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

[PruePhillip]

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.

So... you are fine with a universe creating itself before it existed, and for utterly no reason whatsoever?

 

[PureX]

So... you are fine with a universe creating itself before it existed, and for utterly no reason whatsoever?

Anything to avoid acknowledging the possibility of God.

 

[PruePhillip]

Not really. Conservation of energy is a consequence of Noether's theorem and is true so long as the laws of physics do not change with time - which is what we empirically observe today and in the past in the observable universe. But if it was not always so, back in time beyond the reach of our observations, then all bets are off.

That "God" is the "source" of all energy is a mere assertion, unsupported by evidence: a purely religious statement.

And a universe creating itself before it existed is not a secular religous belief?
We are NOT EVEN CLOSE to explaining such an absurdity.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I must admit to having sympathy for the view, although a bit mashed, of Sherlock Holmes - that is, eliminate all possibilities before arriving at what then remains as to being the truth. And which is why the 'obvious' is just such a ludicrous attitude to take towards any problem.

And what if, having eliminated all possibilities, nothing is left?

 

[exchemist]

And a universe creating itself before it existed is not a secular religous belief?
We are NOT EVEN CLOSE to explaining such an absurdity.

You are misreading criticism of an unevidenced hypothesis as being a dogmatic statement of an alternative.

The position of science is that when we have no observations to support a hypothesis, we say "we don't know". We do not force-fit a hypothesis that has no evidence behind it, just so we can pretend to know something we don't.

If you want to ridicule dogmatic atheists, you will need to find someone else who can tell you what position they take.

 

[Debater Slayer]

But the deities people usually propose have intention. With intention, there is no reason to think the set-up with the conditions we observe in our universe would be a random choice.

A deity might choose to set the universal constants at values such that atoms and molecules can form. It might be thought more fun to set them so that a high degree of complexity of matter can arise - even to the point where some of it might organise itself into self-replicating systems, in various places around the universe.

Intention merely adds another layer of infinite possibilities when it is ascribed to an omnimax god: why this specific intention, and why precisely in the way it happened?

I suppose an answer within a theistic framework could be to acknowledge mystery in how the deity in question operated, or to simply say "I don't know." But then the argument for a deity wouldn't be logically necessary to anyone but those already inclined to believe in the first place.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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?

Because the conditions in which it is hypothesized to have occurred in nature can't be replicated in a lab, nor did they accumulate in a short time span according to any scientific hypothesis.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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

If the deity is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't it logically follow that it would have an infinite number of ways in which it could create something? What restriction would cause that number to be finite?

 

[Debater Slayer]

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. You also assume that there is human life only on Earth which is not subject to proof or disproof at this time. Then your posting ignores the advaita perspective that there is only One and that what we perceive is an illusion. Finally your OP does not consider the possible purpose behind creation that lies behind physical laws and evolution

Even if we granted the existence of trillions of universes and trillions of lifeforms elsewhere, those would all constitute an infinitesimally small number compared to the infinite number of possibilities that an omnimax deity would entail. I don't see how that changes the basis of the argument in the OP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

Exactly, and also that the deity's existence compounds this improbability because then we would shift the "where did it come from?" question just one step back and ask it about the deity instead of the universe—and an omnimax deity would be far more complex than this universe.

 

[Debater Slayer]

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.

I haven't read it, but I've heard of it. I may give it a read in the future. Thanks for the recommendation!

 

[Debater Slayer]

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 ?

Yes, I find the "appeal to improbability" argument quite flawed, which is part of the reason for the OP.

 

[Debater Slayer]

There is no such state as "pure chance". In fact, there is no chance at all without at least two relatively equal sets of possibility.

They don't have to be equal: 20% and 80% are both "chances," albeit considerably different ones in terms of probability.

 

[Debater Slayer]

So... you are fine with a universe creating itself before it existed, and for utterly no reason whatsoever?

No. Where did I say that? Whether or not I'm "fine" with it depends on the evidence, and we simply have no strong evidence to indicate exactly what caused the Big Bang, or whether it needed a "cause" in the typical sense to begin with.

 

[PureX]

They don't have to be equal: 20% and 80% are both "chances," albeit considerably different ones in terms of probability.

They have to be equally possible, not equally probable.

 

[ChristineM]

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed

You missed an important factor, "in a closed system"

 

[exchemist]

Intention merely adds another layer of infinite possibilities when it is ascribed to an omnimax god: why this specific intention, and why precisely in the way it happened?

I suppose an answer within a theistic framework could be to acknowledge mystery in how the deity in question operated, or to simply say "I don't know." But then the argument for a deity wouldn't be logically necessary to anyone but those already inclined to believe in the first place.

I see it as reducing possibilities, not expanding them. The point, surely, is that a God with intention would not necessarily pick a selection of values for fundamental constants randomly, and therefore the probability argument you advanced previously would not apply.

Asking this God why it made the choices it did is a separate issue.

 

[syo]

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.

You're joking, right? What you wrote is wrong. All of it.

 

[Fool]

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.

the problem with the one method is that humans aren't the only form of intelligence or life. they are the form of intelligence associated with the planet earth. so those folks believe in this otherness called spirit; which wouldn't necessarily be associated with that form because of that environment. the form, or state, arise from the environment in which it arose. of course, that isn't going to the case in another alien environment and adaptation.


so the problem arises in looking for a limited form; when in fact it might be something more dynamic in action than exact in shape, or even visible to only the ocular sense. so the one size fits all wouldn't work.

from my research each galaxy has it's own logos, each star system has it's on sub-logos, each planet has it's own sub-logos and but none of it's an island unto itself. each lower level/dimension has to work within the confines of it's environmental situation

 

[Wildswanderer]

If the deity is omnipotent and omniscient, doesn't it logically follow that it would have an infinite number of ways in which it could create something? What restriction would cause that number to be finite?

That's just the thing. We aren't infinite so we don't know what certain conditions might be necessary for a deity to create life. God's very nature might cause him to only create in a certain way for example.