The idea of the multi-verse is often
used to hand-wave away difficulties with a naturalistic explanation for our
universe. Unfortunately, all the
multi-verse does is move the goal posts back a level; the questions in this
universe do not go away by adding an infinite number of universes. There are many scientific and philosophical
implications or unanswered questions with the idea of the multi-verse without a
designer, so here’s a short list:
The laws of physics are independent of the
universe
The laws of physics are needed to
allow a universe to form prior to the universe forming, if not temporally then ontologically. As Alex Vilenkin said in this interview,
“The same laws that describe the evolution of
the universe also describe the appearance of the universe; its coming into
being. This seems to suggest that the
laws were there prior to the universe itself…..The laws of physics have some platonic
existence which is independent of the universe.” – Alex Vilenkin
A platonic existence is the idea that
abstract objects, like numbers, shapes, truth statements, etc exist in an
independent reality as opposed to being ideas that do not really exist. Vilenkin is saying the laws of physics exist
in an independent reality. Appealing to
a multi-verse does not explain away the laws of physics, since it too needs
laws of physics to exist. The next
question is, are the laws of physics brute fact (exist out of necessity),
chance, or is there a mind behind the math?
I’ll deal with chance next. If
the laws of physics are brute fact, then it is impossible to have a universe
with different laws of physics. I don’t
know of any scientist that holds this view, but even if true, does not explain
how the constants within those laws are fine-tuned for a life-permitting
universe. The fine-tuning of the
universe for life still cries out for an explanation.
Using the multi-verse to escape a designer is
a logical fallacy
The reason the multi-verse has gainedpopularity in scientific circles is due to the fine-tuning problem, which many
(not all) atheists acknowledge as the most compelling evidence for a designer,
although not compelling enough. In order
to avoid a designer or appealing to the Anthropic Principle (it has to be that
way or we wouldn’t exist aka “just have faith”), atheists are now appealing to
the idea of an infinite number of universes to increase the probability/chance
that a universe tuned to 10-120 is closer to 1. There are a couple of issues with this:
1).
In order to have an infinite number of universes with different physical
constants and early universe conditions, a constant scrambler or some other
mechanism must exist to set these different constants prior to these universes
forming. Where does the randomness come
from? Is this cosmic slot machine also
tuned to randomly spit out universes with different constants?
2).
This commits the Inverse Gambler’s Fallacy which is “the fallacy of
concluding, on the basis of an unlikely outcome of a random process, that the
process is likely to have occurred many times before.” In other words, simply saying that ‘the odds
are extremely low that a universe such as ours would form; therefore, there
must be an infinite number of universes’ is a logical fallacy.
Occam’s Razor
Occam’s Razor is a principle that
states that when there are competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest
assumptions should be selected. This is
not a principle that refutes logic or science, nor does it prove/disprove
anything. What it does implicate is that
one should not posit an infinite number of universes just to explain one
universe when the simple explanation of a mind fits the data for the
fine-tuning and other discoveries that have been made.
The multi-verse also had a beginning
In this video, Alan Guth describes his
theory of eternal inflation, which is the leading theory for what happened just
prior to the Big Bang (the Big Bang is the result of inflation). It is not a complete theory, as the he
acknowledges, but has made some predictions that have been confirmed. One of the predictions of this theory is that
once inflation starts, the universe expands forever into the future and can
repeat by creating more universes. The
caveat to the theory of eternal inflation is that the “eternal” part only goes
one way; the future. Something had to
start the first inflating universe.
“….we’ve been able to “prove” mathematically
that it’s in fact not possible to extrapolate arbitrarily far into the
past. Somewhere if you extrapolate
backwards into the past [], somewhere [was] the beginning of inflation.” – Alan
Guth
Eternal Inflation is only one of
several theories for the origin of the universe and is compatible with some of
them like string theory; however, the BGV theorem says if a universe has an
average state of expansion, it had a beginning.
Alan Guth is the G in BGV. This
also applies to the multi-verse. If the
multi-verse is expanding, it too had a beginning. Is it possible the multi-verse is not
expanding? It’s difficult to imagine a
multi-verse full of expanding universes that is not also expanding, but if the
multi-verse is not expanding it must be infinitely large which leads toproblems.
Another reason to believe the
multi-verse had a beginning is the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As Vilenkin explained, the laws of physics
had to exist prior to the universe to allow the universe to form at all. If our universe was formed out of the
multi-verse and the laws of physics were already in place, there is no valid
reason to believe the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not also apply
to the multi-verse. This also suggests a
beginning since the multi-verse should have hit thermal equilibrium an infinite
time ago.
If the multi-verse does exist, it also
had a beginning and requires a cause.
Our universe would not be an isolated system
Many of the equations used in the laws
of physics are based on the assumption that the universe is an isolated system
and have been repeatedly confirmed. If
the multi-verse exists and has interacted with our universe in any way, our
universe would not be an isolated system.
This would call into question many things we have observed and think we
know about our universe. Should the
multi-verse be discovered our laws of physics may not need adjusting, but I
think observational confirmation of our equations lends credence to the idea
that our universe has not been impacted by an outside universe.
Multi-verse of the gaps
I don’t know if there are an infinite
number of universes or not. No one does;
there isn’t any evidence for or against it.
The issue I have with the multi-verse is that it is being used to
hand-wave away evidence for a designer.
It provides an intellectual escape by allowing people to ignore the
problems with naturalistic explanations and then claim there is no evidence for
a designer. It’s the “multi-verse of the
gaps” argument. With an infinite number
of universes, anything and everything can be explained away. A theory that can explain anything explains
nothing.
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
The multi-verse does not answer one of
the fundamental questions, “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
The multi-verse can substitute for religion
The multi-verse can be used as a
religion substitute. One of the benefits
to having an infinite number of universes is the comfort of knowing that you
will live again in another universe. Tommaso
Dorigo laments this new trend in this article where he says,
“Indeed, long ago man invented religion as a
way to explain what he could not figure out by logical methods, as well as to
accept his own mortality: religion made acceptable the concept of death, as
well as give an explanation to other natural phenomena. And man is now
inventing the multiverse in what appears to me a new, albeit well disguised,
attempt in the same direction. One as reassuring and sweet as the idea of an
almighty entity….We might be immortal after all….if we accept that the universe
is a multiverse unlimited in time, with bubbles continuously regenerated, we
must conclude that we are bound to live again not one, but an infinite number
of times.”
Your evil twin is wreaking havoc somewhere
One of the fun implications of an
infinite number of universes is the reality that every individual exists in oneor more other universes. There are an
infinite number of me!
“some calculations suggest that a reality with
infinite space and infinite universes would necessarily have to repeat itself
sometimes, leading to the conclusion that copies of Earth and everyone on it
exist somewhere else out there.” – Daniel Mortlock
Could one of these copies be my evil
twin? Maybe in another universe I’m an
anti-theist, or apologist for atheism…..or a super hero or super villain!
The multi-verse is best explained by God
A transcendent mind is still the best explanation
for our laws of physics, the fine-tuning of those laws, the unreasonable effectiveness
of mathematics, the origin of the multi-verse, and why there is something
rather than nothing. Adding an infinite
number of universes does nothing to explain these and is an intellectual leap without warrant.
The idea of multiple universes does
not pose a threat to Christianity. God
is free to do as he pleases. The
multi-verse may or may not exist. We
don’t know one way or the other, but using an infinite number of universes as
an escape for a designer is not a rational counter-argument to the arguments
for theism.
“To postulate a trillion trillion
other universes, rather than one God, in order to explain the orderliness of
our universe, seems the height of irrationality.” – Richard Swinburne, Is There a God?
I don't think it is irrational to accept the strong possibility of a multiverse, given the implication of it from inflationary cosmology, quantum mechanics and some experiments. For example, the multiverse gives us an explanation for the value of dark matter we've measured in our universe and the disappearance of energy produced by particle collisions made by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) whereby the missing energy may have escaped our universe into another.
ReplyDeleteBelieving in the Christian faith, considering all the flaws of its god, its holy text and is ethics and philosophy, and not to mention that much of the bible has clearly been refuted by history and archaeology, is much more irrational.
The laws of physics are independent of the universe
Maybe, maybe not. The laws of physics may be descriptive of the universe and not prescriptive. Such could be the case if eternalism is true. I'm certainly open to the possibility of brute facts. And if so, then yes it is impossible for our universe to not have had any other laws of physics, but that still leaves open the possibility that other universes have different laws. And besides, a timeless deity who knows everything cannot have any choice but to create our universe because any deliberation to create World X over World Y or vice versa would require time and indecision, which god cannot have prior to creating the universe. All of this, I think, among other things, renders the cosmological argument from contingency impotent, since a timeless god could never have decided to not create our universe, and our universe would not technically be contingent. In other words, if A exists necessarily, and if A exists, B necessarily exists, then B exists necessarily too, because there is no possible way that B could not exist.
Using the multi-verse to escape a designer is a logical fallacy
Remember, the multiverse was developed over 30 years ago independently of the fine tuning arguments. It can be used to address fine tuning yes, but you're still implying that it was concocted specifically to address fine tuning. And the multiverse need not be infinite, just very large.
1. Any "fine tuner" would have to be either indifferent, incompetent or totally cruel as I've shown on my blog and you haven't refuted. That's nothing close to a greatest conceivable being.
2. What you're doing is seeing an unlikely outcome and immediately assuming the game has been rigged. It may, it may not. We have to look at more than just the constants to see evidence of design, we have to take in the totality of the supposed "design" itself. And like I said, when doing so you are logically left with an indifferent, incompetent or totally cruel designer if you grant one.
Occam’s Razor
If one shouldn't posit an infinite number of universes, then why should one posit an infinite god who's traits contain logical contradictions? The multiverse may be infinite or not, but it need not be infinite. And it is certainly physically possible for there to be other universes.
The multi-verse also had a beginning
ReplyDeleteThis is not settled science. It may or may not be true. But to quote from Guth and Vilenkin (who are two of the world's loudest proponents of the multiverse) when it is convenient to you, I think is dishonest. You cut all their work on the multiverse, but somehow you love it when they talk about a beginning. This is confirmation bias. Time cannot be caused. So a multiverse doesn't "require" a cause.
Our universe would not be an isolated system
A multiverse might explain why gravity is so weak, and it might explain dark matter, and thus it could have explanatory power and not explanatory deficits.
Multi-verse of the gaps
There is evidence for the multiverse, just not physical evidence. If the universe provides an escape from the design hypothesis, god could have created a universe better fine tuned for life and where the multiverse would have a much harder time to be made by simply making the cosmological constant 0 or a negative number. Why would a designer purposely allow a multiverse? Oh right, we covered that already. You believe god may have created a multiverse to allow atheists an excuse. Sounds very ad-hoc to me.
Why is there something, rather than nothing?
This presumes nothing to be the ontological default. Rather, something is the default. At every point in time something exists. Nothing never existed. Besides, if you define 'nothing' as the total and complete non-existence of anything, then how could something that doesn't exist, exist? In other words, how can non-existence exist? If nothing somehow could exist, wouldn't it actually be something?
The multi-verse can substitute for religion
Except, it wouldn't be "you", it would be different atoms that look like you, but you would not be consciously aware of the other you. So no the multiverse is not a religion. It is not anything like the faith based beliefs theists have.
Your evil twin is wreaking havoc somewhere
It isn't any different from finding out you have an actual twin here on earth.
The multi-verse is best explained by God
Nothing is best explained by god because you can't even logically explain the incoherency of god. God is the laziest excuse for everything, not the best excuse. Every single thing that god has been used to explain has turned out to have a non-theistic, natural explanation. That's why more and more people have a zero percent confidence that theistic explanations will ever produce anything fruitful. Theism is not a basket I want to put any of my eggs into.
“I don't think it is irrational to accept the strong possibility of a multiverse, given the implication of it from inflationary cosmology, quantum mechanics and some experiments.”
DeleteThe premise is that it is irrational to posit an infinite number of universes to escape the evidence for a creator; not that the idea of a multi-verse is irrational.
“the multiverse gives us an explanation for the value of dark matter we've measured in our universe and the disappearance of energy produced by particle collisions made by the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) whereby the missing energy may have escaped our universe into another.”
I’ve never heard any of this before. Do you have anything I can read to learn up on it?
“a timeless deity who knows everything cannot have any choice but to create our universe because any deliberation to create World X over World Y or vice versa would require time and indecision, which god cannot have prior to creating the universe.”
A timeless deity that is omniscient does not need to deliberate on what the correct choice is, nor does an omnipotent God only have one option. I know you think the Christian God is illogical, but you haven’t made the effort to understand who God is. It won’t be difficult for you to disprove a god I don’t believe in.
“1. Any "fine That's nothing close to a greatest conceivable being. tuner" would have to be either indifferent, incompetent or totally cruel as I've shown on my blog and you haven't refuted.
2. What you're doing is seeing an unlikely outcome and immediately assuming the game has been rigged.
1). Red herring – suffering does nothing to show that God does not exist, which is what I said on your blog. You see no logical way that God is good; therefore, he does not exist. Your mind is made up that God is cruel. I disagree. To debate this would result in a Gish Gallop that I’m not interested in.
2). If the fine-tuning were the only evidence for a creator, I would agree.
“why should one posit an infinite god who's traits contain logical contradictions?”
God is the best explanation for the evidence. What logical contradictions?
“This is not settled science. It may or may not be true. But to quote from Guth and Vilenkin (who are two of the world's loudest proponents of the multiverse) when it is convenient to you, I think is dishonest.”
DeleteThe origin of the universe will never be settled science, even though a beginning is where the evidence points, because the beginning “smacks of divine intervention” as Hawking put it. We’ve already discussed this repeatedly….when there is evidence for a multi-verse, we can discuss the multi-verse. I’m simply saying it is not a sufficient counter-argument to the evidence for a creator. Also, to say I’m dishonest because I agree with something someone has said (which they claimed to “prove”), but don’t agree will everything they have said (un-proven) is ridiculous. On your blog, you mentioned being a fan of Hitchens. He was pro-life, supported the second war with Iraq, and voted for Bush…..are you going to emulate him in every way or are you dishonest?
“god could have created a universe better fine tuned for life and where the multiverse would have a much harder time to be made by simply making the cosmological constant 0 or a negative number.”
We’ve already discussed this. I can’t believe you are bringing up something (again) that has no relevance for a trillion years, which is long after the human race will be gone…..at least in our current form.
“Why would a designer purposely allow a multiverse? Oh right, we covered that already. You believe god may have created a multiverse to allow atheists an excuse. Sounds very ad-hoc to me.”
You keep assuming the multi-verse is a fact. Why? There’s no reason to do this! We don’t know one way or the other. I never said God created a multi-verse to give atheists an excuse. I never said God didn’t create a multi-verse. I said God will allow people to speculate on anything they want to get out of believing in him, which many atheists use the multi-verse for this very thing. Why are you continuously twisting my words?
“Every single thing that god has been used to explain has turned out to have a non-theistic, natural explanation.”
False. The origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, the mathematical nature of the universe, the rational nature of the universe, and consciousness are a few…..all best explained by a transcendent mind.
The premise is that it is irrational to posit an infinite number of universes to escape the evidence for a creator; not that the idea of a multi-verse is irrational.
ReplyDeleteSo the multiverse is only irrational if you’re using it for that reason and not any scientific reasons.
I’ve never heard any of this before. Do you have anything I can read to learn up on it?
Here’s a paper to check out. Unfortunately it is very technical: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1304.6407v3.pdf
A timeless deity that is omniscient does not need to deliberate on what the correct choice is, nor does an omnipotent God only have one option. I know you think the Christian God is illogical, but you haven’t made the effort to understand who God is. It won’t be difficult for you to disprove a god I don’t believe in.
Believe me I’ve made an effort to try and understand god, but every individual has got their own custom version it seems. If god knows everything and does not need to deliberate, then he must have just existed eternally with the will to create our universe, and no other universe could have been possible. And that would mean our universe was determined and wasn’t contingent. So to answer Einstein’s hypothetical question, “Did god have a choice to create the universe?” the answer is no. If I'm not addressing your customized god, then can you logically explain this under the rules of your god:
1. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?
2. And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?
1). Red herring – suffering does nothing to show that God does not exist, which is what I said on your blog. You see no logical way that God is good; therefore, he does not exist. Your mind is made up that God is cruel. I disagree. To debate this would result in a Gish Gallop that I’m not interested in.
Imagine if every non-theist just wasn’t “interested” in your arguments for god? Would you prefer that? I’d prefer it if you came up with a plausible theodicy to show how I'm wrong and make it as logical and evidential as possible. Simply asserting that suffering does not impinge on god’s existence is a cop out. Suffering in the world is important as to whether or not god exists because all the excuses theists have to explain why there exists suffering have been shown to be fallacious.
2). If the fine-tuning were the only evidence for a creator, I would agree.
I would agree with what you wrote that the fine tuning argument is the best argument for god. In my opinion, it is the only good argument for god. But we’ve got more than just the physical constants as I've said, we’ve got the whole history of the universe and millions of years of conscious suffering for no logically necessary reason that must somehow be compatible with a perfect, omnibenevolent deity who is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering.
God is the best explanation for the evidence. What logical contradictions?
Well, for starters you could try to seriously answer my two questions above. The most common response I get is the old, "God exists outside of time" assertion. Sure, it's easy to say, but press the person making this claim to demonstrate how it's even logically possible for a being to exist outside of time, yet somehow has a causal relationship with temporal events and what you often get is obfuscation and equivocation. And as per the ontological argument, every possible world must be compatible with god, so how is our world with its millions of years of conscious suffering for no logically necessary reason compatible with a perfect, omnibenevolent deity who is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering?
“So the multiverse is only irrational if you’re using it for that reason and not any scientific reasons.”
DeleteI don’t think the multi-verse by itself is an irrational idea. What I think is irrational is when people start saying it’s either God or the multi-verse; therefore, a cosmic slot machine exists and God does not. You seem to deny this happens, but I’ve seen dozens of articles, videos, etc saying that it’s either/or because of the fine-tuning problem.
“Believe me I’ve made an effort to try and understand god, but every individual has got their own custom version it seems.”
Fair enough.
“If god knows everything and does not need to deliberate, then he must have just existed eternally with the will to create our universe”
Ok
“and no other universe could have been possible.”
I don’t see how this follows. Why does the knowledge that our universe would be created mean it was the only possible universe God could have created?
“1. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?”
Uh….how would I know why God chose our universe vs another universe?
“2. And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?”
Simultaneous causation.
“Simply asserting that suffering does not impinge on god’s existence is a cop out. Suffering in the world is important as to whether or not god exists because all the excuses theists have to explain why there exists suffering have been shown to be fallacious.”
So if theists cannot answer the questions of suffering in enough of a “logical or evidential” way, then God does not exist? It’s an argument from ignorance….’I don’t understand how a good deity could create a world with suffering; therefore, it’s not true.’ Regardless of how fallacious you believe the range of answers are, whether suffering is from Adam, a fallen angel, or God set it up that way….the buck stops with God. He knew what would happen, that death & suffering would exist, and that there would extinction events. He also knew that he would suffer with us to demonstrate his love for us through the cross and show us that this life is not the end. The question is does he have a good reason for creating the universe/life the way he did? If the Christian God does exist, it follows logically that there is a good reason for suffering, even if emotionally it doesn’t feel that way and even if we do not know what that reason is. If atheism is true, death and suffering is nothing more than evolution weeding out the weak. Your longing for justice is an illusion, yet you consider the one who can provide that justice the illusion. What evolutionary purpose does longing for justice serve your DNA?
“Well, for starters you could try to seriously answer my two questions above.”
I’m sure I failed at this, but I don’t understand how those represent the core logical inconsistencies you see with God. Hopefully this next part is what you are really looking for?
“The most common response I get is the old, "God exists outside of time" assertion. Sure, it's easy to say, but press the person making this claim to demonstrate how it's even logically possible for a being to exist outside of time, yet somehow has a causal relationship with temporal events and what you often get is obfuscation and equivocation.”
There are differing views on this. Some believe God was timeless ‘prior’ to the creation of time and he ‘stepped’ into time at the moment of creation; others say he remains timeless after creation. This would also depend on how you view time; whether the past/present/future are objective realities or if the past/present/future are fixed and time is merely an illusion (commonly known as A or B-theory of time). I am of the opinion that ‘before’ time and after time are different ball games. God was timeless ‘prior’ to the creation of time, but I’m not sure how one could argue that God did not step into time at the creation of time (unless you are an extreme B-theorist).
“I don’t see how this follows. Why does the knowledge that our universe would be created mean it was the only possible universe God could have created?”
DeleteBecause the possibility of other universes existing means that god would have had to make a decision to choose what universe to create of all his possible options. Decision making requires a state of indecision and it requires time, two things a timeless, omniscient god cannot have.
“1. How does a timeless god who knows everything freely chose to create our world and not some other world?”
“Uh….how would I know why God chose our universe vs another universe?”
You completely missed the point. The challenge to you is not to figure out “why” god chose to create our universe, but “how” a timeless god who knows everything could choose any universe over any other. It is a how question, not a why question. I’m arguing it is logically impossible, and this one reason why I argue the god of classical theism is logically impossible.
“2. And how does god create time, if prior to time existing literally nothing can happen?”
Simultaneous causation.
Simultaneous causation has problems. Can you give any physical examples? The old ball resting on a pillow example that Kant gave isn’t practical. The ball was placed temporally prior. And also, if A can cause B simultaneously, then why can’t A cause B which causes C simultaneously? Then you can just add more and end up with an actual infinity. And you don’t have to add one after the other temporally because this is all in the same instant, like a ball resting on a pillow which is on another pillow ad infinitum. Thus simultaneous causality forces one to accept actual physical infinities are possible, which many theists want to avoid.
“So if theists cannot answer the questions of suffering in enough of a “logical or evidential” way, then God does not exist? It’s an argument from ignorance….’I don’t understand how a good deity could create a world with suffering; therefore, it’s not true.’”
It’s not an argument from ignorance. I’m arguing it is logically impossible, and all the theodicies given to explain suffering fail, thus until you can come up with a logical explanation, it holds that the god of classical theism is logically impossible. Saying “I can’t explain it” is a cop out. That can be used to weasel out of any logically contradictory assertion.
“Regardless of how fallacious you believe the range of answers are, whether suffering is from Adam, a fallen angel, or God set it up that way….the buck stops with God.”
Asserting your opinion is not evidence for god.
“He knew what would happen, that death & suffering would exist, and that there would extinction events.”
If god is sovereign over all things as classical theism suggests, then these things didn’t just “happen”, they are the direct result of god’s design and are thus caused by god. If you disagree, consider this:
(1) God (an omnipotent, omniscience, omni-benevolent being) exists.
(2) Natural evil exists.
(3) God is the creator and designer of the physical universe, including the laws that govern it.
(4) Natural disasters, and the evil they cause, are a direct byproduct of the laws that govern our universe.
Thus all these things must be implicit in god’s design, rendering god fully culpable for all the suffering endured in the universe.
“He also knew that he would suffer with us to demonstrate his love for us through the cross and show us that this life is not the end. The question is does he have a good reason for creating the universe/life the way he did? If the Christian God does exist, it follows logically that there is a good reason for suffering, even if emotionally it doesn’t feel that way and even if we do not know what that reason is.”
DeleteOh come on. This is the biggest unjustified logical leap ever. Saying “it follows logically that there is a good reason for suffering” is a totally baseless assertion that could be made to justify any inconsistency or dilemma of any religion since it involves no evidence. I can say, “if Scientology is true than it follows logically that there is a good reason for suffering.” The whole point is that the inexplicable suffering is detrimental evidence against your religion and deity. Saying something like “there’s a reason we just can't know” only works for kids, not those engaged in serious philosophical pursuits in ontology.
“If atheism is true, death and suffering is nothing more than evolution weeding out the weak.”
That would still be true if theism were true, only it would be an unnecessary process designed by god for no logically necessary reason that involved millions and millions of years of suffering, death and extinction because he “felt like it”. Is that any better? It’s even worse.
“Your longing for justice is an illusion, yet you consider the one who can provide that justice the illusion.”
I don’t see how you come to this conclusion. If this is the only life I have, it is in my best interests that I live in a civilized society. Whereas there is no justice under Christianity, since it is a religion that judges solely by what one thinks, not by what one does. So I can walk into a school and kill 30 teenagers and if I am a Christian when I die, I automatically go to heaven. And if my victims were non-Christians, they go to hell for eternity. Hooray for Christian justice!
“What evolutionary purpose does longing for justice serve your DNA?”
Well my DNA might live on in my children so it is in my best interest that we have a civil society for that to be possible. And even if I don’t have kids, I will live a much longer and a more pleasurable life in a civil society where technical and medical advances aid in human flourishing.
“I’m sure I failed at this, but I don’t understand how those represent the core logical inconsistencies you see with God. Hopefully this next part is what you are really looking for?”
These questions demonstrate that your deity is logically impossible. That’s why theists have such difficulty answering these kinds of questions.
“There are differing views on this. Some believe God was timeless ‘prior’ to the creation of time and he ‘stepped’ into time at the moment of creation; others say he remains timeless after creation….I am of the opinion that ‘before’ time and after time are different ball games. God was timeless ‘prior’ to the creation of time, but I’m not sure how one could argue that God did not step into time at the creation of time (unless you are an extreme B-theorist).”
Both of these views have problems. And neither of them aides in the answering of my questions.
The origin of the universe will never be settled science, even though a beginning is where the evidence points, because the beginning “smacks of divine intervention” as Hawking put it. We’ve already discussed this repeatedly….when there is evidence for a multi-verse, we can discuss the multi-verse. I’m simply saying it is not a sufficient counter-argument to the evidence for a creator. Also, to say I’m dishonest because I agree with something someone has said (which they claimed to “prove”), but don’t agree will everything they have said (un-proven) is ridiculous. On your blog, you mentioned being a fan of Hitchens. He was pro-life, supported the second war with Iraq, and voted for Bush…..are you going to emulate him in every way or are you dishonest?
ReplyDeleteWell again, the multiverse is not a magic pill to argue against god in totality, but it addresses the fine tuning argument quite well. We went over this already. The BGV theorem is a mathematical theorem and it assumes a classical spacetime and not a quantized spacetime, which means to accept it you must also accept an eternal block universe that never came into existence ontologically. The multiverse models are all mathematical too. It’s all math. Our universe certainly had a beginning, but when applied to the multiverse the BGV theorem has loop holes. And no I don’t support everything Hitchens supported, and it is not being dishonest to disagree with someone. It is when you cite from two scientists who are the biggest proponents of the multiverse and dismiss this claim as “irrational” when both the multiverse and the BGV theorem are purely mathematical.
We’ve already discussed this. I can’t believe you are bringing up something (again) that has no relevance for a trillion years, which is long after the human race will be gone…..at least in our current form.
If god wanted to falsify the multiverse for us he certainly could have easily done that.
You keep assuming the multi-verse is a fact. Why? There’s no reason to do this! We don’t know one way or the other. I never said God created a multi-verse to give atheists an excuse. I never said God didn’t create a multi-verse. I said God will allow people to speculate on anything they want to get out of believing in him, which many atheists use the multi-verse for this very thing. Why are you continuously twisting my words?
First, I at no time here claimed the multiverse was a fact, that's a twist of my words. I said it was a “strong possibility”. You said or implied that the god you believe in leaves it ambiguous to allow the atheist room for doubt. Is that not correct? If the multiverse gives the atheist room for doubt, then you’d have to believe that god designed our universe such that a multiverse could be derived when trying to explain its physics, since god could have designed it in such a way where it would be impossible to get other universes.
False. The origin of the universe, the fine-tuning of the universe, the origin of life, the mathematical nature of the universe, the rational nature of the universe, and consciousness are a few…..all best explained by a transcendent mind.
God is not a good explanation of any of these things, god is the laziest explanation. You still have yet to logically explain god’s contradictions, and so until then, god as an explanation is a non-starter. I’d like to see one science text book that offers us “God did it” as an explanation for any of these things. All of the things that we can sufficiently explain have natural explanations, not theistic ones. If you’re using god to plug in any area that is currently unknown, it is a foolish move. Your god will decrease in size like an old man with shrinkage. And as I wrote about, there is no evidence for free will and all the evidence for consciousness is that it is a product of our physical brains and it supports materialistic determinism.
I hope to write back soon, but I may not be able to get to it until next week. Have a nice weekend.
Delete“And as per the ontological argument, every possible world must be compatible with god, so how is our world with its millions of years of conscious suffering for no logically necessary reason compatible with a perfect, omnibenevolent deity who is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering?”
DeleteHow do you know there is no logical reason for suffering? “I don’t see a reason” is insufficient when comparing your logic to an omniscient creator. Yes, it feels bad and I don’t like it either, but that’s not a logical reason. Plus, where did you get the impression that an omnibenevolent deity is incapable of inflicting suffering? Certainly not the Bible, which claims that God is both good and inflicts suffering.
“The BGV theorem is a mathematical theorem and it assumes a classical spacetime and not a quantized spacetime, which means to accept it you must also accept an eternal block universe that never came into existence ontologically……Our universe certainly had a beginning, but when applied to the multiverse the BGV theorem has loop holes.”
“The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time.” – Vilenkin
“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value” – Vilenkin
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
Summary: The only condition for the BGV theorem is an average state of expansion. The only loophole is if time does not exist.
“If god wanted to falsify the multiverse for us he certainly could have easily done that.”
What would falsify the multi-verse?
“If the multiverse gives the atheist room for doubt, then you’d have to believe that god designed our universe such that a multiverse could be derived when trying to explain its physics”
God is not stopping anyone from putting in different constants into math equations. People are free to do this, have done it, and are finding that those constant variations don’t work for a life-permitting universe. This doesn’t stop them from treating the multi-verse like a cosmic slot machine.
“god could have designed it in such a way where it would be impossible to get other universes.”
It’s likely that our universe is the only viable life-permitting universe out of the 10^500 possible universes with different parameters. That isn’t enough??
“God is not a good explanation of any of these things, god is the laziest explanation.”
Yes, Isaac Newton was quite lazy when he discovered gravity and gave the glory to God.
“there is no evidence for free will and all the evidence for consciousness is that it is a product of our physical brains and it supports materialistic determinism.”
Michio Kaku disagrees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM
“How do you know there is no logical reason for suffering? “I don’t see a reason” is insufficient when comparing your logic to an omniscient creator. Yes, it feels bad and I don’t like it either, but that’s not a logical reason. Plus, where did you get the impression that an omnibenevolent deity is incapable of inflicting suffering? Certainly not the Bible, which claims that God is both good and inflicts suffering.”
DeleteBecause I’ve heard all the reasons given and I’ve demonstrated them to be fallacious and illogical. What possible reason could there be for millions and millions of years of suffering before humans even evolved? There must be a logically necessary reason for this for your god to have a chance at existing, but as I said, all the explanations are so bad they warrant laughter, and even some theists call out how bad they are. And I said an omnibenevolent deity is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering. Big difference.
“The question of whether or not the universe had a beginning assumes a classical spacetime, in which the notions of time and causality can be defined. On very small time and length scales, quantum fluctuations in the structure of spacetime could be so large that these classical concepts become totally inapplicable. Then we do not really have a language to describe what is happening, because all our physics concepts are deeply rooted in the concepts of space and time.” – Vilenkin
“A remarkable thing about this theorem is its sweeping generality. . . . We did not even assume that gravity is described by Einstein’s equations. So, if Einstein’s gravity requires some modification, our conclusion will still hold. The only assumption that we made was that the expansion rate of the universe never gets below some nonzero value” – Vilenkin
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/honesty-transparency-full-disclosure-and-bgv-theorem
“Summary: The only condition for the BGV theorem is an average state of expansion. The only loophole is if time does not exist.”
On that same letter to Lawrence Krauss Vilenkin says, “On the other hand, Jaume Garriga and I are now exploring a picture of the multiverse where the BGV theorem may not apply. In bubbles of negative vacuum energy, expansion is followed by cocntraction, and it is usually assumed that this ends in a big crunch singularity. However, it is conceivable (and many people think likely) that singularities will be resolved in the theory of quantum gravity, so the internal collapse of the bubbles will be followed by an expansion. In this scenario, a typical worldline will go through a succession of expanding and contracting regions, and it is not at all clear that the BGV assumption (expansion on average) will be satisfied.”
I’m just saying the BVG theorem is not a knock-down argument. There are plenty of other rival theories out there that offer loopholes to the BVG theorem hat Vilenkin himself is exploring as well as others such as Loop Quantum Gravity and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, to name a few.
“What would falsify the multi-verse?”
God could have created a geocentric universe where everything revolves around the earth and that is less than 10,000 years old and not the result of a big bang but something else entirely different where any science describing it wouldn’t be able to infer other universes.
“God is not stopping anyone from putting in different constants into math equations. People are free to do this, have done it, and are finding that those constant variations don’t work for a life-permitting universe. This doesn’t stop them from treating the multi-verse like a cosmic slot machine.”
There are other constants that actually make it better for life to flourish as I’ve written about, but if there are many other universes, the chance hypothesis certainly becomes a plausible alternative to “god did it.”
“It’s likely that our universe is the only viable life-permitting universe out of the 10^500 possible universes with different parameters. That isn’t enough??”
DeleteWe’re not sure about that, but it’s like saying that the earth is just the right distance from the sun, and therefore the only one with life in it.
“Yes, Isaac Newton was quite lazy when he discovered gravity and gave the glory to God.”
Newton is a great example to further enforce my point. When Newton reached the edge of his knowledge what did he do? He invoked the divine. He said god pushed the irregular orbits of the planets to correct them. Then we get LaPlace who solved the irregular orbits with science, not faith, and Newton’s faith based beliefs were falsified, as has been done every time our scientific knowledge advances and closes a gap. So yes Newton was lazy, and unfortunately wasted most of his time of alchemy.
Watch Neil deGrasse Tyson expound on this on this video here: Neil deGrasse Tyson on Intelligent Design
“there is no evidence for free will and all the evidence for consciousness is that it is a product of our physical brains and it supports materialistic determinism.”
Michio Kaku disagrees. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMNZQVyabiM
I love Michio Kaku, but he’s just wrong here. You can’t get free will from quantum indeterminacy, because then “free will” becomes nothing more than random quantum probabilities that are predictable within quantum calculations. Hardly free. And also he makes no mention of the 30+ years of neuroscience data that shows our brains make our decisions before we become consciously aware of them.
“Decision making requires a state of indecision and it requires time, two things a timeless, omniscient god cannot have.”
DeleteDecision making for humans requires time; not God. God is not indecisive while weighing all of the possible options. God doesn’t weight options. He does not need time to think and doesn’t process information the way we do. Has full knowledge of all options including which option will be used. We are made in the image of God; that does not mean that God is a ‘superhuman’ version of us.
“Simultaneous causation has problems. Can you give any physical examples?”
Other than the beginning of time, not that I know of. The beginning of time requires simultaneous causation.
“I’m arguing it is logically impossible”
But you haven’t shown it’s logically impossible, just that you don’t accept any of the explanations given by theists or know the answer. That’s not the same as showing it’s logically impossible.
“Saying “I can’t explain it” is a cop out.”
I could come up with possible logical explanations for why something may or may not have happened. It could be that in a world of suffering, his love for us as demonstrated on the cross would appear more meaningful to us. It could be this was the best way to cause the maximum number of people to freely choose to be in a saving relationship with God. It could be this is the best way to separate those who want to be with him vs those who do not. I can’t prove any reason I give nor will it satisfy the emotional reaction to suffering, which is why I prefer to say that I don’t know. I don’t have full knowledge of every situation or how things will play out if God had created a different world instead. I don’t have all of the answers. Does that mean there is no answer? It could be that one day we will have the answers and understand why and be both logically and emotionally satisfied.
“Thus all these things must be implicit in god’s design, rendering god fully culpable for all the suffering endured in the universe.”
In some ways, I agree with this. We are also culpable for how we respond to suffering.
“The whole point is that the inexplicable suffering is detrimental evidence against your religion and deity.”
Suffering is quite compatible with Christianity, yet you still have not shown how suffering shows there is no creator. You still have not shown that a logical explanation is impossible with any creator. My argument from the beginning was that suffering says nothing about a creator. What it does call into question is whether or not this creator is good.
“If this is the only life I have, it is in my best interests that I live in a civilized society.”
It’s also best to kill off the weaker people in your society so they do not drain the resources. On what evolutionary basis do you claim killing weak or disabled people is wrong?
“Whereas there is no justice under Christianity, since it is a religion that judges solely by what one thinks, not by what one does. So I can walk into a school and kill 30 teenagers and if I am a Christian when I die, I automatically go to heaven. And if my victims were non-Christians, they go to hell for eternity. Hooray for Christian justice!”
Have you read the Bible? This statement is contrary what Christ said. A person who goes into a school and shoots people is actively disobeying Christ’s commands, not following what he said. Jesus said there would be many who called themselves Christians, but he doesn’t know them and they will not go to heaven. We are to do what he commanded, not just say “I believe”. Belief is not enough; our faith must be demonstrated through our actions. James said that faith without actions is dead.
“These questions demonstrate that your deity is logically impossible. That’s why theists have such difficulty answering these kinds of questions.”
DeleteYour questions did not make a lot of sense, which is why I had a hard time answering.
“Because I’ve heard all the reasons given and I’ve demonstrated them to be fallacious and illogical.”
You’ve demonstrated that you don’t like whatever reasons they gave. You have not demonstrated that “an omnibenevolent deity is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering”. Just because you do not understand what that reason could be does not mean there isn’t a reason.
“I’m just saying the BVG theorem is not a knock-down argument. There are plenty of other rival theories out there that offer loopholes to the BVG theorem hat Vilenkin himself is exploring as well as others such as Loop Quantum Gravity and Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, to name a few.”
Yes, trying to falsify a theory is part of increasing the likelihood that theory is true. Vilenkin has also shown why many rival theories fail.
“God could have created a geocentric universe where everything revolves around the earth and that is less than 10,000 years old and not the result of a big bang but something else entirely different where any science describing it wouldn’t be able to infer other universes.”
We didn’t discover that the Earth was not the center of the universe until the 1600’s. I guess there were no atheists then.
“I love Michio Kaku, but he’s just wrong here.”
Are you determined to view Michio Kaku’s belief in free will as wrong?
”Decision making for humans requires time; not God.”
DeleteHow is that logically possible?
”God is not indecisive while weighing all of the possible options.”
Did god know ahead of time what option he would “choose”?
”He does not need time to think and doesn’t process information the way we do.”
Easy to assert, not easy to back up and explain. You’re not even trying.
” We are made in the image of God;”
You mean jealous, territorial, egomaniacal, sexist, homophobic, easily prone to temper tantrums, racist and vindictive?
”that does not mean that God is a ‘superhuman’ version of us.”
God appears exactly like a superhuman version of us, made in our image.
Other than the beginning of time, not that I know of. The beginning of time requires simultaneous causation.
The origin of time is not really an example, since you cannot demonstrate that it needs a cause. And if simultaneous causality exists, do you accept all the problems I mentioned with it? And if not, how do you avoid them?
”But you haven’t shown it’s logically impossible,”
Do you accept that the existence of a morally perfect god cannot have created or inflicted gratuitous suffering, in that the two are incompatible? If yes, why? If no, how do you explain all non-human suffering? And what theodicy do you think is the most plausible/most logical? Apparently there exists an answer according to you. I’d love to hear it.
”It could be that in a world of suffering, his love for us as demonstrated on the cross would appear more meaningful to us”
Then what about the billions of people who lived before Jesus’ time? And what about the billions who lived after who never heard of it? And what about the trillions of animals whose suffering existed while completely ignorant of Jesus’ alleged 6 hours or so on the cross?
”It could be this was the best way to cause the maximum number of people to freely choose to be in a saving relationship with God.”
Really? You mean better evidence wouldn’t have helped that cause? Or perhaps preventing Islam from starting by making Mohammad never born? Or perhaps using a better system of spreading the gospel than European colonization? Plus it’s this existence of suffering that causes so many to turn away from religion, not join it. So I don’t find this answer remotely plausible.
”I don’t have all of the answers. Does that mean there is no answer? It could be that one day we will have the answers and understand why and be both logically and emotionally satisfied.”
Well we have our brains which can be logical, and if no plausible answer exists, and if it doesn’t seem answerable, why should anyone believe Christianity on faith when the whole thing is illogical without an explanation?
”We are also culpable for how we respond to suffering.”
How can that be so when millions of people are born psychopaths, sociopaths and mentally ill? That must be implicit in god’s design too. How can you be judged on your empathy and compassion if millions of people are born physiologically incapable of it? Yet another reason the whole Christian story makes little sense.
”Suffering is quite compatible with Christianity, yet you still have not shown how suffering shows there is no creator.”
Indeed Christianity in a way fetishizes suffering as a good thing because it is said, that brings people closer to god. But it also turns people away from god. I’m saying that gratuitous suffering is incompatible with a perfect creator, please acknowledge this distinction. So I ask you, what was the logically necessary reason why suffering existed for millions of years before humans even evolved? In order to show that a morally perfect god exists, you must explain this.
”On what evolutionary basis do you claim killing weak or disabled people is wrong?”
DeleteFirst of all, evolution is not the sole basis of secular morality, there is also a philosophical aspect. But since you asked, social animals have been observed caring for the sick, so there actually is an evolutionary basis for this.
”Belief is not enough; our faith must be demonstrated through our actions. James said that faith without actions is dead.”
The truth is that the Bible contradicts itself here, saying both faith (Gal 2:16) and faith+works (Mt 19:17; James 2:24) will lead to being saved (See here for more examples). What if I kill 30 people and then convert later? What if Adolph Hitler converted the day before he died? The Bible says the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy so I suppose such scenarios are possible.
”Your questions did not make a lot of sense, which is why I had a hard time answering.”
Really? I think they’re simple and straightforward, but very hard to answer. You seem unable to answer them.
”You have not demonstrated that “an omnibenevolent deity is incapable of inflicting gratuitous suffering”.”
Do you honestly think that omnibenevolence is compatible with gratuitous suffering? If so, please justify.
”Vilenkin has also shown why many rival theories fail.”
True, but that is based on an assumption, and there are also many theories that he has not falsified.
”We didn’t discover that the Earth was not the center of the universe until the 1600’s. I guess there were no atheists then.”
My point was that science could have confirmed the biblical account of creation –if— god exists and created it that way. I’d accept Christianity if this had happened.
”Are you determined to view Michio Kaku’s belief in free will as wrong?”
Yes. Just like you’re determined to believe it’s right.
As predicted, the Gish Gallop
Deleteis in full force. You would be more effective in your meaningless quest to convert the world to ‘nothing’ if your tone were less argumentative and condescending. It reveals that your mind and heart are closed and is not an effective apologetic for ‘nothing’. When you write like a typical angry atheist, you are justifying the Christian’s presupposition that you have freely chosen to reject God as it says in Romans. You are a shining example of Biblical consistency, so thanks for boosting my faith!
I’ve already answered a lot of these questions, but it seems you’ve missed the answers, so I guess I should slow down a bit and answer one question at a time.
”Decision making for humans requires time; not God.”
“How is that logically possible?”
I already answered this. “God doesn’t weight options. He does not need time to think and doesn’t process information the way we do. Has full knowledge of all options including which option will be used. “ In other words, God does not have a process of decision making.
Instead of a comprehensive refutation of my arguments, you've decided to resort to name calling and childish humor. First of all, atheism is not converting the world to nothing. If you think that you don't understand the very thing you spend so much time trying to refute. Second of all, don't give me that nonsense in Romans. I reject god because there's no evidence for him, and there's very good evidence against him, that's what we're trying to argue here.
DeleteYou are a shining example of Biblical consistency, so thanks for boosting my faith!
If Biblical consistency is a measure of your faith then you must be insane. The Bible is consistent only at being inconsistent. Besides, you're deep down probably a presuppositionalist at heart, who uses confirmation bias to support what you already believe on faith. Thank you for confirming what I've always known about Christians: when they can't win arguments on their merits or on evidence they resort to name calling, hand waving, and presupposed assertions.
Case in point:
”Decision making for humans requires time; not God.”
Am I supposed to just take your word for it, on authority, when you can't even logically explain this?
“God doesn’t weight options. He does not need time to think and doesn’t process information the way we do. Has full knowledge of all options including which option will be used. “ In other words, God does not have a process of decision making.
If god has full knowledge of what option would be used, then he eternally knew he would create our universe and not any other, and no other universe could have been possible because of this. This means that god didn't have a choice in creating the universe, as Einstein once asked. It's like "knowing" you will turn left at the upcoming intersection and not right; turning right is never a possibility. So why does god exist timelessly with the knowledge he will create our universe and not any other? Is there a logically necessary answer, or is it "just because"? If there is a logically necessary answer, what is it? Why couldn't god exist with the intention to create no universe or one that is even just slightly different than ours? It seems the theist will at least have to consider that the answer might be a brute fact.
I don't think you've really entertained the logical conclusions that this concept of god entails.
“2.) Did god know ahead of time what option he would “choose”?”
DeleteI answered this too. Yes, God knew the outcome.
Let's be honest, you're incapable of seriously debating me. When you run out of rebuttals you seem to just assert your dogma in the same way presuppositionalists do. If god knew the outcome then he had no choice in creating the universe and it couldn't have been otherwise. Looks like I will have to find another theist to debate.
DeleteI enjoy good, reasonable discussions. I enjoy having my views challenged and being forced to look at things in a new way. That’s why I started debating atheists online, since this is not something I get from my day-to-day peer group. I have found having this type of discussion difficult with you because your tone is argumentative, condescending, and you ignore my answers. You’ve also taken my honest answer of “I don’t know” as the equivalent of “there is no answer”, which seems like a double standard. The reality is we don’t know much about time at all, nor do we know much about gravity, matter, energy, etc. We have some descriptive knowledge, but not a full understanding. Our lack of knowledge far exceeds our knowledge. We are gaining more and more knowledge all the time, but if the best minds don’t understand time, how am I to fully understand the creator of time?
DeleteI acknowledge that I have presuppositions. Oddly enough, one of your presuppositions is that you are determined to believe what you do, which is independent of the truth. I hope you can find a more capable theist to debate. When you do, please let me know so I can learn from them.
Zealot, I don't mean to come off as the angry atheist. I was carrying on multiple simultaneous debates, including one with a fundamentalist, who always get me riled up, so it's possible that anger carried over here and I may have came off to militant-y. I'm sorry if I did so.
DeleteI don't know is a perfectly reasonable answer if you don't know. There are a lot of things I don't know. But if the theist is justified in answering "I don't know," then so is the atheist. I suppose it is all about a probability argument over whether the argument has force and is likely true given that there is no answer opposing it. It is my position that it is more likely true that the issue of time makes the god of classical theism incoherent. Of course you disagree.
No prob, enjoy your weekend too!
ReplyDelete