Universe Alpha (Earth, atheist, God, science, preference)

[Nick Soapdish]

I live in the foothills of the Catalina mountains in Tucson. I know that the Catalina mountains exist and that they have specific rock formations that exist which are held together by specific EM forces which exist in a specific space-time framework.

If we call this Universe, with its spacetime framework, physical laws and Catalina mountains "universe Alpha", we can ask the question, is it possible for universes Beta, Gamma and Delta to exist if these Universes either have a different spacetime configuration, or different laws of physics, or a different configuration of matter and energy?

What is the reason universe Alpha exists instead of universes Beta, Gamma and Delta? If any of these universes could logically exist, why does ours exist and not the others?

One answer is to say that there is no reason. Any science minded individual ought to prefer a reasonable world to an unreasonable one, and dismiss this option. It would be like suggesting that we live in a perfectly logical, ordered and machine-like world which rests on an illogical, no-reason-for-being pedestal.

Another answer is to say that Universes Beta, Gamma and Delta do in fact exist, it is just that we have no way of sensing or measuring them. Basically, this is saying that each Universe exists for the simple reason that it can exist.

The interesting conclusion of this response is that all things which are logical have some place in reality. If something can exist, then it must exist. If we agree with this response, are we not compelled to believe God exists with the condition that He logically can exist? And if that is the case, shouldn't we then believe in an infinite, all-powerful God until we decide there is something unavoidably contradictory or illogical about God existing?

Based on this, it would be up to the atheist to show that God is illogical; otherwise, we should believe if God can exist, then He does exist.

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by atofel

Any science minded individual ought to prefer a reasonable world to an unreasonable one, and dismiss this option. It would be like suggesting that we live in a perfectly logical, ordered and machine-like world which rests on an illogical, no-reason-for-being pedestal.

Even if it were true that an individual ought to prefer a reasonable world, I am not quite sure what role personal preference has to play here. It does not seem to me to be reasonable to fabricate reasons for something just because that is what we prefer.

And what constitutes a reason? Take your Catalina Mountains for example. They exist. They exist because of certain tectonic shifts in the earths crust. But it could have happened differently. These mountains could have formed in a different way in a different location; they could have been bigger or smaller or had any number of different formations. So why are they where they are in the form they are? Because that is the way it happened. That reason may not be fully satisfying, and it may not be the kind of reason some people might prefer. But there is no need for any more reason than that.

[Nick Soapdish]

Hi fantome

I don't think I follow your point. As you say, there is a reason why the Catalina mountains are structured the way they are. To say that things are the way they are and there doesn't have to be a reason seems entirely unscientific. Does suggesting that there doesn't have to be a reason for something play into a "personal preference"?

For example, would you ever suggest that the bouncing of a ball on concrete "just happens" and it is not necessary to ask why it happens?

If we say there is no reason for gravity to exist how can we have any confidence that it will be the same tomorrow as it is today?

Btw, I love the avatar ...

[PureX]

Cause and effect are not the reason that something exists, they're only a reasonable explanations for how something came to exist in the way that it does. The Catalina Mountains exist as an an effect, and that effect has a cause, but the cause is not the reason they exist. The cause is only defining how they exist in the way they do. Why they exist is still a mystery.

We don't know WHY the Catalina Mountains exist.

[michel]

I am not convinced that your reasoning isn't flawed; to my mind, what you have indicated is that "There is no reason why not...." That is still a long way from "Therefore, it is more likely that..........." (which still isn't an argument).

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by PureX

Cause and effect are not the reason that something exists, they're only a reasonable explanations for how something came to exist in the way that it does. The Catalina Mountains exist as an an effect, and that effect has a cause, but the cause is not the reason they exist. The cause is only defining how they exist in the way they do. Why they exist is still a mystery.

We don't know WHY the Catalina Mountains exist.

What is the distinction you are making between "cause" and "reason"? After all, causality is a basis for reason. In other words, we use the cause-effect relationships to give a reason (or explanation) for why something is the way it is.

For the most part we know why the Catalina mountains exist the way they do in the same way we know the reason Joe Theismann's leg broke in the game against the New York Giants in 1985. Based on the points of impact and our understanding of the laws of physics, we can give a reasonable explanation to it.

Perhaps your point is that our reasoning is limited, or only goes so far. For example, in our explanation of the leg breakage, we do not know why the laws of physics operate the way they do. Our chain of reasoning ends there. That does not mean our laws of physics are illogical--it just points to a limitation in human understanding.

The argument I stated in the OP assumes the laws of physics are logical and have a reason for being, whether that reason is part of human understanding or not.

[uumckk16]

Originally Posted by atofel

The interesting conclusion of this response is that all things which are logical have some place in reality. If something can exist, then it must exist.

Uh. You might want to reword that. That's a bit of a dangerous argument to make. Anything can exist. Unicorns can exist. And that would seem logical enough - a horse with a horn? We already have horses, we have animals with horns, and maybe a horse needed a horn developed because it lived in an environment where it had a constant need to defend itself. Therefore, unicorns exist?

The Matrix, too, can exist. The FSM can exist. But I'm not about to argue that they therefore do exist, here or in some other Universe.

Originally Posted by atofel

If we agree with this response, are we not compelled to believe God exists with the condition that He logically can exist? And if that is the case, shouldn't we then believe in an infinite, all-powerful God until we decide there is something unavoidably contradictory or illogical about God existing?

I'm still not convinced by your argument, but the bolded part just made me roll my eyes. How can you make the assumption that if God exists, God is infinite and all-powerful? The only premise you're basing that off of is that God exists because "He logically can exist." What does that have to do with infinity or omnipotence?

Originally Posted by atofel

Based on this, it would be up to the atheist to show that God is illogical; otherwise, we should believe if God can exist, then He does exist.

Maybe I'm just seriously not getting your argument, because I don't see how you've made atheists have to prove anything. Unless you feel I have to sit here disproving unicorns, the Matrix, the FSM, and countless other bits of nonsense? (Sorry to be so cliche in my examples...)

And I am a theist, by the way.

Happy Thanksgiving!

[Halcyon]

Originally Posted by atofel

I live in the foothills of the Catalina mountains in Tucson. I know that the Catalina mountains exist and that they have specific rock formations that exist which are held together by specific EM forces which exist in a specific space-time framework.

If we call this Universe, with its spacetime framework, physical laws and Catalina mountains "universe Alpha", we can ask the question, is it possible for universes Beta, Gamma and Delta to exist if these Universes either have a different spacetime configuration, or different laws of physics, or a different configuration of matter and energy?

What is the reason universe Alpha exists instead of universes Beta, Gamma and Delta? If any of these universes could logically exist, why does ours exist and not the others?

One answer is to say that there is no reason. Any science minded individual ought to prefer a reasonable world to an unreasonable one, and dismiss this option. It would be like suggesting that we live in a perfectly logical, ordered and machine-like world which rests on an illogical, no-reason-for-being pedestal.

Another answer is to say that Universes Beta, Gamma and Delta do in fact exist, it is just that we have no way of sensing or measuring them. Basically, this is saying that each Universe exists for the simple reason that it can exist.

The interesting conclusion of this response is that all things which are logical have some place in reality. If something can exist, then it must exist. If we agree with this response, are we not compelled to believe God exists with the condition that He logically can exist? And if that is the case, shouldn't we then believe in an infinite, all-powerful God until we decide there is something unavoidably contradictory or illogical about God existing?

Based on this, it would be up to the atheist to show that God is illogical; otherwise, we should believe if God can exist, then He does exist.

Pascal's wager re-worded.

Ok, working on the premise that all things imaginable (and unimaginable) actually exist - which i personally believe - i agree that we should believe that a creator God exists.
However, if all things exist, then alongside the universe that was created by a God there will lie other universes without creators - ours could as easily be one of the ones without a God as the one with a God.

Evidence does not suggest that ours is one or the other, our universe could have been created by the Deist God and so we would have no evidence of his existence - or we could have no God, and of course have no evidence there either. We wouldn't know which we were.
If our universe were created by the God of the Bible, we would expect evidence. Given the amount of interaction with God, and events where God physically manifested and/or altered the Earth in an observable manner detailed in the Bible, we would expect to find not only evidence of those past events, but also evidence of continual interference by the Biblical God.

Given that, the best position to take would be agnostic - as our world could have no creator or a long-gone creator.
The next best is atheist based on the available information.
The third best position would be the mystical and liberal theists who often believe in an almost panentheistic God, and that religious texts should be interpreted allegorically as well as in their historical/cultural context.
The least logical position to take, in the case of our universe, is the literal theist due to the lack of any cooberating evidence.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by uumckk16

Uh. You might want to reword that. That's a bit of a dangerous argument to make. Anything can exist. Unicorns can exist. And that would seem logical enough - a horse with a horn? We already have horses, we have animals with horns, and maybe a horse needed a horn developed because it lived in an environment where it had a constant need to defend itself. Therefore, unicorns exist?

Not so fast. Unicorns are no more logical than a geyser in my living room. If the environmental conditions for a geyser in my living room did not happen, then it is not logical for there to be a geyser. Likewise, if the environmental conditions for the development of a Unicorn did not occur, then it is not logical for there to be a Unicorn either (at least on this planet). Turtles can't fly and Unicorns can't exist.

Originally Posted by uumckk16

The Matrix, too, can exist. The FSM can exist. But I'm not about to argue that they therefore do exist, here or in some other Universe.

Not sure what FSM is, but the Matrix can only exist if someone has the time, resources, intention and technology to build it. We can say, "it is possible for a pink skyscrapper to exist", however, that is not my meaning when I say that if something can exist, then it does exist. When we say it is possible for something to exist that does not already exist, there is an implied "if the right conditions occur for it to exist".

For there to be a pink skyscrapper, someone has to build it. Therefore, a pink skyscrapper cannot exist unless someone decides to build one. Since someone did not decide to build one, one cannot exist, and hence one does not exist.

Originally Posted by uumckk16

I'm still not convinced by your argument, but the bolded part just made me roll my eyes. How can you make the assumption that if God exists, God is infinite and all-powerful? The only premise you're basing that off of is that God exists because "He logically can exist." What does that have to do with infinity or omnipotence?

To me it is necessary that God is infinite. It makes no sense to call something that is somehow less than something else "God". When I talk about God, I am referring to an infinite being at the center of existance that is responsible for all other beings.

Originally Posted by uumckk16

And I am a theist, by the way.

The remark above makes be wonder what you mean by "God", if you presume that God is not infinite. To be clear, what is your definition of God, and why do you believe God exists?

Originally Posted by uumckk16

Happy Thanksgiving!

You too!

[fantôme profane]

Originally Posted by atofel

I don't think I follow your point. As you say, there is a reason why the Catalina mountains are structured the way they are. To say that things are the way they are and there doesn't have to be a reason seems entirely unscientific. Does suggesting that there doesn't have to be a reason for something play into a "personal preference"?

It seems to me that we are getting confused with the word “reason” which can be used in different ways (and I think this may be what PureX was getting at). I would like to distinguish between talking about cause, and intent. You could ask for example “why a ball bounces on concrete?” (to which the answer might involve things like force and gravity as well as the elasticity of the ball). Or you could ask “why are you bouncing that ball on the concrete?” (to which the answer might be for the fun of it or as part of a game or even scientific experiment).

You are correct that in the classical scientific paradigm everything must have a cause (reason?). Newer scientific paradigms however do challenge this idea and this presents quite a challenge for scientific thought. Either way the classical idea of cause and effect (determinism) will and does continue to be used. But as to whether this applies to the universe itself remains very much an open question. A scientific mindset ought not to prefer either situation but to honestly question which is the case.


So if you were to ask me what is the reason for the Catalina mountains I would want to know if you were referring to cause or intent. If you were talking about cause we could talk about shifts in the tectonic plates and fault lines and that kind of thing. If you were talking about intent then I would definitely respond that there does not need to be one. So if I were to say that there was “no reason for the Catalina Mountains” what I would mean is that there is no intent or purpose. Actually looking