The Universe - Yet Another Search for the Creator

[everneo]

for small minds small god is sufficient.

 

[MarcAC]

People tend to assign significance to things simply because they're improbable but unless you know how something happened there's no reason to do so [...] even if this Universe only had a probability of 1 in 10^100 of occurring that it occurred doesn't indicate any special significance. Because if you think about it for a moment you'll realize that every possible Universe was equally unlikely. Add all these improbabilities up and you get a 1 in 1. Of course we can then add to the fun by asking, "What are the odds that no Universe would exist?"

Yes, when you think on it for a moment they all seem equally likely. Thus the significance of the question; Why? Why this one? And thus the hypothetical existence of an infinite number of universes. Are they there? How will we know? Of course no one knows what the future holds but this is now.

However, for... theists... inference of the presence of God is a lot more than "the universe is improbable therefore God exists". That is but one piece of the puzzle. We have our experiences. We see how the universe works in some parallel way. We look at ourselves and we look at the universe. Questions abound (non-scientific), and God answers many. The main one is why? Not how.

People are justified in seeking an answer to that as much as they are justified in asking it. How else are we to see purpose in our existence? How else are we to function? You may want to assign some random purpose to your function... but... is that justifiable in the end? If so, how do we then criticise Hitler or Bin-Laden? Out of some whimsical impulse? If so then the world makes absolutely no sense.

Of course, asking why? immediately points to God. How is the "cake fitting to the container"? We may come up with all kinds of pressure-temperature-action-reaction physical answers. Why is the cake fitting to the container? Because I wanted to bake a cake. It may be best to clarify what is non-existence as opposed to existence before we add to fun.

 

[Raithere]

I think it is you who is arguing life as necessary outcome, well atleast an unavoidable outcome.

Not really, I was tossing out hypothetical alternatives. My point is that we don't know and you cannot draw hard conclusions from unfounded premises.

Cris was telling that, as i understand, focusing on the sepecific outcome itself is an anthropic view.

More than that it's poor reasoning. You cannot just assume that a particular outcome was necessary.

Tiassa's snowflake example is confusing. I can determine which flake i should concentrate thereby nullifying all the statistical odds against that specific snowflake. Would this be comparable with events that has already occured such as life formation?

It doesn't matter which snowflake you choose. Considering the uncountable number of snowflakes that fall from the sky all over the Earth in any given year or decade or millennium, what are the odds that you happen to be there at the right time to observe any specific snowflake? Yet this unbelievably improbable event can occur repeatedly.

As with deck, probablity of occuring ANY one of all the possible series is 1. Probabilty of occuring a specific series is 1/(8e+67) as you said. If that series is necessary for me for some reason then i would wonder whether it is a freak accident or providence.

Again the problem is that you're assigning significance based upon a personal pov rather than statistical grounds. What about all the times when you don't get the series you need? I believe I have a good understanding of why we tend to do this but it doesn't make the reasoning any more sound. All you need to do is take a trip to Vegas to see the error in this method.

~Raithere

 

[Tiassa]

Everneo

You're almost there:

• I can determine which flake i should concentrate thereby nullifying all the statistical odds against that specific snowflake.

• If that series is necessary for me for some reason then i would wonder whether it is a freak accident or providence.

In both cases, the problematic issue arises within the observer. It is centered around the self, and too limiting a perspective.

For instance, four things that must occur before you can watch a snowflake:

• Human life
• Your life
• Snow
• Snow in your locality​

Seeing snow in the middle of Death Valley, for instance, might seem a statistical deviation of severe proportion, but in consideration of the Universe at large, it's not that big a deal.

 

[Cris]

MarcAC,

That is faith. But if faith is foolishness then we are all foolish in our own way then.

Only if one depends on faith thinking it a reliable way to find truth. To those who think more clearly faith is only used with the realization that the conclusions could be entirely wrong.

Faith + God = Truth.

Or more objectively – Irrationality + fantasy = delusion.