If God exists, then where did he come from?

Jab

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
3,245
Fair enough. Let me rephrase;
The facts show that the "set of life-permitting universes is small amongst the universes that we have been able to explore" (which is why it is argued to be fine-tuned), and there is an explanation for it. "Happenstance" or chance is one possible explanation, but not the only one.
You've not even showed that it is possible to have any other "tune"
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,749
You've not even showed that it is possible to have any other "tune"
The article discussed in the other thread actually touches on this subject i.e. the logical necessity of the laws of nature:
What if the laws of nature were different? Stenger says:
"what about a universe with a different set of ‘laws’? There is not much we can say about such a universe, nor do we need to. Not knowing what any of their parameters are, no one can claim that they are fine-tuned.’ (FOFT 69)
In reply, fine-tuning isn’t about what the parameters and laws are in a particular universe. Given some other set of laws, we ask: if a universe were chosen at random from the set of universes with those laws, what is the probability that it would support intelligent life? If that probability is robustly small, then we conclude that that region of possible-physics-space contributes negligibly to the total life-permitting subset
and
What if, when we really understand the laws of nature, we will realise that they could not have been different? We must be clear about the claim being made. If the claim is that the laws of nature are fixed by logical and mathematical necessity, then this is demonstrably wrong — theoretical physicists find it rather easy to describe alternative universes that are free from logical contradiction (Davies, in Davies 2003). The category of ‘physically possible’ isn’t much help either, as the laws of nature tell us what is physically possible, but not which laws are possible.
So we do know, based on the facts, that the constants are very sensitive to very small changes. i.e. the "tune" of the current universe is extremely sensitive to any extremely small changes of the constants.

It is a similar situation with the optimality of the genetic code. We do know that it is highly optimal based on the facts. If you want, we can say that the tune of the genetic code is very optimal even though we do not have any real-world genetic codes to compare it to. And just like the fine-tuning of the universe, the optimality of the genetic code requires an explanation. To say it is a mere brute fact does not come across as a satisfactory answer.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,295
That doesn't mean it couldn't support life of a different sort.
The electromagnetic constant binds electrons to protons. If it was smaller too few electrons would be held for stable bonds to exist. Larger and electrons would be held too tight for bonds with other atoms.
The ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). If it was larger or smaller no molecules would form.
Gravity and the expansion match-up. If it was slightly larger all matter would have clumped together. Smaller and the expanding universe would spread it too widely apart.
The strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Exactly the right ratio for the unusually efficient production of carbon from 3 helium atoms.
If the strong nuclear force was slightly smaller most atoms would be too unstable to exist for any meaningful amount of time.

A slight change in more than a dozen constants would make it impossible for ANY life to exist.

Yet you do an awful lot of assuming.
It's physics, not assumptions.

But I do have a universe.

Present your god please, front and centre.
As already pointed out you conflate the existence of the universe with how it came to be. It's existence is only evidence that it exists.

Umm, would you be trying to bring this debate into the realms of your philosophical and sophistical realm? lol.

How about "pure" science, as opposed to the pseudo science you love so much....
There is no "pure" science. All of science has philosophy behind it. Science would be nothing without it as science can't prove itself correct. A small set of people on this forum continue to ignore that because once it's discussed your house of cards come toppling down.

We've explored other universes? afaik we've only barely started exploring this one. Until we have ANYTHING to compare it to, the fine-tuning means nothing.
From what I can gather we can do computer models using a different set of constants. All of these show that if one of them is altered even slightly (some by less than 1%) the conditions necessary for life do not exist.

You've not even showed that it is possible to have any other "tune"
Fair enough. It doesn't change the argument though. Instead of assuming a multiverse or a chance universe with the correct constants the assumption simply shifts to a universe where the only possible set of constants just happens to permit life.
 

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,240
The electromagnetic constant binds electrons to protons. If it was smaller too few electrons would be held for stable bonds to exist. Larger and electrons would be held too tight for bonds with other atoms.
The ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). If it was larger or smaller no molecules would form.
Gravity and the expansion match-up. If it was slightly larger all matter would have clumped together. Smaller and the expanding universe would spread it too widely apart.
The strong nuclear force and electromagnetic force. Exactly the right ratio for the unusually efficient production of carbon from 3 helium atoms.
If the strong nuclear force was slightly smaller most atoms would be too unstable to exist for any meaningful amount of time.

A slight change in more than a dozen constants would make it impossible for ANY life to exist.
An assertion based on the assumption that changes in universal constants disrupt the stability (such as it is) of the universe. We don't know what other potentially stable combinations there are.

It's physics, not assumptions.
Not physics, wish fulfillment.
As already pointed out you conflate the existence of the universe with how it came to be. It's existence is only evidence that it exists.
None the less, it exists.

When one see's hoof prints, one assumes horses (or Zebra's) not unicorns.

Otherwise we could just make up anything in lieu of a rational explanation.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,749
An assertion based on the assumption that changes in universal constants disrupt the stability (such as it is) of the universe. We don't know what other potentially stable combinations there are.
The electromagnetic constant, for example, is very sensitive to change. Even a small change will have the above-mentioned consequences, and no other combination with these deleterious changes will provide stable combinations for a universe that can result in a universe where stable bonds can form. This has been addressed in the article and elsewhere.
 

Splinter

Honorary Master
Joined
Oct 14, 2011
Messages
21,451
The electromagnetic constant, for example, is very sensitive to change. Even a small change will have the above-mentioned consequences, and no other combination with these deleterious changes will provide stable combinations for a universe that can result in a universe where stable bonds can form. This has been addressed in the article and elsewhere.
Cut and paste pony.....
 

Jab

Expert Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2006
Messages
3,245
Of course the "fine tuned" argument has been thoroughly destroyed by Victor Stenger

Victor Stenger said:
Many of the examples of fine-tuning found in theological liter-
ature suffer from simple misunderstandings of physics. For
example, any references to the fine-tuning of constants like the
speed of light, c, Planck's constant, h, or Newton's gravitational con-
stant, G, are irrelevant since these are all arbitrary constants whose
values simply define the system of units being used. Only "dimen-
sionless" numbers that do not depend on units, such as the ratio of
the strengths of gravity and electromagnetism, are meaningful.
Some of the "remarkable precision" of physical parameters
that people talk about is highly misleading because it depends on
the choice of units. For example, theologian John Jefferson Davis
asserts, "If the mass of neutrinos were 5 x 10"
34
instead of
5 x 10"
35
kg [kilogram], because of their great abundance in the
universe, the additional gravitational mass would result in a con-
tracting rather than expanding universe."
15
This sounds like fine-
tuning by one part in 1035
. However, as philosopher Neil Manson
points out, this is like saying that "if he had been one part in 1016
of a light-year shorter (that is, one meter shorter), Michael Jordan
would not have been the world's greatest basketball player."
16
Furthermore, if the neutrinos were ten times more massive,
there would be ten times fewer of them in the cosmos, so the gravita-
tional effect would be unchanged. This fine-tuning example, like
so many, collapses on several fronts. Philosopher Robert Klee has
provided other examples of how numbers have been manipu-
lated to make it seem that fine-tuning has occurred.
17

Victor Stenger said:
Only four parameters are needed to specify the broad features
of the universe as it exists today: the masses of the electron and
proton and the current strengths of the electromagnetic and
strong interactions.
20
(The strength of gravity enters through the
proton mass, by convention.) I have studied how the minimum
lifetime of a typical star depends on the first three of these param-
eters.
21
Varying them randomly in a range often orders of magni-
tude around their present values, I find that over half of the stars
will have lifetimes exceeding a billion years. Large stars need to
live tens of millions of years or more to allow for the fabrication
of heavy elements. Smaller stars, such as our sun, also need about
a billion years to allow life to develop within their solar system
of planets. Earth did not even form until nine billion years after
the big bang. The requirement of long-lived stars is easily met for
a wide range of possible parameters. The universe is certainly not
fine-tuned for this characteristic. One of the many major flaws with most studies of the
anthropic coincidences is that the investigators vary a single
parameter while assuming all the others remain fixed. They fur-
ther compound this mistake by proceeding to calculate meaning-
less probabilities based on the grossly erroneous assumption that
all the parameters are independent.
22
In my study I took care to
allow all the parameters to vary at the same time.
Physicist Anthony Aguire has independently examined the
universes that result when six cosmological parameters are simul-
taneously varied by orders of magnitude, and found he could
construct cosmologies in which "stars, planets, and intelligent life
can plausibly arise."
23
Physicist Craig Hogan has done another
independent analysis that leads to similar conclusions.
24
And,
theoretical physicists at Kyoto University in Japan have shown
that heavy elements needed for life will be present in even the
earliest stars independent of what the exact parameters for star
formation may have been.
25
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,295
An assertion based on the assumption that changes in universal constants disrupt the stability (such as it is) of the universe. We don't know what other potentially stable combinations there are.
We know. It can be (is) modeled on computers and in mathematics.

Not physics, wish fulfillment.
Again it can be modeled. It's solid physics.

None the less, it exists.

When one see's hoof prints, one assumes horses (or Zebra's) not unicorns.

Otherwise we could just make up anything in lieu of a rational explanation.
It's existence has no baring on the issue. If you see hoof prints you take it as hoof prints. Both horses and unicorns would be assumptions if you had no knowledge of either.

Of course the "fine tuned" argument has been thoroughly destroyed by Victor Stenger
It hasn't. Stenger is making various fallacious claims. The fine tuning doesn't depend on the numeric values themselves but on the constants themselves. E.g. it doesn't depend on the value of gravity but on its force. No matter which unit you measure it in if it was any stronger it would result in a crunch instead of an expansion and any weaker would likewise result in an irreversible separation of all matter.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,020
It hasn't. Stenger is making various fallacious claims. The fine tuning doesn't depend on the numeric values themselves but on the constants themselves. E.g. it doesn't depend on the value of gravity but on its force. No matter which unit you measure it in if it was any stronger it would result in a crunch instead of an expansion and any weaker would likewise result in an irreversible separation of all matter.
It is possible that there were several big bangs until a stable universe was formed. Who knows? The universe is in a constant state of flux with the various forces opposing each other. For example stars change. They either explode and spread their mass around to form new stars or collapse into a black hole. i.e. they are not in perfect balance. If there was some fine tuning for life involved, why don't stars last forever giving out just the right amount of energy for life? Our sun will eventually kill us in a relatively short space time compared to the age of the universe. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you're a God and going to fine tune things, do it properly or not at all, and as it is, it's not done properly.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,295
It is possible that there were several big bangs until a stable universe was formed. Who knows?
That is one possible explanation. That it was created is another. What I am saying is that without knowledge all explanations are assumptions. There is no more logical possibilities or according to "Ockham's" razor more simplistic ones.

The universe is in a constant state of flux with the various forces opposing each other. For example stars change. They either explode and spread their mass around to form new stars or collapse into a black hole. i.e. they are not in perfect balance. If there was some fine tuning for life involved, why don't stars last forever giving out just the right amount of energy for life? Our sun will eventually kill us in a relatively short space time compared to the age of the universe. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you're a God and going to fine tune things, do it properly or not at all, and as it is, it's not done properly.
That is another assumption. We do not know what the most optimal universe is or if one as you describe is even possible. What I do see is that life exists even with all the odds against it. That is itself miraculous and if the universe can sustain it it's obviously proper enough or even perfect within the confines of the goal.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,020
That is one possible explanation. That it was created is another. What I am saying is that without knowledge all explanations are assumptions. There is no more logical possibilities or according to "Ockham's" razor more simplistic ones.
Hence it is best to say we don't know and not make any further assumptions.

That is another assumption. We do not know what the most optimal universe is or if one as you describe is even possible. What I do see is that life exists even with all the odds against it. That is itself miraculous and if the universe can sustain it it's obviously proper enough or even perfect within the confines of the goal.
We know that life on earth will end when the sun expands. This is not an assumption. Our sun has been fine tuned to eventually kill us. If a God cannot make things better than they are and let his creations live, then he is not omnipotent and is bound by the very laws of nature that he created. Makes no sense, thus it is safe to say that there is no fine tuning. Unless killing everyone off is part of his plan just like the flood in the Bible. Only this time there will be nobody left to write about it, and an uninhabitable earth.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
22,295
Hence it is best to say we don't know and not make any further assumptions.
But you do make assumptions - no evidence hence no God. This is what I find so astonishing. Assuming that there is no God. But when the fallacy is pointed out we always get this reaction of spite. Never give an inch to the other "side." If we can't win then we won't allow anybody else to win.

What difference does it really make to you what others believe in? What does it change in your life?

We know that life on earth will end when the sun expands. This is not an assumption. Our sun has been fine tuned to eventually kill us. If a God cannot make things better than they are and let his creations live, then he is not omnipotent and is bound by the very laws of nature that he created. Makes no sense, thus it is safe to say that there is no fine tuning. Unless killing everyone off is part of his plan just like the flood in the Bible. Only this time there will be nobody left to write about it, and an uninhabitable earth.
We don't know if it's possible for the universe to work any better than it does. It's an assumption that it can. I take omnipotence to mean anything that's logically possible. We don't know how a universe with no entropy would work or if it can even logically exist.

It may not be perfectly tuned but it is still fine tuned and even very finely tuned. Just like your car may not be running perfectly but it is still fine tuned (hopefully) to start up and get you to where you want to go.

One thing you're leaving out is that if we are correct we won't be here when the sun takes a burp. So it would still be perfectly suited for its purpose.
 

SaiyanZ

Executive Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2008
Messages
8,020
But you do make assumptions - no evidence hence no God. This is what I find so astonishing. Assuming that there is no God. But when the fallacy is pointed out we always get this reaction of spite. Never give an inch to the other "side." If we can't win then we won't allow anybody else to win.

What difference does it really make to you what others believe in? What does it change in your life?
I am an agnostic atheist. I don't assume there is no God. If there is one, then I think it is unlikely that there is a God in the Christian/Muslim/Hindu sense. i.e. religions are made up. So I don't believe in the current religions but God could exist.

I also make no assumptions whilst as soon as someone makes the assumption that God exists then they need to make tons of other assumptions. Assumptions about his power, what he can do, what he can't do, what he has done, and what difference it makes to our lives.

We don't know if it's possible for the universe to work any better than it does. It's an assumption that it can. I take omnipotence to mean anything that's logically possible. We don't know how a universe with no entropy would work or if it can even logically exist.
The problem here is that you're saying that something illogical like God is limited by the own logic that it created. If you're a God and created the very matter and bonds/forces between everything, then why would you be limited in the amount of control you have over it? It would be like the God had only one shot at things and had to just make do with its creation instead of reworking things until he got it perfect. Omnipotent would mean that he knows all future outcomes as well of his creation and thus this is the best he could do it seems.
 

Techne

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 28, 2008
Messages
11,749
It is possible that there were several big bangs until a stable universe was formed. Who knows? The universe is in a constant state of flux with the various forces opposing each other. For example stars change. They either explode and spread their mass around to form new stars or collapse into a black hole. i.e. they are not in perfect balance. If there was some fine tuning for life involved, why don't stars last forever giving out just the right amount of energy for life? Our sun will eventually kill us in a relatively short space time compared to the age of the universe. So I guess what I'm saying is that if you're a God and going to fine tune things, do it properly or not at all, and as it is, it's not done properly.
Fine-tuning does not imply that stars live forever or that we will live forever. Things undergo change, and that is not an argument against God.

Also, if we agree that evil is the privation of good and if we agree that God is not His creation and God alone is goodness itself.

Then it appears to logically follow that God's creation is not Goodness itself and thus not maximally good and this would imply that there are various degrees of privation of good (i.e. evil) or imperfections in God's creation.

The problem here is that you're saying that something illogical like God is limited by the own logic that it created. If you're a God and created the very matter and bonds/forces between everything, then why would you be limited in the amount of control you have over it? It would be like the God had only one shot at things and had to just make do with its creation instead of reworking things until he got it perfect. Omnipotent would mean that he knows all future outcomes as well of his creation and thus this is the best he could do it seems.
Omnipotence: Not limited in power and able to bring about all logically consistent affairs if it chooses so for good reason. Not being able to bring about logically contradictory affairs would not entail to be a limitation in power.
Omniscience: Not limited in knowledge and is able to have knowledge of all things that are logically possible to know. Not being able to know logically contradictory affairs does not entail a limitation in knowledge.

Knowing all the possible outcomes is compatible with omniscience.
In an indeterminate universe it is logically impossible to know which outcome is actualized. Not knowing is thus not a limitation on omniscience or omnipotence.
 

HapticSimian

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 22, 2007
Messages
15,950
I have yet to see any arguments for a creator not leading to 1 of 3 outcomes:
  1. An either now-absent or always-impotent source-of-all-things... eh... 'thing'.
  2. An insidious brat with an ant farm.
  3. Any number of poorly conceptualised mental constructs arising from man's longing for understanding.
 

Necuno

Court Jester
Joined
Sep 27, 2005
Messages
58,567
I have yet to see any arguments for a creator not leading to 1 of 3 outcomes:
  1. An either now-absent or always-impotent source-of-all-things... eh... 'thing'.
    [*]An insidious brat with an ant farm.
  2. Any number of poorly conceptualised mental constructs arising from man's longing for understanding.
Or one that turned into "a brat with an ant farm".
 
Top