Thought Experiment

[Kamehameha34]

For this thread:

God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe

We - The universe we reside in


For this experiment, let's assume that our universe was caused by an infinite regress. That means that it was caused by an ever-lasting chain of causes and effects.

This implies that there were an infinite amount of causes, prior to the creation of our universe.

Is it possible that one of those causes was a being setting into motion a chain of events that would create our universe?

I'm trying to explain this as well as I can, and I know I'm not doing it very eloquently, so I'll try to simplify it:

There were an infinite amount of possibilities for a "god" to step into the infinite regress that caused our universe to be born. Given an infinite amount of possibilities, does that mean that there is a sure chance we were created by a "god"?

Of course, none of this applies if you subscribe to acausality.

I'm not pushing this as an argument for theism - I just want to see some reactions to this idea I've been playing with.

[another day]

It is possible in the sense of a scientist in a labotory creating the universe from existing materials/knowledge etc. The idea that our universe is a sort of petri dish. However I do not subscribe to this notion for the simple fact that is does not really make sense and has no reasonable rationale behind it. Everything we have seen shows us that conscious, intelligent minds are a product of the universe, a focused outlet of the greater core of life, and not the other way around.

[Kamehameha34]

Could it be possible that we are the by-product of something in another universe?

[Fonceai]

Your opening post is contradictory in and of itself.

God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe

let's assume that our universe was caused by an infinite regress. That means that it was caused by an ever-lasting chain of causes and effects.

You can't have the former and the latter. It's either-or.

Is it possible that one of those causes was a being setting into motion a chain of events that would create our universe?

If our universe was caused by one being, then there are not an infinite series of causes; only one cause.

You want to establish that "God" means "that which intended to create this universe and did so".

But then you imply the universe is emergent.

[Jack]

I thought I was the only one confused by that.

[Kamehameha34]

If our universe was caused by one being, then there are not an infinite series of causes; only one cause. You want to establish that "God" means "that which intended to create this universe and did so". But then you imply the universe is emergent.

I'm not necessarily looking at said being as the "only" cause for the universe. I'm talking about a being that realized, with its concurrent effort, that it would create a universe.

It's like a gun being fired:

One can say that the cause is the gun powder, or the bullet, or the pressure inside the gun. None of that means anything unless someone pulls the trigger, though.

You can't have the former and the latter. It's either-or.

A being's power doesn't have to be static. It can be one moment of potence that decides the creation of our universe.

For example, let's say that a student comes to the realization that if he flexes his little pinky, he will set into motion a chain of events that would create a universe. He may not be inherently potent, but it's only that one moment of potence that proves consequential.

If you accept that our universe was the result of an infinite regress, then you have to accept that however small the possibility of a being creating our universe - it becomes a certainty when amplified by infinity trials.

[Captain Chaos]

This is another form of the idea of infinite emergence - thank you, Kame. Further exploration of this concept would be most useful.

The mathematics of infinity can produce a number of bizarre conclusions.


We have to look to what we know of physics, to determine if godhood is possible. That is the central question. Can the outer reality from which our reality was born support super intelligences? Is the deliberate manipulation of the parameters of a universe possible?

I have yet to figure out how to test these questions. If the answer to these questions is 'yes', then Kame's position will be pretty strong.

[Fonceai]

What position?

The opening post is back-ass-wards.

He wants us to accept, as premises, contradictory terms.

@Kame

Your explanation didn't clarify anything.

You want premises to be contradictions. Any discussion in this thread based on that kind of nonsense is only going to be mindless bickering and terribly circular.

I'm sure there will be those here willing to jump at another "God or Science" thread. Too bad they won't see the blazing problems with the opening post.

[Kamehameha34]

You said there was a contradiction, and didn't explain how. I clarified the best I could, seeing as you didn't provide anything for me to correct.

[Captain Chaos]

I do not see that it is necessarily contradictory.

Think of an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect. Could there be a god as part of that chain? Such a concept does not assume that a god of that sort would have existed forever, or that it would not have had a natural origin.

[Kamehameha34]

I just thought of an excellent way to conceptualize it:

Picture an infinitely long chain of dominos.

The end domino would be the creation of our universe.

With each domino that falls over, the falling constitutes the effect of the previous domino falling over, and the cause for the next domino falling over.

In this chain, what is the probability that just one of the links is a god, that had the intention of continuing the chain of events?

Here's an equation for that probability, courtesy of Cappy:

1-((1-p)^n)

Where "n" equals the number of trials, and "p" equals the probability of a certain event.

Given - n = infinity.

If "1> p > 0", then the odds of our universe not being created by a god are infinitessimally small.

If "p = 1", then the odds of our universe not being created by a god are zilch.

[Fonceai]

Quote by: CC I do not see that it is necessarily contradictory. Think of an infinitely regressing chain of cause and effect. Could there be a god as part of that chain? Such a concept does not assume that a god of that sort would have existed forever, or that it would not have had a natural origin.

Hooray for creating an immensely restrictive definition in order to start another useless thread.

Given an infinite series of events, there could be anything in there that caused the universe.

Here's the rub... it's not an infinite series of events.

If we are making the creation of the universe as one of the events, then there is a finite number of events before it.

There always needs to be a primary cause, a Patient Zero, that started the series.

Causes don't have causes before them forever.

[Jack]

In this chain, what is the probability that just one of the links is a god, that had the intention of continuing the chain of events?

Using your domino theory, none. The only significant event was the tipping of the first domino. All the rest fell in reaction to the actions of the domino before it in line. It is not volitional. The only cause for each subsequent falling domino is the fact that the one before it fell. So unless a god caused the first domino to fall, there is no need to suppose any godly action in tipping any of the rest of them.

[Fonceai]

Exactly.

You never look at the middle domino and say "that one caused the next one to fall".

You always look for that first domino.

If that first domino isn't a being of some kind, then a being didn't create the universe.

[Jack]

God - A being that had the intention and ability to create our universe

There's no reason to think this god has done anything. Intent and ability don't get things done. I have the intent and ability to write a great novel. Am I a great novelist? Not until I actually write the damn thing (which is beginning to look like it will never happen :()
Unless god is the first cause and unless he/she/it actually did create everything out of nothing, that god is irrelevant.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Fonceai If we are making the creation of the universe as one of the events, then there is a finite number of events before it. There always needs to be a primary cause, a Patient Zero, that started the series. Causes don't have causes before them forever.

No way.

This means you believe in something coming from nothing. Explain to me how that works.

[Jack]

Is a singularity something or nothing? Just curious how others see that.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Using your domino theory, none. The only significant event was the tipping of the first domino. All the rest fell in reaction to the actions of the domino before it in line. It is not volitional. The only cause for each subsequent falling domino is the fact that the one before it fell. So unless a god caused the first domino to fall, there is no need to suppose any godly action in tipping any of the rest of them.

1) Assuming a first domino means you believe that domino came from nothing. Infinite regression is far more believable than something coming from nothing.

2) There is also no reason to suppose that a god was impossible. Given an infinite number of dominoes, why would a god not emerge as part of that chain of dominoes?

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Is a singularity something or nothing? Just curious how others see that.

A singularity is still time T=0

M=theory avoids a singularity with an infinite regression of universes, and of the Bulk. There is nothing counter intuitive about infinite regression. Getting something from nothing is counter intuitive, and counter to our basic laws of physics.

[Captain Chaos]

Quote by: Isherwood Unless god is the first cause and unless he/she/it actually did create everything out of nothing, that god is irrelevant.

So, if the god created our reality by manipulating existing energy, you would still consider it irrelevant?