Why Creation by an Omnipotent, Omniscient Deity Is Even More Improbable than Pure Chance

[Subduction Zone]

Then what was the point of the OP? I interpreted it as DS was saying this one way the universe formed is more improbable with a deity than without one.

I am not sure if I agree with the OP either.

 

[exchemist]

True, but I personally won't let them get away with the act of calling materials reacting according to the various laws of chemistry "chance". Even when the conditions were right the process was likely to take millions of years.

Yeah, I got a bit bored with beating the drum about "chance" in the other thread, so I thought for a change I would draw attention to the absurdity of demanding that, if science is right, life should just appear, poof!, in a lab somewhere, on a human timescale. Does the poster think the scientists are all fools?

But this thing about "chance" does indeed seem to be a particularly ingrained misunderstanding with these people.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, there is no way to calculate the odds of the formation of the universe. There are far too many unknowns.

The reason I say there is only one way the universe could've unfolded, unless there is a multiverse, is because if the universe could have unfolded another way, it would have - the only reason it wouldn't is because something that exists caused it to form in another way instead. Everything boils down to cause and effect.

 

[sun rise]

But even that would have been preceded by the desire to create.

In the East that's called "lahar", a whim.

Because it took half a billion years, at least, to come to pass, after the Earth coalesced.

On Earth. And it's more compl icated than that as this finding illustrates. Meteorites could have brought DNA precursors to Earth

Analyses of three meteorites suggest that nucleobases, the crucial components of DNA, could have formed in space and then fallen to Earth to provide the raw material for the origin of life itself.

 

[ChristineM]

If life could come into existence by chance (from non living material), why can't we see it happening in nature all the time, nor even in a laboratory?

It could be that life has formed several times and the primitive life forms have either died out or merged with other life.

And life has been created several times in the laboratory, google it

 

[exchemist]

In the East that's called "lahar", a whim.



On Earth. And it's more compl icated than that as this finding illustrates. Meteorites could have brought DNA precursors to Earth

Analyses of three meteorites suggest that nucleobases, the crucial components of DNA, could have formed in space and then fallen to Earth to provide the raw material for the origin of life itself.

Well I suppose if you left a "lab" for half a billion years it might get hit by a meteorite. (Though there were a lot more of them around early in the history of the solar system.)

 

[dybmh]

In the East that's called "lahar", a whim.

I was thinking this: Taṇhā - Wikipedia

 

[ChristineM]

There are several assumptions you've made. One is that there is a single universe. There is quite a bit of speculation that there is a multiverse, many universes

Professors Andrei Linde and Vitaly Vanchurin have calculated there are possibly 10^10^16.universes that we could recognise as universe's and up to twice that number that would not even register in our brain as universes

Why? I don't know but i suppose it kept them busy for a while

 

[Nakosis]

One of the most common dichotomies in theological debates is the notion that creation by a deity is necessarily less random or more probable than pure chance leading to the existence of the universe or life therein. In this thread, I'm proposing that not only is the latter a more plausible explanation for existence but also a less improbable one even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient deity exists.

Proceeding from the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient deity exists, one conclusion we can make is that this deity would be capable of creating a universe in an infinite number of ways in one of an infinite number of configurations.

Now, what is the probability that out of these infinite possible methods and configurations, the deity chooses precisely one method to give rise to the universe and then further proceeds to create human life on our planet in the one specific sequence of events that has occurred out of the infinitely many that said deity could have used instead?

Put differently, if we don't assume that the universe or life was created by a deity, we don't necessarily have to assume that the way in which the universe started was one out of infinitely many possible ways, nor do we have to assume that life could have arisen in infinitely many ways but only arose in the one way we know of. The pool of possibilities becomes arguably much smaller, even if still vast, by sheer virtue of no longer being infinite—unlike the scenario where an omnipotent, omniscient deity is in charge.

In my opinion, the addition of the abovementioned concept of deity to the equation only makes the already improbable existence of the universe and life even more improbable due to the consequent addition of the deity's capability to choose from an infinite number of ways in which they could create the universe and life.

Discuss.

I agree.
Something happened at the "beginning" of the universe. Adding "God" bypasses the need for any logical/physical process. That alone increases the potential scenarios exponentially.

I'd suppose though that this God willed into existence exactly what was necessary for us to arrive at where we are today.

 

[sun rise]

I was thinking this: Taṇhā - Wikipedia

My perspective is illustrated here English Translation of “लहर” | Collins Hindi-English Dictionary

1. Ripples are little waves on the surface of water caused by the wind or by something moving. When water ripples, a number of little waves appear on its surface.

4. A whim is a sudden desire to do or have something without any particular reason.

The image I've read for creation is that from a still "ocean" "ripples" arose based on a causeless whim.

 

[Orbit]

One of the most common dichotomies in theological debates is the notion that creation by a deity is necessarily less random or more probable than pure chance leading to the existence of the universe or life therein. In this thread, I'm proposing that not only is the latter a more plausible explanation for existence but also a less improbable one even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that an omnipotent and omniscient deity exists.

Proceeding from the premise that an omnipotent, omniscient deity exists, one conclusion we can make is that this deity would be capable of creating a universe in an infinite number of ways in one of an infinite number of configurations.

Now, what is the probability that out of these infinite possible methods and configurations, the deity chooses precisely one method to give rise to the universe and then further proceeds to create human life on our planet in the one specific sequence of events that has occurred out of the infinitely many that said deity could have used instead?

Put differently, if we don't assume that the universe or life was created by a deity, we don't necessarily have to assume that the way in which the universe started was one out of infinitely many possible ways, nor do we have to assume that life could have arisen in infinitely many ways but only arose in the one way we know of. The pool of possibilities becomes arguably much smaller, even if still vast, by sheer virtue of no longer being infinite—unlike the scenario where an omnipotent, omniscient deity is in charge.

In my opinion, the addition of the abovementioned concept of deity to the equation only makes the already improbable existence of the universe and life even more improbable due to the consequent addition of the deity's capability to choose from an infinite number of ways in which they could create the universe and life.

Discuss.

Have you read this book? If not, you might find it interesting:

A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing is a non-fiction book by the physicist Lawrence M. Krauss, initially published on January 10, 2012 by Free Press. It discusses modern cosmogony and its implications for the debate about the existence of God. The main theme of the book is how "we have discovered that all signs suggest a universe that could and plausibly did arise from a deeper nothing—involving the absence of space itself and—which may one day return to nothing via processes that may not only be comprehensible but also processes that do not require any external control or direction.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Why would you assume that the addition of a deity means there's an infinite number of ways to create?
Sounds like pure speculation.

More a philosophical notion pushing back on the idea that creation is perfect, and that the likelihood 'chance' would result in modern humans is infinitesimally small, whilst having a Creator God makes it a certainty.

Unless I am misunderstanding the OP.

@Debater Slayer ?

 

[Wildswanderer]

More a philosophical notion pushing back on the idea that creation is perfect, and that the likelihood 'chance' would result in modern humans is infinitesimally small, whilst having a Creator God makes it a certainty.

Unless I am misunderstanding the OP.

@Debater Slayer ?

Honestly it sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

So a Creator exists and he chooses a way to create that is purposeful and deliberate, vs random chance which just throws a bunch of things together and somehow is supposed to hit the right combination by accident? No, that's not right either because there are no things to throw together. So the components have to somehow create themselves by accident also! Sounds like the chances are exactly zero.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Honestly it sounds like smoke and mirrors to me.

So a Creator exists and he chooses a way to create that is purposeful and deliberate, vs random chance which just throws a bunch of things together and somehow is supposed to hit the right combination by accident? No, that's not right either because there are no things to throw together. So the components have to somehow create themselves by accident also! Sounds like the chances are exactly zero.

That's the 'chance' side of the conversation, and I won't challenge you on that (here).

If there's an omniscient, omnipotent God, how likely do you think he'd create exactly this?

 

[Alien826]

Because it took half a billion years, at least, to come to pass, after the Earth coalesced.

Also, I don't consider it outside the realms of possibility that life is currently being created someone on Earth, under the conditions that obtain in that place. It would probably be some protein strings that form the precursors for very primitive forms of life that we know now. We don't have cameras everywhere (yet)!

 

[exchemist]

Also, I don't consider it outside the realms of possibility that life is currently being created someone on Earth, under the conditions that obtain in that place. It would probably be some protein strings that form the precursors for very primitive forms of life that we know now. We don't have cameras everywhere (yet)!

I've thought a bit about that but I'm sceptical. There are micro-organisms everywhere now. Anything that could be nourishment for something would get ingested before it could do anything.

 

[Alien826]

I think that the fact the universe ended up with us talking monkeys, who are trying to uncover why we're here in the first place, and are trying to understand the nature of the universe, is a sign there is an intelligence behind this design after all.

It's a very human conceit to think that an all powerful non-material being would consider the creation of us to be the best thing it could do. It's more likely that we were created by one of its children, having been given some materials to play around with and told not to bother its parents for a few millennia.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If life could come into existence by chance (from non living material), why can't we see it happening in nature all the time, nor even in a laboratory?

If one deity with intent and ability to create can simply exist without having been caused, why not 2, or 7, or a billion-and-three, all having a different idea about what to create?

 

[The Sum of Awe]

It's a very human conceit to think that an all powerful non-material being would consider the creation of us to be the best thing it could do. It's more likely that we were created by one of its children, having been given some materials to play around with and told not to bother its parents for a few millennia.

I never said we were God’s magnum opus. Just part of it. Why is the latter more likely?

 

[Alien826]

I've thought a bit about that but I'm sceptical. There are micro-organisms everywhere now. Anything that could be nourishment for something would get ingested before it could do anything.

Maybe so, but in that case the "life" would have been created even if it only survived for a few seconds. The original point was that we don't see life being created on Earth now. Maybe we don't see it created because it gets gobbled up immediately after creation. Life was still created from non-life, which is the thing that is supposed to be impossible.