Theists: What would a godless universe look like?

[halbhh]

So, introducing God actually doesn't solve the problem of why existence exists, nor why the laws of nature exist?

Ah, I didn't include that in that post, but I'm of the view that God had chosen or worked to modify or originate the design of this physics which causes this Universe (as I think S. Hawking said, the Universe is merely (only) physics in action). (e.g., creating this Universe (this particular physics) where beings of a kind God aimed to bring about (possibly meaning with such things as agency, intelligence of a certain kind, etc.) can exist. (The reason many believe in 'God' is due to actual experiences of course, but that's another topic, not our topic here)

If something interacts with the 'natural', then it is itself natural.

Yes! That's what I was getting at above, in another wording.

Furthermore, if something interacts, then it is, by that interaction, observable through its effects. Hence, an operational definition can be found that would allow for scientific study

Yes, but now we get a reasonable additional point to consider: God being a being (in the sense of having agency), and not merely inanimate. Ergo, God can choose whether we get to meet Him, and we can't necessarily overcome His....'technology' for lack of a better word. Ergo, we can't merely chose to build the right machine to finally crack the barrier and observe God. Rather, God can presumably (being a master of physics after all far beyond where we are at) has the choices there, and we don't.

And ALL the evidence is the consciousness requires complex brains. At the very least, that implies a complex physics allowing for information collection, storage, processing, and action. That also implies sensory mechanisms as well as ways to interact with the rest of the world.

Consciousness is a wonderfully complex thing, and has plenty of mystery in it it seems to me after decades of seeing new theories come and then get replaced later by another new theory.

 

[halbhh]

I kind of saw this idea or better yet a foolish notion of the fallacy of 'arguing from ignorance:' "if you can't observe something, science simply says nothing about it," Much of today's physics functions very well 'without seeing it.

The preference for having theories that are testable -- theories that make predictions on not yet observed phenomena that can be checked on someday, in time...
...so that it's possible that theory might be found to be false by observations... --> theories that are "falsifiable" as Karl Popper points out..

The reason this quality of falsifiability is so valued, prized, is because of the terrible situation when we don't have falsifiability....

Without falsifiability in new theories, then.... as more and more new theories that cannot be falsified (ever so far as we know) gradually accumulate....first 5, then 10, then 20.... we begin to get over time to a proliferation of new theories, with little or no way to discard any...

So that in time it will become more obvious that such theories have little value, because one can't know which one might be useful to pursue further development on...

But, in contrast to that bad situation, when a new theory is falsifiable (testable), then we can try to test it in time, and rule it out or find it survives a key test and then becomes much more interesting to test further in new ways.

So, falsifiability is very useful/valuable. Without it, we can waste time chasing illusions.

 

[shunyadragon]

That's fine. Sorry you see it that way. I get that a lot, but not just me. The Baha'i threads have half the believers saying something like that to most of their collocutors. They want to claim that their messengers are sufficient evidence to justify a god belief, and they get testy when that is challenged. They didn't like to provide "justification of a position" much more than you do.

Of course humans very in their response to the questions between science and religion. Yes, it isa given that virtually everyone who believes in God believe their scriptures are sufficient reason to believe so. I avoid confrontation on the issue of the belief in God, because it remains subjective regardless and not resolvable in debate with those that do not believe.

My main issues is science and the conflicts people have with science as science.

 

[shunyadragon]

The preference for having theories that are testable -- theories that make predictions on not yet observed phenomena that can be checked on someday, in time...
...so that it's possible that theory might be found to be false by observations... --> theories that are "falsifiable" as Karl Popper points out..

The reason this quality of falsifiability is so valued, prized, is because of the terrible situation when we don't have falsifiability....

Without falsifiability in new theories, then.... as more and more new theories that cannot be falsified (ever so far as we know) gradually accumulate....first 5, then 10, then 20.... we begin to get over time to a proliferation of new theories, with little or no way to discard any...

So that in time it will become more obvious that such theories have little value, because one can't know which one might be useful to pursue further development on...

But, in contrast to that bad situation, when a new theory is falsifiable (testable), then we can try to test it in time, and rule it out or find it survives a key test and then becomes much more interesting to test further in new ways.

So, falsifiability is very useful/valuable. Without it, we can waste time chasing illusions.

I consider your view of falsifiability and what is testable is very very Newtonian in perspective.

 

[halbhh]

I consider your view of falsifiability and what is testable is very very Newtonian in perspective.

It's from Karl Popper, and not antique at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Since we totally lack any objective knowledge of a God or Gods, our physical existence likely is as it is objectively observed regardless of wherer it is Created by God or simply exists naturally as is.

I consider your view of falsifiability and what is testable is very very Newtonian in perspective.

If you cannot see it, it is not falsifiable.

 

[shunyadragon]

It's from Karl Popper, and not antique at all.

You are being far to selective in your citation of Popper to justify your agenda to be meaningful

 

[shunyadragon]

Explained here.

Does not really explain the problem, and in fact your response there is more than a bit confusing as to what people believe concerning God or Gods, .The fact that by far most of the people of the world believe in a Theistic God, The world does not ;largely reject God.

 

[Polymath257]

Ah, I didn't include that in that post, but I'm of the view that God had chosen or worked to modify or originate the design of this physics which causes this Universe (as I think S. Hawking said, the Universe is merely (only) physics in action). (e.g., creating this Universe (this particular physics) where beings of a kind God aimed to bring about (possibly meaning with such things as agency, intelligence of a certain kind, etc.) can exist. (The reason many believe in 'God' is due to actual experiences of course, but that's another topic, not our topic here)

So God *isn't* existence itself. Which is it? I Am that I AM or not?

And, once again, why does God get to 'just exist' but not the universe? Why are the properties of God not in need of explanation, but those of the universe are?

Yes! That's what I was getting at above, in another wording.

Yes, but now we get a reasonable additional point to consider: God being a being (in the sense of having agency), and not merely inanimate. Ergo, God can choose whether we get to meet Him, and we can't necessarily overcome His....'technology' for lack of a better word. Ergo, we can't merely chose to build the right machine to finally crack the barrier and observe God. Rather, God can presumably (being a master of physics after all far beyond where we are at) has the choices there, and we don't.

And what laws of physics does God obey? Why does God exist?

Once again, the God hypothesis merely pushes the questions back one stage as opposed to answering them. it is a simpler system to say that the universe 'just exists' with its properties (the laws of physics) since we *know* the universe exists.

Consciousness is a wonderfully complex thing, and has plenty of mystery in it it seems to me after decades of seeing new theories come and then get replaced later by another new theory.

It seems to me that the link between conscious states and brain states has been pretty consistent for the last century at least. if anything, the link has grown stronger with each additional piece of evidence.

And, in regard to God, why assume a creative force that has consciousness since that is such a complex thing? It seems like much more of a leap to assume such a consciousness exists than to just say the non-conscious universe does.

 

[Polymath257]

How would we know that? We have to investigate if there is a cause.
I am assuming nothing. I just want science to investigate. How do we know that this and this law is fundamental requiring no further explanation?

But again, there *cannot* be a cause of causality. it would be a 'cart before the horse' situation. And there *cannot* be a cause of 'existence' because any such cause would have to be outside of existence and hence would not exist.

Now, that isn't saying that things we are aware of right now don't have causes (although there is good scientific evidence hat some events do NOT have a cause). It just means that whatever are the most fundamental laws cannot have a deeper explanation. It is NOT a claim that we *know* any of those laws right now. In fact, we probably do not.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so there’s a certain logic in saying that if you reduce everything to it’svelements, no further explanation is necessary; that which is fundamental needs no underpinning. But if we want to understand the universe and our place in it, don’t we have to think holistically as well as reductively? It’s all very well breaking everything down to elementary phenomena, but unless doing that gives us a new way of envisaging the whole, we haven’t learned much.

As for cause, first or otherwise, there are more ways of looking at that concept, more perceptions available, than that of the physicist who naturally thinks in terms of cause and effect. What about purpose, intent, will? It comes back to the question, what is it that animates the world? Did it all

Those only apply after there are consciousnesses. And that happens only after at least a couple generations of stars.

the restless activity of existence originate in a cypher, rushing aimlessly nowhere, or is there a will in play here? Is some force, some intent, some consciousness, expressing itself through this infinitely complex and confounding mystery we call nature? To me, it’s simply axiomatic that there is such a force, such a will, such an underlying creative intelligence.

Hmmm...and I see it as incredibly unlikely that such a force would exist given the prerequisites for such a force.

I don't believe that 'intent' existed before life got started. I don't know when life started in the universe at large, but on Earth it was about 3.8 billion years ago. And there is good reason to think that life was impossible until a couple of generations of stars made materials that could allow for life to evolve.

Purpose is another thing that assumes a consciousness. Instead, I see a largely purposeless universe where life is likely to be rare (at least conscious life).

 

[Polymath257]

Quantum Mechanics. At the moment there are five forces. Science is looking for a grandpa force. Intent, will, consciousness is, IMHO, woo. No evidence for that. Like Polymath at this time, you are taking things for granted. Buddha said in his Kesamutti Sutta (release of hair-hold).. (see the details here: Kesamutti Sutta - Wikipedia)

Four forces: electromagnetism, the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, and gravity.

There has been speculation of a fifth force, but the observations are very inconclusive.

The weak and electromagnetic can be regarded as aspects of the same force: the electroweak force (giving three forces). The standard model of particle physics also brings in the strong force, unifying it with the others, leaving 2 forces.

Gravity is the odd one out for a number of reasons, including its connection to spacetime geometry.

 

[Polymath257]

Perhaps I should make it clear that I am most certainly not anti-science. Nor am I a creationist; very few people in the developed world actually are, outside of the United States. So my questions about the Big Bang theory are coming off the back of a genuine interest in astronomy, in which subject I have recently completed an introductory course at undergraduate level. As for my general point about the significance of scientific anomalies within a paradigm, that should be seen in the context of Thomas Kuhn’s ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’. I don’t know if you are familiar with Kuhn’s ideas about paradigm shifts in science, but some familiarity with them would make my position there clearer.

Yes, and the actual basis he had for his views (see his writings on the Copernican revolution) show that his ideas aren't as accurate as he portrays them.

Scientific ideas change when the evidence shows they need to change. And when that evidence is found, the ideas change quite quickly (witness quantum mechanics and relativity).

So, yes, I am familiar with Kuhn and I find him to be wrong.

As for ranging from the quantum to cosmological scales, we humans are positioned midway between the atom and the stars, as a certain Carl Sagan once observed. And we are drawn to look in both directions, always with an open mind of course.

I see it as more that we have learned to look at the same number of orders of magnitude both directions. Which makes sense, I think.

As for my belief in God, that is not dependent on logic, reason, or science; nor does it cause me to be suspicious of the tools and methods science employs, nor the discoveries thus unearthed. I do not see a scientific perspective and a spiritual one as being mutually exclusive. My faith in God is no more threatened by the BB theory than was that of one of it’s founders, Georges Lemaitre.

Well, this is a good thing. I know more than a few cosmologists that are theists. For the most part, it doesn't affect their science.

In fact, the man who was going to be my advisor in astrophysics was a theist (he died of cancer). He said he had all sorts of questions to ask God about...

There’s a reason why I rarely respond to your posts btw. I’m interested in exploring ideas, on a wide range of subjects. I’m not particularly interested in conversation which is adversarial, belligerent, and which constantly demands justification of a position, especially when that position appears to have been deliberately misunderstood. Conversations like that are tiresome in the extreme.

 

[Polymath257]

Okay, so there’s a certain logic in saying that if you reduce everything to it’svelements, no further explanation is necessary; that which is fundamental needs no underpinning. But if we want to understand the universe and our place in it, don’t we have to think holistically as well as reductively? It’s all very well breaking everything down to elementary phenomena, but unless doing that gives us a new way of envisaging the whole, we haven’t learned much.

Of course. And that is being done as well. It is the interplay between particle physics and cosmology that gives a lot of the interesting tension in physics right now.

We have the phenomena of dark matter, but no particles to correspond. That comes from looking at the large scale, holistically. We have aspects of the CMBR, of universal expansion, of questions of quantum gravity, ALL depending on looking at things from the grand scale.

And, in fact, one of the great discoveries of the last century is how the small scale of particle physics affects cosmology, including the period of nucleosynthesis (for example).

We have questions about why the universe is predominantly matter (as opposed to being even in matter and anti-matter). There are serious constraints on any answer because of what we know about the large scale.

As for cause, first or otherwise, there are more ways of looking at that concept, more perceptions available, than that of the physicist who naturally thinks in terms of cause and effect. What about purpose, intent, will? It comes back to the question, what is it that animates the world? Did it all
the restless activity of existence originate in a cypher, rushing aimlessly nowhere, or is there a will in play here? Is some force, some intent, some consciousness, expressing itself through this infinitely complex and confounding mystery we call nature? To me, it’s simply axiomatic that there is such a force, such a will, such an underlying creative intelligence.

Give *any* evidence that there was a will involved. Give *any* evidence that there was intent involved. If anything, the evidence we have is of a universe hostile to life except for very small regions (like the Earth) where intent and purpose are very recent phenomena in a cosmological sense. Self-consciousness has only existed for a very short time period (maybe a few million or tens of millions of years, depending on which species we agree to say are self-conscious).

 

[Polymath257]

If you cannot see it, it is not falsifiable.

No, if you cannot detect it, even in theory, then it is not falsifiable. There are more ways to detect than with light.

 

[shunyadragon]

No, if you cannot detect it, even in theory, then it is not falsifiable. There are more ways to detect than with light.

Disagree in particular related to contemporary physics, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology. Ah . . . your hedging, yes there are other ways 'to see' than light, which makes your post contradictory and without an adequate explanation as to what is falsifiable.

This aspect of the thread began in part with the discussion of the origins and nature of 'beginnings concerning out physical existence. It is true we cannot falsify any absolute or definable beginnings of our universe, because our ability to 'see' or detect any sort of specific beginning nor end of anything concerning the nature of our physical existence. Therefore our physical existence some call the universe is therefore possibly infinite and dependent on how we define time possibly eternal.

Based on out present knowledge all hypothesis and theories concerning the multiverse are tentative based on some sound models, but atthis time not falsified. An oscillating universe, presence of other universes as in the multi-verse, or a beginning of some kind are unresolved. There is nonetheless no definable beginning of out universe. Yes, the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, but if it began as singularity, how did the singularity begin and from what?

 

[Polymath257]

Disagree in particular related to contemporary physics, Quantum Mechanics and Cosmology. Ah . . . your hedging, yes there are other ways 'to see' than light, which makes your post contradictory and without an adequate explanation as to what is falsifiable.

Not sure why you consider it to be contradictory. There are other media for detection than light. For example, sound.

Furthermore, there are many things we can detect but not see: infrared, radio, neutrinos, etc.

This aspect of the thread began in part with the discussion of the origins and nature of 'beginnings concerning out physical existence. It is true we cannot falsify any absolute or definable beginnings of our universe, because our ability to 'see' or detect any sort of specific beginning nor end of anything concerning the nature of our physical existence. Therefore our physical existence some call the universe is therefore possibly infinite and dependent on how we define time possibly eternal.

Based on out present knowledge all hypothesis and theories concerning the multiverse are tentative based on some sound models, but atthis time not falsified. An oscillating universe, presence of other universes as in the multi-verse, or a beginning of some kind are unresolved. There is nonetheless no definable beginning of out universe. Yes, the hypothesis that our universe began as a singularity, but if it began as singularity, how did the singularity begin and from what?

Basic mistake: the singularity is not an object. It is simply a description that the known laws break down. For example, at the BB, time cannot (in the usual model) be extended to 'before the BB'.

 

[shunyadragon]

Not sure why you consider it to be contradictory. There are other media for detection than light. For example, sound.

Other than sound.

Furthermore, there are many things we can detect but not see: infrared, radio, neutrinos, etc.

Other than infrared, radio or neutrinos. The basics of Quantum Mechanics falsified are not observable.

Basic mistake: the singularity is not an object. It is simply a description that the known laws break down. For example, at the BB, time cannot (in the usual model) be extended to 'before the BB'.

Disagree the singularity is like a black hole. It is potentially an object if it existed.

 

[Aupmanyav]

We have not yet come to singularity. The guesses do not help till we have evidence.

 

[shunyadragon]

We have not yet come to singularity. The guesses do not help till we have evidence.

It is potentially an object if it existed. singularities are predicted to exist in blackholes.

This is the problem with statements previously asserted like 'the universe had a beginning.' The is no objective verifiable evidence that our universe had a beginning. Our universe and/or our physical existence is possibly infinite, and depending on how you view time possibly eternal..