence. I argue, that is because it already been designed with an intelligence(OS) to make it function. Still, the inference remains true: That if you see a coherent functioning system, you must infer an intelligence.

I also framed the argument in another way a few posts back. If you turned up on an alien planet and found an entire abandoned city intact, you would NEVER infer that the city just happened to be there or built by itself, you would infer an intelligence. Therefore, using the same consistent standard, I must infer that because the universe is a functional and coherent system, there has to be universal intelligence underlying it.
 
Last edited:

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
However the universe is a open dynamic system that has constant novelty, i.e., it changes every moment and yet that remains in dynamic equilibrium, therefore it requires a constant supervising intelligence which simultaneously knows every single part of the system, to keep it in balance.
The universe is an open system, eh? What's it interacting with?

Your assertion that it needs a supervising intelligence doesn't make any sense at all unless you think the basic physical laws are being intelligently adjusted in real time and are not constant at all. If you think that, then what evidence do you have?
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
@Spirit_Warrior I am Advaita and ant-materialist myself, so I read everything you wrote with a sympathetic eye. Arguments for God through science should probably not be called 'proof' as the objectors can challenge things ad infinitum. The argument from complexity for example is very strong to me but I would not call it proof. And even so, these arguments don't tell us much about God. Only human consciousness in its transcendent state can tell us about the true nature of reality. And the objectors will never accept such things as proof.

Hi George ji,

It does not tell us anything about God, it merely indicates God. I accept that one can only know God when they directly experienced God. However, then you have to communicate your experience to others and in communicating it you have to use words and logic to show why God is true. Some will accept on faith alone, but I think this is dangerous, because you can accept on faith anything. Like what if somebody told you God told you to go kill the unbelievers. I also think faith alone is weak. It is not faith that we need but conviction and this is why proofs or arguments for why God necessarily exist are necessary.
 

ratiocinator

Lightly seared on the reality grill.
I also framed the argument in another way a few posts back. If you turned up on an alien planet and found an entire abandoned entire city intact, you would NEVER infer that the city just happened to be there or built by itself, you would infer an intelligence. Therefore, using the same consistent standard, I must infer that because the universe is a functional and coherent system, there has to be universal intelligence underlying it.
Firstly, your comparison falls down at the first hurdle because a city (intelligently designed) immediately stands out from the planet and all the natural features of it (mountains, rivers and the like).

Secondly, if you encountered an intelligent being on this planet - would you just assume it had magically existed for all eternity or would you expect it to have evolved?

You need to address the fact that you are blatantly using different standards for your idea of 'supervising intelligence' than for anything else.
 

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
This is a repost from a thread of mine in the Hindu DIR thread. It has taken me a long time to accept that God exists, as I am an ex-atheist and still have strong atheistic tendencies. I have looked at all the main arguments for why God exists cosmological, design and ontological, but it is this argument that convinces me the most.

Argument: The laws of cause and effect require a maintainer that enforces it.

If a law exists, it does not necessarily mean that everybody will follow the law. If there is no maintainer/enforcer/supervisor to enforce that law, then some will deliberately not follow that law, some will forget to follow that law and if the laws are very complex, then may partly follow that law while breaking another law.

Objection: This is an invalid argument, because it makes the mistake of applying how humans laws work to natural laws

Reply: The above is only an analogy to illustrate that laws require a supervising intelligence. Consider how complex natural laws are, the laws of gravity, electricity, magnetism, light, sound, nuclear laws, mechanical laws and all these laws operate in tandem perfectly to maintain this universe. If the laws were just blind, why would they do that? Why would they continue to persist, why doesn't gravity just stop working the next moment and all planets fall out of their orbit? Why doesn't some random reaction take place in the sun and the sun explode? Why don't the spin of atoms change by a minuscule amount and all matter just collapses? Why are the physical laws so precisely fine tuned that the universe can exist and humans are around to see it(anthropic principle)

We know that at the quantum level of the uncertainty, how atoms just appear and disappear seemingly randomly every moment, and despite this material flux, still at the non-quantum or manifest level of reality everything coheres. This fact when discovered by Max Plank even compelled him to say in his Nobel prize speech that it can only be explained by a supervising cosmic intelligence

Scientists have now started to acknowledge that the universe is indeed a perfectly fined tuned system for life to exist:

"For more than 400 years, physicists treated the universe like a machine, taking it apart to see how it ticks. The surprise is it turns out to have remarkably few parts: just leptons and quarks and four fundamental forces to glue them together.​

But those few parts are exquisitely machined. If we tinker with their settings, even slightly, the universe as we know it would cease to exist. Science now faces the question of why the universe appears to have been “fine-tuned” to allow the appearance of complex life, a question that has some potentially uncomfortable answers.​

So now, I invite you to join me in imagining a universe, a universe slightly different to our own. Let’s just play with one number and see what happens: the mass of the down-quark. Currently, it is set to be slightly heavier than the up-quark.​

(snip)​

This situation is devastating for the possibility of complex life, as in a heavy down-quark universe, the simplest atoms will not join and form molecules. Such a universe is destined to be inert and sterile over its entire history. And how much would we need to increase the down-quark mass to realise such a catastrophe? More than 70 times heavier and there would be no life. While this may not seem too finely tuned, physics suggests that the down-quark could have been many trillions of times heavier. So we are actually left with the question: why does the down-quark appear so light?​

Examining the huge number of potential universes, each with their own unique laws of physics, leads to a startling conclusion: most of the universes that result from fiddling with the fundamental constants would lack physical properties needed to support complex life.​

Things get worse when we fiddle with forces. Make the strength of gravity stronger or weaker by a factor of 100 or so, and you get universes where stars refuse to shine, or they burn so fast they exhaust their nuclear fuel in a moment. Messing with the strong or weak forces delivers elements that fall apart in the blink of an eye, or are too robust to transmute through radioactive decay into other elements,​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

And there is another structural issue to consider – our universe is flying apart. Two things affect the rate of expansion: the amount of matter which acts as a brake, and dark energy which acts as an accelerator. Dark energy is winning so our universe is expanding at an accelerating rate.​

What this means is that in the early days of the universe, the rate of expansion was slower, slow enough to allow matter to condense into stars, planets and people. But if the universe had been born with only a touch less matter, it would have rapidly expanded, thinning out to less than one hydrogen atom per universe.​

On the other hand, if the universe had been born with only a touch more matter, that would have caused it to re-collapse before the first stars could form. In short, the early universe was on a knife-edge, poised between these possible outcomes. What emerged was the Goldilocks expansion rate: not too fast, not too slow.​

Then there’s the finely tuned level of dark energy. We know very little about this mysterious substance that fills the universe. It may be related to the weird behaviour of the vacuum. Quantum mechanics predicts that the vacuum is not really empty. Particles continually pop in and out of existence producing a background energy that seems to influence cosmic expansion.​

Symmetry

Next, we come to a consideration of the symmetry displayed in our universe. In everyday life the word symmetry describes how something stays the same when you change your viewpoint; think of the appearance of a perfect vase as you circumnavigate the table it’s sitting on. It demonstrates rotational symmetry.​

In physics, we find other types of symmetries hidden in mathematics. For instance, there is a symmetry that ensures the conservation of electric charge: in every experiment we perform, equal amounts of positive and negative charges are produced. Other symmetries dictate the conservation of momentum, and there are others for a whole host of quantum properties. Some symmetries are perfect, others contain slight imperfections. And we would not be here without them.​

In a perfectly symmetric universe, the hot fires of the Big Bang would have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. This means protons and antiprotons would have completely annihilated each other as the universe cooled leaving a universe empty of its atomic hydrogen building block.
Somewhere hidden in the physics of protons there must be a slight asymmetry that resulted in protons outnumbering antiprotons by one in a billion.​

But why does our universe possess a perfect symmetry with respect to charge but a slight asymmetry with respect to matter and antimatter? Nobody knows! If the situation was reversed and our universe was born with zero protons, but with a net excess of charge, the immense repulsive action of the electromagnetic force would prevent matter present from collapsing into anything resembling stars and galaxies.​

No matter which way we turn, the properties of our universe have finely tuned values that allow us to be here. Deviate ever so slightly from them and the universe would be sterile – or it may never have existed at all. What explanation can there be for this fine-tuning?​



What is now known to science in the latest research from empirical facts we declared purely using reasoning more than a thousand years ago. We argue similarly, the laws of nature function because there is a supervising intelligence. In fact we can also provide you empirical proof of this. Take the body for example. As long as the intelligence that is regulating the body exists, the body functions and remains coherent, but as soon as that intelligence leaves, the body stop functioning and falls apart. Thus, extending this argument to the body of the universe, its functioning and coherence can only be possible if there is a supervising intelligence.

There is no law of cause and effect. At least at fundamental level.

Ciao

- viole
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
The universe is an open system, eh? What's it interacting with?

About 95% Dark energy and matter ;)

Your assertion that it needs a supervising intelligence doesn't make any sense at all unless you think the basic physical laws are being intelligently adjusted in real time and are not constant at all. If you think that, then what evidence do you have?

At the quantum level all the physical laws you are talking about disappear. The quantum level is uncertain, not coherent, not predictable, the non-quantum level it is coherent, predictable and certain. Hence, if at the foundation level there is nothing but random flux, why should it maintain any coherence at the upper levels? Why should it remain stable and for whom it is remaining stable? Why doesn't your body just fall apart the next moment? Why doesn't the spin of atoms change by an infinitesimal amount and all the matter in the universes collapses on itself?

The fact of the matter is, as soon as the universe came into being, it tended towards coherence and complexity. That is because it is a system. At every level of the universe is a perfectly functioning system. At the atomic level, at the cellular level, at the galactic level.

Now have a bite at this, lets just take the very first stage of life at the unicellular level. Why is it already a perfect functioning system?
 

George-ananda

Advaita Vedanta, Theosophy, Spiritualism
Premium Member
Hi George ji,

It does not tell us anything about God, it merely indicates God. I accept that one can only know God when they directly experienced God. However, then you have to communicate your experience to others and in communicating it you have to use words and logic to show why God is true. Some will accept on faith alone, but I think this is dangerous, because you can accept on faith anything. Like what if somebody told you God told you to go kill the unbelievers. I also think faith alone is weak. It is not faith that we need but conviction and this is why proofs or arguments for why God necessarily exist are necessary.
I am not big of 'faith' myself either. For evidence, I look to the existence of paranormal phenomena that disqualifies current materialism as the ultimate understanding of the universe. From there, the inquiry into what is this 'more' to the universe will lead the seeker to the spiritual teachers. And of those I have judged the teachers of Advaita to have the deepest understanding of the nature of reality.

So maybe we kind of agree, but I would place the evidence from the paranormal as a better starting point than thee advanced scientific arguments you present. The paranormal starts with things any average person can understand. All that scientific stuff, not so much.
 

Spirit_Warrior

Active Member
Firstly, your comparison falls down at the first hurdle because a city (intelligently designed) immediately stands out from the planet and all the natural features of it (mountains, rivers and the like).

Again, you failed to respond to the actual argument. If I see an intricately functioning system like a city, I infer there is a intelligence behind it. Now, in the case of a single cell, it an intricately functioning system at the nanolevel, then why should I not infer an intelligence?

Your argument that that we can tell it apart from "natural things" fails because natural things are made up of exactly the same atoms that make up so-called unnatural things. We could make a city out of any material, silicon or even carbon. The machines that make up cell are made out of carbon based atoms. Machines that make up chips are made out of silicon based atoms.
 
Last edited:
Top