Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[Hockeycowboy]

With billions of primitive organisms and trillions of generations, over a couple billion years, a lot of complexity can accumulate.

But complex multicellular organisms haven’t been around for “a couple billion years.” Not even 1 b-y. Only about 600 m-y.

Really though, I doubt it matters to anyone with their minds fixed.

Mindless forces, to them, can create any complexity.

Take care.

 

[Polymath257]

You mean those finely-tuned attractive forces? (There are also repellent ones, too.) How they work together in harmony!

To say they are finely tuned is to say that they could be different. We do not know that. And, if they can be different, we don't know by what processes or mechanisms they could change. For example, the current values could be equilibrium values that are produced naturally. Alternatively, in an infinite universe the values could be different in different regions with all values taken somewhere. We just happen to exist where those values have the values they do. And, finally, we do not know what other ranges there could be that would also support increases in complexity.

And the universe - at least the part we live in - encompasses much more than just crystals, spherical structures, & parallel molecules, doesn’t it? It also includes things that are orders of magnitude more complex, like the basic unit of living structures — the cell — and the multitude of nano machinery we’ve discovered within them.

To say life arose through self-organization, takes a lot of faith.

Well, we know that life is a complex collection of chemical reactions. We know that the required chemicals both existed on the early Earth and also spontaneously assemble in known conditions. We know that because of the feedback loops involved that complexity will increase over time naturally. We know many mechanisms for exactly this type of complexity increase.

You also have to deal with the fact that the universe is certainly NOT designed for life. Almost all of the universe is incredibly hostile to life. At this point, we only know of life existing on one small planet orbiting one small star out of hundreds of billions in our galaxy and hundreds of billions of galaxies.

Now, bacterial life may be common. I think it is. But I also thing that multicellular life is rather rare and intelligent life very uncommon. This means that the universe is NOT designed for life. It is a small side effect.

“If anything, minds are the result of structures and not the other way around in most cases.”


Then all that needs to be done, is to prove it.

Look around.

(But to do any lab work, would take intelligence…so we’re back to square 1.)

Not at all. To directly intervene is not the same as setting up a situation similar to a known one and letting things do what they will do.

IMO, it’s the other way around.

And BTW, what are “most cases”?

@Little Dragon said something like. ‘…an unproven opinion.
Puzzling’

Indeed!

Well, we know of cases where humans have designed and made things. Those are exceptions.

 

[Polymath257]

But complex multicellular organisms haven’t been around for “a couple billion years.” Not even 1 b-y. Only about 600 m-y.

Really though, I doubt it matters to anyone with their minds fixed.

Mindless forces, to them, can create any complexity.

Take care.

Yes, it took about 2 billion years to get to complex cells (those with organelles and complex nuclei). It took another billion years or so for multicellular life to develop. Once that happened (especially along with sexual reproduction), the complexity feedback leads to very rapid results. It is an exponential growth curve.

 

[Valjean]

But complex multicellular organisms haven’t been around for “a couple billion years.” Not even 1 b-y. Only about 600 m-y.

Really though, I doubt it matters to anyone with their minds fixed.

Mindless forces, to them, can create any complexity.

Take care.

But billions of simple organisms have, and have been multiplying, with mutations, every half hour or so, for all that time, creating trillions of variations for evolution to work with.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

But billions of simple organisms have, and have been multiplying, with mutations, every half hour or so, for all that time, creating trillions of variations for evolution to work with.

Well then, those “trillions of variations” — or at least a decent percentage of them — should be reflected in the fossil record.

They’re not. Not even close.

Besides, most mutations, if they effect any change at all, are deleterious, not beneficial.

Really though, we observe much stasis within plant & animal genomes.

Take care.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

To say they are finely tuned is to say that they could be different.

Not necessarily. They are “finely tuned” in how each aids the other (ie., interact) to accomplish a purpose, which is IMO to help life flourish. In addition to the 4 fundamental forces, there are presently over 40 other properties that exhibit fine tuning.

We do not know that.

Granted. There’s a lot we don’t know, isn’t there?
We can only deduce from what new discoveries and the repeated results of experiments tell us.

And, if they can be different, we don't know by what processes or mechanisms they could change. For example, the current values could be equilibrium values that are produced naturally.

I doubt its from natural sources, the more we discover.

As Fred Hoyle once observed, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
And that was awhile back. It’s even more so, now…IMO.

We just happen to exist where those values have the values they do. And, finally, we do not know what other ranges there could be that would also support increases in complexity.

By “ranges,” are you referring to other areas of the Universe?

Eventually, over billions of years, I think that will be the case. Just my opinion.

Or did you mean something different by “ranges”?


Good night…. It’s late here.

 

[Valjean]

Well then, those “trillions of variations” — or at least a decent percentage of them — should be reflected in the fossil record.

They’re not. Not even close.

Besides, most mutations, if they effect any change at all, are deleterious, not beneficial.

Really though, we observe much stasis within plant & animal genomes.

Take care.

You expect microbes to leave a genomic record, or even to fossilize?
Most mutations have no visible effect. Most aren't incorporated into the population, but some are. Some confer an advantage, and are selected for. These add up.

Stasis? of course that's what we observe. Once a design works, there's little selective pressure to change it. But environments change, and occasionally clearly advantageous anatomic or physiological changes occur.

 

[Valjean]

Not necessarily. They are “finely tuned” in how each aids the other (ie., interact) to accomplish a purpose, which is IMO to help life flourish. In addition to the 4 fundamental forces, there are presently over 40 other properties that exhibit fine tuning.

Granted. There’s a lot we don’t know, isn’t there?
We can only deduce from what new discoveries and the repeated results of experiments tell us.

I doubt its from natural sources, the more we discover.

As Fred Hoyle once observed, “A commonsense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
And that was awhile back. It’s even more so, now…IMO.

By “ranges,” are you referring to other areas of the Universe?

Eventually, over billions of years, I think that will be the case. Just my opinion.

Or did you mean something different by “ranges”?


Good night…. It’s late here.

Fine tuning implies pre-design, with an end in mind. It assumes current life was a goal, and is the only possible configuration.
Reality is, life and the universe conforms to the laws and constants that exist. If different laws had formed, a different universe would have resulted.

The puddle conforms to the shape of the depression. The depression is not designed to fit a preconceived puddle.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Fine tuning implies pre-design, with an end in mind. It assumes current life was a goal, and is the only possible configuration.
Reality is, life and the universe conforms to the laws and constants that exist. If different laws had formed, a different universe would have resulted.

The puddle conforms to the shape of the depression. The depression is not designed to fit a preconceived puddle.

I think the first person to identify and label the “fine tuning problem” in cosmology may have been Stephen Hawking; and he certainly didn’t draw any conclusions about design or purpose. The questions he asked, like “What is it that puts the fire in the equations?” remain open though.

Billions of alternative universes may have formed, but in none of those would conscious beings have evolved to observe them. The fact is we exist in a bio-friendly universe, and the parameters for that are extraordinarily precise.

 

[Valjean]

And here is where Billions of alternative universes may have formed, but in none of those would conscious beings have evolved to observe them. The fact is we exist in a bio-friendly universe, and the parameters for that are extraordinarily precise.

And here is where we disagree. On what do you base your claim that no other configuration of laws and constants would generate a universe with conscious beings? Are there facts that I'm unaware of? Are you working from statistical observations? What's your sample size?

What are you basing your bio-friendly conclusion on; the mere fact that conscious life exists here, or your own confirmation bias? What facts or premises are you drawing this conclusion from?

Isn't most of the material universe too cold, too hot, or too radioactive to support any sort of biology we're familiar with?

 

[RestlessSoul]

And here is where we disagree. On what do you base your claim that no other configuration of laws and constants would generate a universe with conscious beings? Are there facts that I'm unaware of? Are you working from statistical observations? What's your sample size?

What are you basing your bio-friendly conclusion on; the mere fact that conscious life exists here, or your own confirmation bias? What facts or premises are you drawing this conclusion from?

Isn't most of the material universe too cold, too hot, or too radioactive to support any sort of biology we're familiar with?

We’re allowed to disagree, that’s okay. These aren’t my workings out though, they’re Hawking’s, and Penrose’s, and a generation of cosmologists who’ve wrestled with this problem since;

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life…Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

 

[Valjean]

We’re allowed to disagree, that’s okay. These aren’t my workings out though, they’re Hawking’s, and Penrose’s, and a generation of cosmologists who’ve wrestled with this problem since;

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life…Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

But were the fundamental numbers "finely adjusted" for life, or did life adjust itself to the environment generated by those numbers?
I think you've misconstrued Hawking. He was an atheist. No belief in a designer.

 

[Polymath257]

I think the first person to identify and label the “fine tuning problem” in cosmology may have been Stephen Hawking; and he certainly didn’t draw any conclusions about design or purpose. The questions he asked, like “What is it that puts the fire in the equations?” remain open though.

Nope. Hawking was actually late to the question. Dicke described the issue in the 1960's before Hawking started working.

Billions of alternative universes may have formed, but in none of those would conscious beings have evolved to observe them. The fact is we exist in a bio-friendly universe, and the parameters for that are extraordinarily precise.

No, it shows that we are in a universe that *allows* for the development of life. That doesn't mean it is *friendly* to lifey of the un.

In fact, the vast majority of the universe is incredibly hostile to life.

 

[Polymath257]

We’re allowed to disagree, that’s okay. These aren’t my workings out though, they’re Hawking’s, and Penrose’s, and a generation of cosmologists who’ve wrestled with this problem since;

“The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and electron…The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life…Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty.”

- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

And, among other issues is that this assumes that the form of the physical laws that we have is the correct one. It assumes that the parameters we choose are the best way to describe things. It assumes that those constants cannot be other than they are. It assumes that they adjusted *for life* as opposed to simply *allowing for life* (a HUGE assumption). It assumes that they *can* be adjusted at all. It assumes there are no physical laws concerning their dynamics that forces them to the values they have.

 

[RestlessSoul]

And, among other issues is that this assumes that the form of the physical laws that we have is the correct one. It assumes that the parameters we choose are the best way to describe things. It assumes that those constants cannot be other than they are. It assumes that they adjusted *for life* as opposed to simply *allowing for life* (a HUGE assumption). It assumes that they *can* be adjusted at all. It assumes there are no physical laws concerning their dynamics that forces them to the values they have.

Any interpretation of modelling and data requires assumptions of some sort. And of course we should be wary of assumptions, even those compatible with observation. That said, however the data is interpreted, and whatever explanation is offered for the special low-entropy conditions of the early universe, it's difficult to refute the observation that the existence of conscious observers is truly miraculous (where a miracle is defined as any event the probability of which is one in 10^70 or less).

 

[DNB]

I have a genuine question for theists and it is not meant to be a trick in any way. There are many things that I would expect to see in a universe containing a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god that I don't see in this universe, which leads me to conclude that such a god is unlikely to exist. I'm curious as to what theists would expect to see in a godless universe, and how a godless universe would differ from one in which a god existed. What would you expect this universe to look like if no gods existed, and how would that be different from the current universe?

This forum would not exist if there were no God.

 

[Valjean]

This forum would not exist if there were no God.

Well, there's an end on it, then. Everything clear and obvious. Nothing more to discuss.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

Why?
Would there be no physics or chemistry in a godless universe?

No…
Why would there be any order or patterns, without an intelligence causing it?

That was the premise behind SETI, was it not?

Based on that premise, it simply doesn’t occur naturally.

Same with atoms: Atoms might exist, and attract, but doubtful they’d form any type of functional arrangement, without direction.

Even using supercolliders, the creation of human intelligence, functional arrangements of matter eludes them.

Yet with all the functional arrangements & interaction we observe — you want us to believe it happened through mindless natural processes?

I’d have to see it. I think it’s fantasy, in support of a bias similar to that which Aldous Huxley described:

“I had motives for not wanting the world to have a meaning; and consequently assumed that it had none, and was able without any difficulty to find satisfying reasons for this assumption. The philosopher who finds no meaning in the world is not concerned exclusively with a problem in pure metaphysics. He is also concerned to prove that there is no valid reason why he personally should not do as he wants to do. For myself, as no doubt for most of my friends, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom. The supporters of this system claimed that it embodied the meaning - the Christian meaning, they insisted - of the world. There was one admirably simple method of confuting these people and justifying ourselves in our erotic revolt: we would deny that the world had any meaning whatever.”


Aldous Huxley,
“Ends and Means”

 

[wellwisher]

I have a genuine question for theists and it is not meant to be a trick in any way. There are many things that I would expect to see in a universe containing a benevolent, omnipotent, personal god that I don't see in this universe, which leads me to conclude that such a god is unlikely to exist. I'm curious as to what theists would expect to see in a godless universe, and how a godless universe would differ from one in which a god existed. What would you expect this universe to look like if no gods existed, and how would that be different from the current universe?

A godless universe would not be integrated. Rather it would be highly dissociated, and would appear random, with the laws of nature in opposition and unrelated, so things remain random. It would be more in the image of the ego, which seeks to be a unique occurrence, and less like the inner self, which integrates through collective propensities.

 

[Valjean]

No…
Why would there be any order or patterns, without an intelligence causing it?

Why not? Why does order presuppose intelligence? You're inventing a need to fit your mythology.
We don't know why the natural laws are as they are, but they are, and they chanced to create the order we see. If they were different we might see a different order, or we might not be here at all.

Is God orderly? What god created him?

That was the premise behind SETI, was it not?

Huh? SETI looks for little green men.

Based on that premise, it simply doesn’t occur naturally.

Which premise?
We don't know how the universe came to be, why assume it's unnatural? There no reason to assume it's unnatural; no need for any supernatural manipulation.

Same with atoms: Atoms might exist, and attract, but doubtful they’d form any type of functional arrangement, without direction.

But why??? How are you arriving at this conclusion? It's a non sequitur.
Show your work

Even using supercolliders, the creation of human intelligence, functional arrangements of matter eludes them.

Supercolliders aren't assembly machines. They don't create things.
We know chemistry, physics, and biology. Human evolution and chemistry aren't mysteries.

Yet with all the functional arrangements & interaction we observe — you want us to believe it happened through mindless natural processes?

Of course! The physics chemistry, and biology we now understand explain the mechanisms pretty well.