Intelligent design (evidence)

By the way, if anyone wants to talk about how an infinite number of universes requires that sets of laws of physics must be contained within a boundary, and these boundaries must exist within a larger space-time. if we wanted to talk about that, we could get into hyper-drive physics.
 
By the way, if anyone wants to talk about how an infinite number of universes requires that sets of laws of physics must be contained within a boundary, and these boundaries must exist within a larger space-time. if we wanted to talk about that, we could get into hyper-drive physics.
This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...
 
This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...

Also, I'm not sure the multiverse is the only option.

I'm also not sure if stuff clumping together in a way that works is necessarily unlikely once we start with a big bang (ie: the stuff getting shot out that fast might be more likely than not to interact than if it was just floating around without any velocity.) I'm not arguing for or against that idea, just raising the question.
 
I disagree. I am only following the non-God explanation to it's logical conclusion. An infinite set of universes means an infinite set of laws of physics. Besides the fact that it strains our minds with things that are beyond our experience, it also risks infinite messiness.
You still aren't acknowledging your reasoning is motivated.
 
This is tedious. You can chip away at 'the multiverse' all you like to create a gap to fill with your god putty, the 'truth' is almost certainly more bizarre and incomprehensible than either of us can imagine...
Yeah, but God-putty will get you further than agnosti-glue.
 
What's wrong with being motivated? Like I told malf, agnosti-glue doesn't get things done, it doesn't get anything accomplished.
Depends what you need to get done I suppose. (That's the 'needy' part of having to choose an option.)
 
Depends what you need to get done I suppose. (That's the 'needy' part of having to choose an option.)
I'm just an average Joe, an electronics technician. But even I can see the implications of God versus multiverse.
 
Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life.
I'm not sure why you have the balls to speculate this.

However, if the universes were separated by distances, then that would imply that our space-time exists within another space-time, and could in fact be several layers deep, space-time within other space-times.
Perhaps the universes are entirely independent.

We would be able to detect that as well. You are overlooking the fact that randomness has a cost in chaos and messiness; yet we see orderliness all around us.
Huh?

~~ Paul
 
I'm not sure why you have the balls to speculate this.
I am completely shocked that you could say such a thing. I am completely speechless.

Perhaps the universes are entirely independent.
I don't see how they could be independent. How many universe generators are there in existence?

Allow me to elaborate. The laws of physics, like the standard model/GR/QM/Thermodynamics tell us how particles interact in space and time. These are laws that must be obeyed. But if there are an infinite number of laws from an infinite number of universes, then suddenly particles are too constrained to do anything.

As for the independence of universes in a multiverse, I don't see how they could be indpendent. But remember, we only know of one universe, one space-time. If you want to envision an infinite number of universe (so that we get lucky enough to get one with humans), then all of those universes have to come from the same universe generator. Therefore, all of those universes have to be linked or connected somehow. To use an analogy, it's like the billions of McDonalds hambergers; they are all linked somehow. They are linked by the materials that are used, by the wrapping, by the hamburger ingredients which will often come from the same slaughter house, etc, etc.

So if you want to argue that there are an infinite number of unlucky universes that do not produce human life, then you really can't get away from the fact that the universes must be tied together somehow, they can't be isolated but are all related to each other.
 
I am completely shocked that you could say such a thing. I am completely speechless.
You seem quite sure of yourself when you say "Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life."

I don't see how they could be independent. How many universe generators are there in existence?
Anywhere from zero to infinity.

Allow me to elaborate. The laws of physics, like the standard model/GR/QM/Thermodynamics tell us how particles interact in space and time. These are laws that must be obeyed. But if there are an infinite number of laws from an infinite number of universes, then suddenly particles are too constrained to do anything.
Why are particles in one universe constrained by another universe?

As for the independence of universes in a multiverse, I don't see how they could be indpendent. But remember, we only know of one universe, one space-time. If you want to envision an infinite number of universe (so that we get lucky enough to get one with humans), then all of those universes have to come from the same universe generator. Therefore, all of those universes have to be linked or connected somehow. To use an analogy, it's like the billions of McDonalds hambergers; they are all linked somehow. They are linked by the materials that are used, by the wrapping, by the hamburger ingredients which will often come from the same slaughter house, etc, etc.
Why does there have to be only one "universe generator"?

So if you want to argue that there are an infinite number of unlucky universes that do not produce human life, then you really can't get away from the fact that the universes must be tied together somehow, they can't be isolated but are all related to each other.
Why?

~~ Paul
 
You seem quite sure of yourself when you say "Yes I do have a law that prevents it. If other universes exist, then they must exist here, all around us. But that would cause an infinitely cluttered multiverse which would either be detectable or would be too cluttered to support life."
Unless they are spaced out or separated. But then that implies another space-time that contains all of those universes.

Anywhere from zero to infinity.
Where does an infinity of universe generators come from? What generates an infinite number of universe generator?

Why are particles in one universe constrained by another universe?
The particles of each universe are not constrained. However, two universes (two space-times) would be connected by their position within a third, larger spacae-time.

Why does there have to be only one "universe generator"?
Where do universe generators come from? What generates the universe generator?

A universe generator has to imprint laws of physics for that universe upon something, something that can carry out the instructions of the laws of physics. That something is what interconnects everything.
 
Last edited:
Unless they are spaced out or separated. But then that implies another space-time that contains all of those universes.
I don't think so.

Where does an infinity of universe generators come from? What generates an infinite number of universe generator?
I don't even know what a "universe generator" is. We are both talking out of our arses.

The particles of each universe are not constrained. However, two universes (two space-times) would be connected by their position within a third, larger spacae-time.
The universes need not be at some position in a meta-universe. You're paying too much homage to Descartes.

~~ Paul
 
I don't think so.
Doesn't really matter. It makes more sense for there to be a Creator with a plan. A lot of us have seen strange things, beings, angels, all that stuff. Aliens have come out of nowhere and abducted humans and then let them go. Near death experiences are quite common. Science can't explain consciousness in terms of materialism. The writing is on the wall.

I don't even know what a "universe generator" is. We are both talking out of our arses.
This is the kind of wacko stuff that you have to consider if you want to argue that there is no Creator.

The universes need not be at some position in a meta-universe. You're paying too much homage to Descartes. ~~ Paul
Never heard of him. Anyway it just makes more sense to believe in God, in the Holy Spirit.

And get a shorter name!
 
Last edited:
Ghost needs to be congratulated for articulating the proponent position with uncommon boldness and clarity.
 
After previewing the materialist view of randomly generated universes, and the intractable chaos that it brings, it is clear that such a condition is an untenable and broken hypothesis. As a metaphor, it would be like expecting orderly traffic on a highway after removing every driver and placing a brick on the accelerator; it would turn the multiverse into a traffic pile up.

While admittedly no gods or a Supreme God have been proven to exist in a scientific absolute way, it is clear that the powers of creation would manifest in a far more orderly way if govered by conscious and intelligent beings. It is a far more explainable mystery that we have not witnessed any gods or the Creator just to say that when they did appear and demonstrate their powers of creation, that religions inevitably sprang into existence. Or perhaps the onlookers reported what they saw but were ignored and assumed to be insane or psychologically imbalanced.
 
While admittedly no gods or a Supreme God have been proven to exist in a scientific absolute way, it is clear that the powers of creation would manifest in a far more orderly way if govered by conscious and intelligent beings. It is a far more explainable mystery that we have not witnessed any gods or the Creator just to say that when they did appear and demonstrate their powers of creation, that religions inevitably sprang into existence.

The interesting thing about this argument (and the various forms of it we see, especially when it comes to idealism arguments) is that if we can say that our experience about consciousness and mind comes from our own minds then the one thing that our consciousness seems not to be is orderly and consistent.

Our minds are all over the place. Our memories are inconsistent. Our attention spans are short. We make mistakes regularly. We change our minds. We change directions and focus. I'm not criticising - this is just how we are.

For more reliable consistency we tend to look to machines.

Compare that to what would have to be case of a universal consciousness: absolute focus for 14 billion years, keeping the laws of physics going without error (or at least not a big enough error to destabilise the system). Somehow knowing how to do all of this. Etc.

Now, I'm not saying that such a mind can't exist - but I think we should recognise how unlike our minds it would really have to be. Given that arguments in favour of such a being are often made by invoking similarities to our minds, I don't think this is a trivial point.
 
Tallis argues that theists and atheists both stumble when trying to provide a satisfactory account of the world due to the puzzling issues surrounding philosophical consideration of causality (perhaps Team Absurdist will be taking home the trophy after all...):


'The talk will examine an embarrassment shared by both theological and scientific approaches to the intelligibility of the world and highlighted for theologians by Special Divine Action (SDA).

I will suggest that a serious, perhaps the central, problem presented by SDA is that of understanding a local event being brought about by an agency or force that is, by definition, absolutely general. The commonly expressed worry that SDA requires of God that he should violate His own laws reflects only the most obvious manifestation of what is a deeper difficulty; namely, finding an adequate explanation of the local, and actual, in the general.

The scientific endeavour to make the universe entirely intelligible - culminating in a putative Theory of Everything – encounters similar problems. I shall examine the Principle of Precedence in its various guises (inertia, laws of nature, probability) and different approaches to causation. They all prove profoundly unsatisfactory for different reasons. The difficulty common to various naturalistic responses to ‘Why’ is that of establishing an adequate connection between the explanandum and the explanation given that the former inevitably sets out general possibilities and the latter is composed of singular actualities.

The goal, or regulative idea, of science – namely finding a sufficient reason for singular events in the general properties of the universe to which they belong - is analogous to the theological aim of making sense of SDA by connecting and reconciling such action with fundamental characteristics of God. I shall argue that theists and atheists both need to look critically at the very idea that things happen because they are made to happen, typically by what has preceded it characterised in most general terms; at the notion of ‘becausation’.

In the final, and most speculative and least-developed, part of the paper, I shall ask whether the search for an explanation of events in something that makes them happen is prompted by a felt need to reconnect items of an intrinsically seamless universe pulled apart into distinct elements by the irruption of self-consciousness into Being. This last idea is offered up tentatively for dissection.'
 
The interesting thing about this argument (and the various forms of it we see, especially when it comes to idealism arguments) is that if we can say that our experience about consciousness and mind comes from our own minds then the one thing that our consciousness seems not to be is orderly and consistent.

Our minds are all over the place. Our memories are inconsistent. Our attention spans are short. We make mistakes regularly. We change our minds. We change directions and focus. I'm not criticising - this is just how we are.

That's the average mind in a society that promotes mindlessness via busy schedules, TVs, video games, etc. But our mind has potential for so much more, I think we can argue all the above isn't necessarily the natural state of our minds. So, if by "we" you mean modern Western Civilization, I mostly agree. If by "we" you mean the natural potential for humanity, I completely disagree.

For more reliable consistency we tend to look to machines.

Compare that to what would have to be case of a universal consciousness: absolute focus for 14 billion years, keeping the laws of physics going without error (or at least not a big enough error to destabilise the system). Somehow knowing how to do all of this. Etc.

Now, I'm not saying that such a mind can't exist - but I think we should recognise how unlike our minds it would really have to be. Given that arguments in favour of such a being are often made by invoking similarities to our minds, I don't think this is a trivial point.


Arouet, you're thinking in terms of linear time again ;-) Besides, you may have noticed if you progressed far enough along on your meditation, time starts to go out the window. I haven't been that practiced myself too often, but when I am I could meditate for what feels like 5 mins and 30-60 minutes go by. Take hallucingenic mushrooms and you'll really feel time go out the window, you could stare at a lava lamp for eternity. You've been "unconsciously" beating you're heart for quite a few years now and haven't had any problems there. Also, I once had a spider sitting up in the corner of my room for 3 days not moving at all. I thought it was dead, until it walked off on the third day. It's not a trivial point, but I don't think it would be at all surprising a mind could be totally different than our own. Just look how different minds are even within the human species!
 
Back
Top