God and Man -- The Paradox....The Choice

by logansrun 41 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  NewSense

  Damn it! "Mindchild" is "Skipper"; and "Skipper" is "MIndchild." What happended is that I got so caught up in reading your posting that I confused your real name, "Skipper," with your nickname. Also it's lunchtime here in East Asia, so I'm sitting here munching on starfruit and guava and getting a fructose sugar rush that is obviously affecting my thinking!!!
• 

  logansrun

  Mindchild,

  I've thought many of the same things you mention. Modern physics definitely does point to the existence of a Multiverse. But, when you think about it, doesn't that also just dodge the question? Can we comfortably say, "Well, the reason our universe exists is because it is part of a much larger Multiverse which contains many universes. Surely some of them are bound to have the physical constants necessary for life to evolve. What is more, there are an infinite number of these universes. Whalla! There's the answer!"

  But, where did the Multiverse come from? You see, we can go on ad infinitum with this type of reasoning.

  A tough question: Does the idea of a Multiverse contradict Occam's Razor as much as does the theory of a God?

  Little Toe,

  The problem with your thought is that modern phsyicists have recently made calculations which show the universe most likely will not recede in on itself in a "big crunch." It appears it will simply keep expanding......for...ev.....e...............r...........................................................................

  Bradley
• 

  Mindchild

  Bradley...the answer to your question...

  Does the idea of a Multiverse contradict Occam's Razor as much as does the theory of a God?

  ...doesn't present much of a challenge when viewed from the perspective of information science. Consider comparing the information content of a comic book vs. the entire Library of Congress, and in this illustration, the comic book would represent the information needed to create the optimal conditions for a universe supportive of life and God would represent the Library of Congress. Which has the most information content? Obviously, unless you want your God to be a dumb as a rock, this superbeing would need a near infinite information density. Especially if you want to believe in divine creation of life in all its forms, etc. It would be much more probable for a trillion dumb universes to pop up because of the nature of space-time lends itself to universe construction than it would be for one single God to pop into existence.

  And if you want to play the "if" game, why just stop with one God...why couldn't there be 10, 1000, a million, a trillion Gods already in existence before time ever began. Now who is dodging the question? LOL

  Without a universe already in existence, there could be NO God with a near infinite information density. Such a God, to even be able to develop any kind of thought processes, would need something external to interact with. If you want a simple example of what I mean, take a new born child and put it in a dark room with no sensory inputs. If you made brief interuptions in this horrific enviornment to feed this infant, and it somehow survived...do you think it would turn out to be a genuis or something more primitive than an idiot? It is simply impossible for information to grow into complexity without the right causative enviornment.

  The Big Bang and the resulant causative development of the universe, is the only way an evolutionary development of intelligence or information density is possible.

  Newsense... thank you for the input on Process Theology. Interesting stuff.

  Skipper
• 

  IronGland

  Our universe is one in which there are, almost literally, but not quite, an infinite amount of electrons (and protons, neutrons, etc.)

  Pedant point. You can't 'almost literally,but not quite' have an infinite amount of something. One hundred,one million or one googol is still as far from infinity as 'one' is.
• 

  logansrun

  Iron Gland,

  I was using the word "infinite" metaphorically.

  Bradley
• 

  LittleToe

  Bradley:

  The problem with your thought is that modern phsyicists have recently made calculations which show the universe most likely will not recede in on itself in a "big crunch." It appears it will simply keep expanding......for...ev.....e...............r...........................................................................

  And there are a variety of opinions on that subject, there not being consensus amongst "modern physicists"......

  I just took one, presented a hypothesis, and left it for posterity.
  Isn't that at the heart of good science? Hypothesise and observe...

  Mindchild:IMHO there would need to be a minimum of three persons. That way each one of them could be oblivious to something the other two shared.
  The joy of discovery, and true conversation with varying viewpoints, is then possible.
• 

  Abaddon

  logansrun

  Here's the deal: if you are an atheist you still must come to grips with the Ultimate Question, that is, why is there something rather than nothing?

  Even a universe with nothing more than a tiny electron floating about would require a reason as to why it exists. Our universe is one in which there are, almost literally, but not quite, an infinite amount of electrons (and protons, neutrons, etc.) This is a conumdrum, a PARADOX.
  
  To say that our universe exists because "God did it" is absurd, ridiculous. It's a non-answer.
  
  To say that our universe exists because it simply exists, that is, without a Deity, is ALSO absurd, ridiculous and a non-answer.
  
  Choose your absurdity.

  This sound great but presupposes there is an ultimate question. It's classic human arrogance; the Universe has to have an explanation. Why? Maybe it is just here because of naturalistic purposes without there being any purpose behind it. I personally feel that the ultimate question was invented by people who had an ultimate answer they wanted to sell.

  I ask you to enter a very theoretical place in your mind. Picture yourself as existing apart from the universe we know and ask yourself if you would accept, theoretically, the universe without a designer or First Cause or metaphysic as it's explanation. Would you? "Ah, yes...that seems logical. A universe which is nothing more than a nonsensical bunch of atoms which formed from an explosion at a singularity which was uncaused. I can accept that."
  
  Fool.

  Sorry, can't argee with that. As far as the maths shows, the singularty was not without cause.

  I take it as read that the Big Bang is accepted for the sake of argument as the mechanism for the Universe coming into existence regarless of whether this was a naturalistic process or a creative act. Evidence down to the 3 degrees Kelvin background radiation (think of it as an echo) that the theories of the Big Bang predict are present as predicted, and some of it was predicted theoretically before it was measured experimentally.

  However, there is a different between the Universe having a cause and the Universe having a reason; they are not the same things.

  However, cosmologists are realising that the Big Bang wasn't the start of everything, merely the part where the clock started running in a fashion comprehensible to us in this Universe. There were reasons WHY the singulairty occured. BUT those naturalistic reasons DO NOT impy there is a Ultimate Question. The assumption that there is an Unltimate Question is presuppostionalitic.
  
  Or would you demand a metaphysical reason for it's existence? This somewhat dodges the question, though, doesn't it? To say "God did it" (or, as I accept, that the universe is divine and teleological in and of itself) seems to do nothing more but create more questions. It answers the question as to why the universe exists but then raises the question as to why the cause of the answer exists!
  
  Either way -- no God or God -- you become illogical, a fool. I honestly cannot see one philosophical outlook as being superior to the other. For sure, some types of theologies are absurd. The Judeo-Christian God, taken literally, is a purely human invention. Anyone open to reason and morality can see this. All the same, there are other theologies. Better ones? I think so.
  
  Yes, we are in a hell of a conumdrum aren't we? Either way we end up a fool no matter what we choose. And, don't kid yourself, we do choose. Knowing this, choose wisely.
  
  Bradley

  Again, I feel you are assuming that there is a simple comprehensible answer to a question that itself requires presuppostions to frame.

  There need be no REASON for the Universe. It may JUST BE.

  To argue that there must be a couplet of Ultimate ANswer and Ultimate Question is just wearing the clothes of relgious presuppositionalism on the body of modern science.

  Essentially, things are BECAUSE. It's not a great answer, but it doesn't have to be as there IS no 'Ultimate Question'.

  (i.e., "there is no spoon")

  As far as mutiverses go, its possible there are an essentially infinate number of Universes with a virtually infinate number of possible constants. Or it is possible there is not. If there are an infinate array of possibilities for Universes existing in different 'dimensions', then, if every possibility that could be is, there is a god. In a Universe somewhere. There is also, in such a circumstance, probably a Universe where the world IS on the back of a giant turtle...

  ... whether there is or not is essentially meaningless, and best left to those who give a damn and for those conversations you have when you are really stoned...

  Likewise, every choice anywhen may result in another reality springing up. I think this is more bad science fiction than good science though, as I feel time has a certain elasticity to it. For one thing, the theory that another reality springs up at each choice seems a pretty big violation of the conservation of energy...
• 

  LittleToe

  Abaddon:

  There is also, in such a circumstance, probably a Universe where the world IS on the back of a giant turtle...

  You mean this one isn't on the back of a turtle???
  Noooooo!!!! Tell me it isn't so! I'm not hurting anyone by believing that!!!

  For one thing, the theory that another reality springs up at each choice seems a pretty big violation of the conservation of energy...

  Agreed. The universe does seem to have a way of being reasonably conservative. That is, until you look at the way "life" expends energy.
• 

  Abaddon

  Littletoe;

  That is, until you look at the way "life" expends energy.

  Not quite sure what you mean; life 'spends' energy right enough, but the waste products have the same mass and are frequently used by other organisms after we've finished by them. When life stops being life there's a good recycling process in place.

  If you mean that homothermic organisms radiate heat, well, yeah, they do.
• 

  LittleToe

  Abaddon:
  Naww, I mean the way they use energy (since energy is never actually lost, but rather converted from one form into another).
  Copulation being a great example.

  If it were simply a matter of brushing organs and both parties receiving a huge orgasm, fertilization complete in a single moment, then it would be efficient with everyone happy.
  But noooo, it's gotta be a long drawn out process with lots of effort and sweat, and for some folks a disappointing end ().