Just wondering about God and the size of the Universe

[DavidSupreme]

No, I don't wish to derail this thread any further than it already has been. You can address it in that thread if you want.

To bad, you would have been the only theist in the history of the world providing evidence for their god(s)... And you don't care, interesting, alot of talk, no action.

You go ahead and talk about the Universe my dear sir, I wouldn't want to "derail you".

[arX]

By what standard is it logical to conclude that there exists an intelligent "acausal cause" without explaining the source for such intelligence that specifically fine-tunes a world designed for "human-like" species?

Abductive reasoning, meaning inference to best explanation.

I find this to be a very unsatisfactory answer.

Your non-explanation for the source of such an intelligent deity makes the assumption more logically ridiculous than that of an uncaused cosmos.

It's unwarranted to just assume that your deity is immune to the regress, especially one with the intelligent properties that you attribute: the creativity of design as well as both omnipotence and omniscience (to say nothing of the mutual incompatibility of the two).

It's also futile to invoke creative gods in addressing the idea of infinite regress specifically when your argument depends on our scientific knowledge on such 'beginnings' that is currently significantly limited.

Regarding this limited knowledge, it's interesting that you appeal to the far less evidence-based cosmological science but reject the far more evidence-based biological theories of evolution as it contradicts your ideology for creationism based upon your agenda to find an objective reason to exist.

This makes your agenda to not be based on realistic truth but on trying to confirm these fantasies no matter what. Hence why you're "unapologetically unconcerned with being wrong". In other words, intellectually dishonest.

[Peter]

The universe has to be this size because of the characteristics of the big bang necessary to produce the right elements in the right mixture - not too heavy, not too light. Too heavy and the universe immediately collapses, too light and nothing interesting happens - energy remains diffuse and incoherent. If the big bang lasts too long or is too short - same or other problems that produce short-lived or uninteresting universes.

The way the big bang occurred, and the sequences of element generation and redistribution that happened afterward as first generation stars produced 2nd generation elements - and how long it took - defines how large the universe must be in order for a planet in a habitable zone of a galaxy to produce life because of how long the universe had to be expanding, and how quickly, from those necessary initial conditions.

Whoa, are you saying that an omnipotent god was forced by physics to make the universe so huge? He really couldn't magic just the solar system into existence?? Not much of a god then.

To say the universe is specially designed for us is just as silly as the lone airplane crash survivor saying the crash was specially designed for them. IOW, just because we're here doesn't mean it wasn't chance.

[Meleagar]

Whoa, are you saying that an omnipotent god was forced by physics to make the universe so huge? He really couldn't magic just the solar system into existence?? Not much of a god then.

I don't think anyone here has claimed that god works via magic. As I have repeatedly said, omnipotence only means one can do whatever can be done. If one is going to create a law-driven universe that is rationally accessible to intelligent creatures, then things happening "by magic" is hardly conducive to such a system, and there are necessary constraints imposed by the laws being used to govern the system and produce the desired goal.

To say the universe is specially designed for us is just as silly as the lone airplane crash survivor saying the crash was specially designed for them. IOW, just because we're here doesn't mean it wasn't chance.

Unless you can show that our being here is acceptably predicted as a viable possibility according to a statistical analysis, saying that we are here "by chance" is no different than saying we are here "by magic". It's not an explanation unless one shows that it falls within reasonable chance possibility.

[Meleagar]

I find this to be a very unsatisfactory answer.

It's used quite often in many fields where we are attempting to conclude a "best explanation" for something that we have no direct access to observation, particularly things that occurred in the deep past.

Your non-explanation for the source of such an intelligent deity makes the assumption more logically ridiculous than that of an uncaused cosmos.

Not really. For example, do you challenge that the theory of gravity is "logically ridiculous" because it doesn't explain where gravity "came from"? What about theories that describe the effects of entropy or time, when such theories do not describe how such forces originated? Where did dark energy "come from"? Where did the singularity of the big bang "come from"? Where did molecular affinities "come from"? Why should protons and electrons have the charge they have?

Intelligence is an empirical commodity; it is no more an unfounded assumption that an intelligent entity generated a finely-tuned product from "outside" the universe, than it is an assumption that "chance" exists outside of that universe in the form of a universe-spitting machine that generates virtually limiltess universes. Or that there is such a universe-spitting machine. Where did it come from? Where did "chance" come from?

You are being selectively hyperskeptical about the theory that an intelligence could have created the universe.

Another piece of evidence that indicates that an intelligence ordered the creation of the universe is the problem of entropy; entropy is the loss of energy that can serve a functionble purpose; it is the loss of order. If the universe has been disorganizing via entropy for 15 billion years, that means that the coherent energy and order at the point of the big bang was extreme. Do you really think that it is logical to think that a random fluctuation of energy should produce such extreme order and energy coherence that, after 15 billion years of degradation, we still see the extreme energy coherence and functionality we observe in the universe today?

It's unwarranted to just assume that your deity is immune to the regress,

It's not an assumption; it's a logically necessary premise.

especially one with the intelligent properties that you attribute: the creativity of design as well as both omnipotence and omniscience (to say nothing of the mutual incompatibility of the two).

Omnipotence (as being capable of aything that can be done) and omniscience (knowing anything that can be known) are not mutually incompatible, as long as they both obey consistent principles of logic.

It's also futile to invoke creative gods in addressing the idea of infinite regress specifically when your argument depends on our scientific knowledge on such 'beginnings' that is currently significantly limited.

This is an argument from ignorance. We go with the best knowledge we have available.

Regarding this limited knowledge, it's interesting that you appeal to the far less evidence-based cosmological science but reject the far more evidence-based biological theories of evolution as it contradicts your ideology for creationism based upon your agenda to find an objective reason to exist.

What theories of evolution have I rejected, and where?

This makes your agenda to not be based on realistic truth but on trying to confirm these fantasies no matter what. Hence why you're "unapologetically unconcerned with being wrong". In other words, intellectually dishonest.

Inventing motivations and agendas for others so that you can call them "intellectually dishonest" isn't much of an argument.

[arX]

Not really. For example, do you challenge that the theory of gravity is "logically ridiculous" because it doesn't explain where gravity "came from"? What about theories that describe the effects of entropy or time, when such theories do not describe how such forces originated? Where did dark energy "come from"? Where did the singularity of the big bang "come from"? Where did molecular affinities "come from"? Why should protons and electrons have the charge they have?

Not at all since there's substantial scientific evidence (in some cases proof) for the existence of such phenomena without necessarily needing to know their source or where they "came from".

Your god hypothesis, however in the context of such physics, is wholly dependent on the idea of regress - 'Prime Mover', 'Uncaused Cause', 'Fine-Tuning'.

There is no scientific evidence for god as there is for the other phenomena you've badly analogised with.

Intelligence is an empirical commodity; it is no more an unfounded assumption that an intelligent entity generated a finely-tuned product from "outside" the universe, than it is an assumption that "chance" exists outside of that universe in the form of a universe-spitting machine that generates virtually limiltess universes. Or that there is such a universe-spitting machine. Where did it come from? Where did "chance" come from?

Exactly. Terminating a regress with mere philosophy (whether physical or theological) is not at all an adequate explanation. I await scientific evidence, if it occurs in my lifetime, before I go on to stand behind a plausible scientific theory that can address the regress. If there's one at all.

You are being selectively hyperskeptical

This means next to toss all to me. It seems like a made-up theological term.

Another piece of evidence that indicates that an intelligence ordered the creation of the universe is the problem of entropy; entropy is the loss of energy that can serve a functionble purpose; it is the loss of order. If the universe has been disorganizing via entropy for 15 billion years, that means that the coherent energy and order at the point of the big bang was extreme. Do you really think that it is logical to think that a random fluctuation of energy should produce such extreme order and energy coherence that, after 15 billion years of degradation, we still see the extreme energy coherence and functionality we observe in the universe today?

First of all, it's not evidence but an argument at best. You're trivialising the term by labelling mere ideas as evidence. Secondly, yes, it's far more logical than to invoke an intelligent creator. That is nothing to say of the fact, again, that we know next to nothing regarding such 'beginnings'.

Science is superior to philosophy; if and when the science is in regarding the period in question, I will then be able to argue these points. Until then, I will not stoop down to extreme pretension. Or 'hyperpretension', if you prefer.

[DavidSupreme]

entropy is the loss of energy that can serve a functionble purpose; it is the loss of order. If the universe has been disorganizing via entropy for 15 billion years,

The first thought in my mind was "Kent Hovind" and I stopped reading when you said Entropy, as I realized you would have no idea of what it is or mean. Then I gave it a chance and read the whole thing.... And was I right or what?

Entropy is "the loss of order"? Yes, if you explain Entropy to a kindergarten class, but if you go and actually study it you realize that this simplification actually is a negative one as it makes you misunderstand the concept of Entropy.

And no, I wont even take the time to explain it to you, what is the point when you do not want to learn.

[Meleagar]

Not at all since there's substantial scientific evidence (in some cases proof) for the existence of such phenomena without necessarily needing to know their source or where they "came from".

Are you saying there is no evidence that intelligence exists, and that it doesn't deliberately fine-tune products in order to achieve a goal? Have you never met a human?

Your god hypothesis, however in the context of such physics, is wholly dependent on the idea of regress - 'Prime Mover', 'Uncaused Cause', 'Fine-Tuning'.

Not any more so than the hypothesizing that chance - or anything else known to exist - might be responsible for generating the universe.

There is no scientific evidence for god as there is for the other phenomena you've badly analogised with.

Of course there is. I presented it in my thread about atheism. In any event, in this thread, my argument wasn't that there was evidence of god, but rather that we know intelligence exists as surely as we know entropy, chance, gravity, etc. exists, and we know for a fact it can deliberately fine-tune a product to achieve a goal - intelligent humans do it all the time.

Exactly. Terminating a regress with mere philosophy (whether physical or theological) is not at all an adequate explanation.

I didn't terminate it with "philosophy", I terminated it with a logically-consistent cause as an extrapolation of something we know to exist - intelligence.

Secondly, yes, it's far more logical than to invoke an intelligent creator.

Claiming it isn't demonstrating it, and I didn't "invoke" it; I used logic and evidence to reason to a conclusion.

Science is superior to philosophy;

That would be impossible, since science is a subset - an offshoot - of philosophy, and relies entirely upon philosophy to do anything. Without philosophy, there would be no "science".

Also, you didn't answer my question. You said:

Regarding this limited knowledge, it's interesting that you appeal to the far less evidence-based cosmological science but reject the far more evidence-based biological theories of evolution as it contradicts your ideology for creationism based upon your agenda to find an objective reason to exist.

I ask again, what theories of evolution have I rejected, and where?

[Angry Citizen]

In any event, in this thread, my argument wasn't that there was evidence of god, but rather that we know intelligence exists as surely as we know entropy, chance, gravity, etc. exists, and we know for a fact it can deliberately fine-tune a product to achieve a goal - intelligent humans do it all the time.

So you therefore posit that the current state of existence and life was a goal of an intelligent design.

That's very presumptuous.

[Meleagar]

So you therefore posit that the current state of existence and life was a goal of an intelligent design.

That's very presumptuous.

I think that I've made a satisfactory case that the best explanation - using current known facts - for the universe we see around us is that it was specifically designed and fine-tuned to be capable of supporting intelligent life.

All other "explanations", at the very least, refer to either infinite regress or insert a near-infinite number of necessary entities (other universes) to account for the fine-tuning of ours. Appeals to infinite regress and and infinite supply of "chance" are not explanations; they're nothing but appeals to miracles of chance.

We know intelligence exists, and can fine-tune its product for specific goals; that's really the best explanation available, unless one is predisposed to dismiss intelligence as a potential causal factor.

[Angry Citizen]

I think you've got it backwards there. Positing the designer itself requires a designer, because you make the case that the universe must be fine-tuned for the existence of humanity while not considering the case that the universe must be fine-tuned for the existence of the designer. Who designed the designer?

[DavidSupreme]

I think that I've made a satisfactory case that the best explanation - using current known facts - for the universe we see around us is that it was specifically designed and fine-tuned to be capable of supporting intelligent life.

Why?

If you wouldn't mind telling us, everyone has been waiting.

A hole is also designed specifically for that water that ended up in it, perfectly fit, its amazing, isn't it?