1. If the Universe was not caused by an intelligent being, it is here by chance, and chance is more likely to produce non-order than order. In other words, without a Creator/Designer there is a higher likelihood that our Universe would be purely random and chaotic than rich with function, rules, and structure.
2. Science tells us our Universe is not ruled by chaos. There is observable order, organization, function, and synergy in the Universe. Physical Laws govern the behavior and interaction of matter/energy and space/time. Look inside the atom and you will find a clear demonstrable example of advanced functioning. (A list of supportive examples here would fill volumes.)
3. Therefore, a Creator/Designer is the most likely explanation for these characteristics of our Universe.
It's a very simple and rational argument, based on the observable evidence around us. But, as you might imagine, Atheists have many objections. During my time of exploration on these topics, when I was "searching" for answers to the God question, I evaluated these Atheist counter-arguments. What I found was a short list of very flimsy rebuttals, based on poor logic and false assumptions. (For anyone interested in these Atheists rebuttals, and my thoughts on them, please send me an email. You can find my email address by viewing my Profile.)
Some Atheists choose to criticize the premises of the argument. But others elect to take a different approach. They agree to premise #1 and premise #2, but offer an alternate explanation: Multiverse Theory.
This theory suggests that our Universe is not alone. It is simply one of possibly trillions and trillions of multiple universes. What this theory offers the Atheist is a convenient way to deal with the problem of probability. In a sea of trillions of Universes, there are far greater odds that a functional Universe will emerge. Therefore, there is no reason to assume a Designer is responsible.
This concept is a life-saver for the Atheist backed into a corner by the Fine-Tuning Argument.
There is one major problem, however. The concept of "Multiple Universes" is merely that: a concept. There is no observable or empirical evidence for Multiverses. None whatsoever. Only highly speculative suggestions that a Multiverse could possibly explain certain phenomena. And notice the typical Atheist hypocrisy: Many Atheists argue that Intelligent Design is not "science" because it cannot be empirically verified, but neither can Multiverse theory.
How can Atheists so freely accept Multiverse theory with no observable evidence, but reject Intelligent Design? It requires intellectual suicide. Such behavior reeks of desperation and emotional bias against the notion of a Creator.
But Atheists are commonly motivated by emotional bias, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised.
"3. Therefore, a Creator/Designer is the most likely explanation for these characteristics of our Universe."
ReplyDeleteThe God assumption comes with plenty of problems. First of all in order for it to be "God" it is assumed that it can think, has intelligence, has sentience etc. What's the evidence of that, and where did it's intelligence come from? The exact same applies to all of God's properties.
Secondly, any creator must be more complex than that which it creates, so God must be more complex than the universe. So if you assume God, then you've made things more complex and not answered where causation starts.
"The concept of "Multiple Universes" is merely that: a concept. There is no observable or empirical evidence for Multiverses. None whatsoever."
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/1012/1012.1995v1.pdf
If you don't have access to the paper:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995
http://cosmos.phy.tufts.edu/~zirbel/ast21/sciam/ParalellUniverse.pdf
Reasoning:
http://anthropic-principle.com/preprints/spacetime.pdf
News article, couldn't find the paper:
http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2007/09/n--one-of-the-m.html
(Cont'd)
ReplyDeleteThen we can come to the anthropic principle. Do you realize that if the Universe had other (maybe “more chaotic” as you say) laws there would now be instead of us, maybe some quark foam entities discussing the same thing? And if it had yet another set of laws there would be nothing, and that would be it. But yeah, since it’s such a big question we ponder at the possibilities. So, given there’s no support for the “God did it” argument we ponder about others which, admittedly as you say, are just as lacking in support. Well, except for the fact they at least have a backing theoretical framework. I mean you at least acknowledge that your God argument “is merely: a concept. There is no observable or empirical evidence for Creator/Deities. None whatsoever.” Which also leads me to your “hypocrisy” argument: you see your typical Atheist will give you that an argument can’t be falsified (not that it can’t be “verified”), and some multiverse hypothesis can be falsified. And then they will go on to tell you that still, these Multiverse hypotheses are mostly not science, but protoscience. And yeah, I will concede that today none of them can be falsified given our technological state, but still your typical Atheist, will present them as alternatives to Creator concept, not out of hypocrisy, but out of elegance and simplicity given the theoretical framework from which they forked: they at least have a tiny empirical genesis, unlike your typical Deity argument.
Personally I never bought the quantum Multiverse, it really seems without merits to me. Now I’m quite into stringy Brane-cosmology, and as you say, it does explain that given all the possibilities in each Universe, we just happened to arise in one of those Universes that allowed our kind of life, and thus allowed this discussion on the existence of a Creator, even when there wasn’t one. Of course, it may still be that this is the only way a Universe can be, and all those other Universes have the same laws!
Note: I find it amusing how you rely on science (“Science tells us our Universe is not ruled by chaos…”), but only the bits that fit, or can be bent to fit, what you have already accepted as fact regarding Deities. You seem to dissociate the fact that science IS a whole, and as a whole it can’t be used to argue for any Deity, for they are unfalsifiable.
Science doesn't say "the Universe is not ruled by chaos". All it does is present formal theories/laws that best explain observable phenomena, thanks to which we can say something is spontaneous in this Universe or not. Solar systems, given the laws we discovered rule this Universe, are indeed spontaneous. And chaotic. While I can’t say science says this, to me it would seem its pointing in the direction of "The Universe IS ruled by chaos", rather than the converse you’re giving us.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that you are attributing numbers to chance and defining order as a "good" thing:
A) [Regarding "Chance"] We DONT know there were/are higher chances for a different, "not-ordered" kind of Universe. As far as we know the way this Universe is, is the only way a Universe can be. If you have valid reasons to believe otherwise you have to state them. I mean you're even refuting your own argument, do you know why we know that "chance is more likely to produce non-order than order" because that's the way the Universe works, and you are trying to argue against that! This universe is highly, mostly chaotic and random. Furthermore, we can actually think of better Universes (like one where things don't decay, ie. where entropy is not inexorably increasing as a function of time), but an Intelligent and Omnipotent Creator couldn't think/create it?
B) [Order is "good"]. Order is a subjective perception. The order you subjectively see in the Universe is in fact not order and is a consequence of Chaos, this Universe, through Chaos, leads to certain things that arise spontaneously (like the atom you so revere). And you are here thinking this spontaneous things are "ordered" and couldn't have happened without a Creator. The laws are chaotic, this Universe is quite chaotic, maybe it's as chaotic as it gets, how could you know if it was otherwise? I mean if you push something it will continue its trajectory unless acted upon by other things, which is what chaos dictates. If it was an “ordered” Universe, the object in motion would stop and park itself in an orderly fashion before it reaches the point of impact. Then you have to acknowledge that the Universe is INCREASING CHAOS (and conversely, reducing order) as time progresses. In order to produce order you actually have to create more chaos. As far as science goes, chaos will consume the Universe (the Heat-Death scenario or the Big-Rip scenario). Where's your Creator there? You're seeing a very tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of time and space and think it's "ordered". You are not seeing the Big Picture. The solar system arose through millions of years of chaotic interactions in the accretion disk. Now the picture you take during your limited lifespan is one of apparent order, but mostly because you don't realize the chaos that preceded, the fact that now it seems rather orderly only because all objects in collision trajectory have already hit each other, that orbits are decaying, that the sun is a chaos pump, that it will consume the inner planets, that it will all be consumed by chaos, that it is being consumed by chaos as we speak, that it IS chaos today. Those laws you hold so dear, are born out of chaos and lead to chaos.
And of course then comes the usual: Given your premises, why the wild jump? Maybe the creator wasn't that Intelligent. I mean we have an incomprehensible large space and time, and yet, we - Humans, the supposed climax of this Creator - can barely frolic in a very tiny and specific set of variables (Tº, pressure, etc), which can only be found in an even tinier proportion of the Universe's space and time.
Adam - Thanks for the links. A couple of those I've seen before, but the others were new. Still, ultimately there is no solid evidence for the Multiverse, only highly speculative suggestions that a Multiverse COULD possibly explain certain phenomena. Not much to go on, I'm afraid.
ReplyDeleteIt's an interesting theory, for sure. And I'm not saying it isn't possible. What interests me is how easily Atheists can embrace something so lacking in firm evidence, while simultaneously bashing Theists for doing the same.
If total energy of the universe is zero, as claimed by some scientists, then based on this data it can be shown that multiverse theory is probably not true. This is because total energy being zero, total mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space for some reason or other cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. It will fail to occupy any space if our universe is the sole universe, and if there is nothing outside it, no space, no time and no matter. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
ReplyDeleteHere it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.
However, if total energy of the universe cannot be taken to be zero, then the conclusion drawn here will not stand. In that case multiverse theory may be true, but we cannot say whether it will be necessarily true.
Keep up the good work! love this blog. I can share my Beliefs with others and be a witness for those who are lost.
ReplyDelete