Why wouldn't God exist?

[Caleb]

I was reading through one of my chemistry books, and I stumbled across these several paragraphs:

 

"You see, in order for all atoms except hydrogen-1 to exist, we must have neutrons. Well, it turns out that the neutron is just slightly more massive than the proton. It's a good thing, too. Nuclear chemistry experiments indicate that the neutron must be more massive than the proton, or it would no exist! Calculations indicate that if the mass difference between the neutron and the proton were changed by as little as 0.2%, all neutrons would spontaneously decay into protons."

"As we have already noted, protons are positively charged while electrons are negatively charged. These opposite charges are what hold the electrons to the atom, keeping them from flying away from the nucleus. The problem is, in order for the atom to be stable, the charges must be precisely balanced. According to our best measurements, the proton has exactly as much positive charge as the electron has negative charge. That's a good thing, too, because calculations indicate that if the charges were out of balance by as little as 0.00000001%, all of the atoms in our bodies would instantaneously explode!"

 

(There are other paragraphs like this. But right now I'm to lazy to write them all. )

 

So, I would think that there are so many "coincidences" that I find it impossible for anyone who really understands physics or chemistry to believe that all this we are studying just came about by chance! The universe is too perfectly designed for that. From the smallest atom to the largest galaxy, incredible design features abound in our universe. These design features I believe are the fingerprints of God.

 

The sciences make me believe in God, more everyday. What do you guys think?

[Greippi]

Since you can't prove God with science...I can't remember how I was going to finish this sentence.

However, the more I discover, the more obvious it becomes to me that there is some sort of intelligent design to it all.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

I think you'll find that this thread is one for you, then:

 

thread 51734

 

"Fine tuning" is basically what you're talking about.

 

I, on the other hand, have the position that if the universe were completely and utterly different, with completely different physical constants and laws that make absolutely no sense to us now, there'd still be intelligent life sitting on a corner going "gee, nothing like us could ever exist if you changed the slightest variable!"

[pink_trike]

This impermanent universe and it's patterns and processes, in the space within which countless universes appear and disappear, is simply the result of interdependent cause and effect.

[iNow]

The answer to the poll is ultimately unknowable, but since you forced a choice I answered No.

[Caleb]

The answer to the poll is ultimately unknowable, but since you forced a choice I answered No.

 

I didn't know what else to put up.

[john5746]

The sciences make me believe in God, more everyday. What do you guys think?

 

You should study all the biological and physical processes that occurred for your Parents to have you. The coincidences just pile on. God must really be involved in our sex lives.

[Mr Skeptic]

Yeah, and if the force that one body exerts on the other were not exactly equal to the force the other body exerts on the first, all kind of weird and probably fatal things would happen as well. But, this example doesn't seem very surprising. What I suspect, is that rather than fine-tuning, we will end up finding rules which explain why said variables are what they are, and then it won't seem very surprising in the least.

[Sisyphus]

I'm reminded of the joke about the puddle marveling how the hole he's sitting in is exactly the right shape to hold him. Remarking that the universe seems perfectly suited for us is almost tautological - if it weren't, we wouldn't be here to remark about it.

 

Perhaps something else would. Perhaps there are, in fact, countless universes, so the existence of any with particular traits is all but guaranteed.

 

And perhaps there are very good reasons, not yet discovered, that our universe has the structure it does. I see no reason to invoke hand-waving explanations like "God" when the real answer is "we don't know yet." Don't just assume lightning comes from Zeus because it's all you can think of. Actually investigate it, and if you haven't figured it out yet, be comfortable saying "I haven't figured it out yet."

 

Also, surely a conscious being capable of forming a universe to suit its purposes existing "by chance" is necessarily even more improbable than whatever it might choose to create. Invoking "God" as an explanation for "fine tuning" simply adds a more difficult layer to explain, so even as a hand-waving explanation it makes more difficult, not less.

[ydoaPs]

If the universe was such that there was life unlike us, would they not marvel at how the universe was finely tuned for them?

 

The universe has billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy. No matter how unlikely life is, it is likely given that many opportunities.

[bascule]

So, I would think that there are so many "coincidences" that I find it impossible for anyone who really understands physics or chemistry to believe that all this we are studying just came about by chance! The universe is too perfectly designed for that. From the smallest atom to the largest galaxy, incredible design features abound in our universe. These design features I believe are the fingerprints of God.

 

If God created physics and chemistry, what is God made out of?

[ydoaPs]

If God created physics and chemistry, what is God made out of?

 

Grape bubble gum

[forufes]

If the universe was such that there was life unlike us, would they not marvel at how the universe was finely tuned for them?

no, they would look at us and realize that life would emerge under not so strict possibilities.

 

the puddle example also didn't portray the matter at hand well, cuz if the puddle changed the variables of its hole, it would find out that it would remain a puddle.

but we explored the other possibilities, we, unlike puddles, study science, we know of the unlimited possibilities of how life can be destroyed(or just not exist), and it isn't undisputed that time isn't unlimited enough to equal them out.

 

The universe has billions of galaxies with billions of stars in each galaxy. No matter how unlikely life is, it is likely given that many opportunities.

you don't know that:-)

it's what you call "a leap of faith"... an atheistic one.

 

you just believe that it is possible that we came out of sheer coincidence, without quite doing the math...

 

but let's give it a try;

us coming into existence by coincidence, means the conditions required for life would be met in the given time interval.

 

aha, the argument is, no matter what humongous number of delicate balances are required to settle together in between a HUGE set of possibilities, as long as the time is infinite then they not only could meet, they actually MUST meet.

 

couple points here:

1-who said time was infinite? how long has it been since the big bang? what if such time wasn't enough even for all the possibilities(equilibriums) to strike correctly from the first try? not enough time for our existence process to line up and happen?

 

2-there must be different and/or failed life forms due to the tryout process, none were found.

 

3- and most importantly...

the variables required for our existence are not a big number... they're infinity themselves!

 

so for [possibility of life emerging] =! [infinity time available]/[large but constant variables of life] = [infinity i.e life has to exist].. but rather (imo) = [infinity time available]/[infinity variables to be met for life to exist]..

 

following so far?

[Mr Skeptic]

1-who said time was infinite? how long has it been since the big bang? what if such time wasn't enough even for all the possibilities(equilibriums) to strike correctly from the first try? not enough time for our existence process to line up and happen?

 

Some think that time in our universe is infinite (cyclic universe models). Others think that space is infinite (either multiple universes, or that our own universe is infinite). Either of these would work.

 

And 12 minutes is all the time needed for life to form, under the right conditions. So no need to wonder whether 15 billion years was long enough.

 

2-there must be different and/or failed life forms due to the tryout process, none were found.

 

Personally, I call them rocks. Really, how would you tell whether something "tried" to live?

 

3- and most importantly...

the variables required for our existence are not a big number... they're infinity themselves!

 

Yeah? Well what are all these variables?

[Sisyphus]

no, they would look at us and realize that life would emerge under not so strict possibilities.

 

No, they wouldn't look at us, because we wouldn't exist. They would look at themselves, just like we do, and see that the universe is suited to their existence.

 

the puddle example also didn't portray the matter at hand well, cuz if the puddle changed the variables of its hole, it would find out that it would remain a puddle.

 

Exactly! However, the puddle imagining the different shaped hole would think itself lucky, because it couldn't exist in any other shape hole.

 

you don't know that:-)

it's what you call "a leap of faith"... an atheistic one.

 

It's neither "atheistic" nor a "leap of faith." It's an educated guess, based on the sheer size of the universe compared to the likelihood of necessary conditions. It is necessarily speculative, but hardly unreasonable.

 

1-who said time was infinite?

 

Nobody. They said the universe is big. Even if there is only a 1/10000000000000000 chance of life emerging around any given star, that means there are still about 100000000 stars around which life emerged. Big!

 

2-there must be different and/or failed life forms due to the tryout process, none were found.

 

What do you mean by "failed life forms?" What evidence of them would you expect to find?

 

the variables required for our existence are not a big number... they're infinity themselves!

 

What?

[ydoaPs]

you don't know that:-)

it's what you call "a leap of faith"... an atheistic one.

 

Not at all. Take a statistics class.

[forufes]

Some think that time in our universe is infinite (cyclic universe models). Others think that space is infinite (either multiple universes, or that our own universe is infinite). Either of these would work.

well, while i disagree, and i find time being infinite very unreasonable and flawed, i'll just pass on this one, we'll assume for the sake of argument that time IS infinite.

 

And 12 minutes is all the time needed for life to form, under the right conditions. So no need to wonder whether 15 billion years was long enough.

lol, 12 mins? please demonstrate.

 

and please make it scientific, i can say it takes a split second for the universe to exist. given the right conditions, them being; god exists:D

 

 

Personally, I call them rocks. Really, how would you tell whether something "tried" to live?

good point...i'll think it through..

 

Yeah? Well what are all these variables?

any number in a science book that when changed from a certain wide or narrow range would mean the end of life as we know it.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Not at all. Take a statistics class.

you're right..i'm uneducated..

 

so go on, show us what you learned in your statistics class..what's the statistics behind life being likely to exist?

[ydoaPs]

you're right..i'm uneducated..

 

so go on, show us what you learned in your statistics class..what's the statistics behind life being likely to exist?

 

Honestly, if you think something that occurs one time in a billion isn't likely to occur at least once given a hundred trillion opportunities, it's a waste of my time to talk to you.

[padren]

These design features I believe are the fingerprints of God.

 

You just totally awoke the cleaning/OCD in me and now I just want a giant container of bleach and to shout "WHY DIDN'T HE WAS HIS HANDS???? THEY ARE EVERYWHERE!!"

 

 

But on a more serious note: Can you imagine of a Universe where such coincidences didn't appear?

 

1) We know sentient life (from what we can tell at least) requires pretty complex patterns.

2) We know we evolved from simpler lifeforms, with adaptions dictated by our environment

 

Ergo, if life is able to evolve at all in a universe, how would it not be dependent on some slim-margin factors? We look at other factors and can't help but to feel in those cases, life was inevitable. The 'slim chance' factors stand out.

 

The intuitive leap that "there must be a designer" has an equally intuitive counter-possibility that maybe all possible physical laws exist, somewhere in some other universe.

 

There is no evidence of this, but it makes as much intuitive sense as a designer. In the case of "many universes" you'd have life appearing in the ones where it can exist, and not in the ones that can't. If a million people all buy a lotto ticket and pray "God, if you like me best - help me win" then inevitably someone will win. And that person will feel their prayers were answered and god, in fact likes them more than everyone else. The odds are too long for it to just be a coincidence.

 

Only we have no idea how many tickets were sold in the "Universe Lottery" or how many universes lost. As such, we have no way to make any kind of educated assessment regarding the viability of our universe as a result of chance.

[forufes]

No, they wouldn't look at us, because we wouldn't exist. They would look at themselves, just like we do, and see that the universe is suited to their existence.

and rightly so.

the way i see it, may it be us or some other species or entities, if the world they're in is too fragile to hold their existence yet is doing so, it makes sense to wonder about it.

 

on the other hand:

Exactly! However, the puddle imagining the different shaped hole would think itself lucky, because it couldn't exist in any other shape hole.

what is it here? it is a puddle, and if a puddle in our life had the ability to observe, it would observe that many "puddles" COexist no matter what their holes were like, as a matter of fact, if the puddle were to settle in a hole with different parameters, it would still maintain it's distinguishable self; a puddle. hence, the puddle would not marvel at it's hole's unique characteristics, as they're easily changable.

i've got the feeling you think the puddle's consiousness would change when its parameters change.

 

but, we humans, nope, say life forms. if we looked at our "hole" and looked into the possibilities of existing in another hole, na'a, we're doomed, we wouldn't be just puddles with different parameters, according to our knowledge, we wouldn't be puddles (life forms) at all(unless someone here thinks a bit bigger or smaller neutrons and protons flying around would pass as life forms)

------------------------------------

but then comes another idea(which is what i thik you had in mind); what if those slightly bigger or smaller neutrons and protons, even though they can no longer form atoms as we know them, form something totally different, and that totally different thing becomes the basic building block which builds some other intelligent beings, in a world with it's own equilibriums, those of which are actually violating our own equilibriums, and would spell doom for us, and they would wonder "what if neutrons and protons were a little bit bigger or smaller? wouldn't that end life as we know it?"

-------

while that is an entertaining idea, and a basically theoretically possible one, we have no proof to even SUGGEST it, alas, such idea unroots science by the spine through the neck, it is not a leap of faith, but rather a fancy ride on faith's broomstick. cuz in such world, it is possible for light to be the slowest thing around, for energy to be created and destroyed, for 1+1 to equal 0. that my friends, is soo unscientific, it's possible, but not scientific, according to OUR science, the world is a sleeping elephant bouncing upside down on a ball pearched on the top of a ten deck house of cards while(the elephant) sews a sock with it's feet.

 

but let's take some more serious analogies, ones we can work on, "the possibility of the world coming to existence due to randomness is the same possibility of the existence of a whole dictionary with arranged words and meanings due to a press machine exploding, and that is impossible"

now i disagree with the author for two reasons;

1- it is technically possible, but extremely highly improbable.

2- as i said before, such happening goes from highly improbable to 100% must happen when you have an infinite number of presses, or one press that keeps blowing up time after time for infinity. in our world, as Mr.Skeptic pointed out, we may have both.

 

another good analogy is the monkey on the typewriter producing one of Shakespeare's plays, same points apply.

 

and a third one i think i read around here somewhere(think it was by the cap'n), finding a suit that fits you a 100% from a set of predesigned suits.

 

 

now, i'll cut short to the point, the infinite press machines keep exploding for infinity, can they produce a finite book? yes.

can they produce an infinite book, with infinite meanings, infinite words, infinite correlations between the contents?

a book that is changing, expanding, even as the presses are exploding?

 

same goes for the monkeys and the suit.

if while you're searching for your suit, you're constantly growing, you find out about what you like and don't like every second spent searching, you get fatter and thinner, richer and poorer...

 

would ever you find your perfect suit?

 

how many are the secrets of life?

how many are the odds life beat to come out? how many is it still beating to continue?

how much do we learn of ourselves and surroundings every day?

for how long will we keep learning new things about ourselves and the things around us?

every new thing we learn, sets a new infinite plane of possibilities to happen, and a sub area interval on which things "SHOULD" happen, and yet another sub interval within of how things ARE happening.

 

which infinity would swallow the other, how things are happening, or the extent to which things were allowed to happen?

 

that's up for grabs:D

and a canyon some take the faith express to cross.

 

It's neither "atheistic" nor a "leap of faith." It's an educated guess, based on the sheer size of the universe compared to the likelihood of necessary conditions. It is necessarily speculative, but hardly unreasonable.

the comparision is a guess.

the estimation on both sides(necessary conditions vs their likelihood), is imo, so far, a leap of faith, otherwise it would be demonstrated, or even scientifically properly estimated.

 

 

Nobody. They said the universe is big. Even if there is only a 1/10000000000000000 chance of life emerging around any given star, that means there are still about 100000000 stars around which life emerged. Big!

what if you replace the first number with 1/google??

 

 

What do you mean by "failed life forms?" What evidence of them would you expect to find?

it's still cooking...

 

 

What?

or you could replace 1/google with 1/infinity. then you'd get zero possibility of life emerging in the constant big universe..

[Mr Skeptic]

lol, 12 mins? please demonstrate.

 

If there is an E. coli cell around, in about 12 minutes you can form a living thing (another E. coli cell).

 

any number in a science book that when changed from a certain wide or narrow range would mean the end of life as we know it.

 

I'm sorry, but I don't think science books have an infinite list of variables. I think I know what you're getting at though. Any of the variables have to be in a certain very small range with uncountably infinite numbers in it, out of a much larger infinite range with just as many numbers in it.

 

Now, if you assume that the numbers could be anywhere in an infinite range, then it is rather surprising that they happen to be in a particular, small range. But that requires the aforementioned assumption. Instead, it could turn out that the variables in fact have to be what they are, much like the speed of light has to be what it is given Maxwell's equations. Or, it could be that there are in fact an infinite number of universes with different variables.

 

So, basically, the idea that a universe like ours is unlikely is nothing more than an assumption. The converse, that a universe like ours is expected, is also an assumption. Since at the moment either is an assumption, people pick the one that they prefer.

[Caleb]

If God didn't exist, then would that mean everything is okay to do? What is the purpose of right and wrong if God and the devil do not exist? If there is no God, then there is no devil, if there is no devil and no God, then there is NO right or wrong. Does that mean I can go and rob my neighbors house? What do I care that he loses a couple things if I'm not going to get punished by a higher authority than man? People would say that is bad, but there is no bad if there is no good, there is no good if there is no God. If I went and killed my neighbor, why does the government care? Why would I need a trial? You're never going to see him again. Because there is no heaven if there is no God.

The natural man grabs what he wants when he wants it. Why do we make laws then? Because it is against our conscience to do wrong, then what is our conscience? Why do most people try to do good? Because a God influences all of us to do good.

[AzurePhoenix]

The natural man grabs what he wants when he wants it. Why do we make laws then? Because it is against our conscience to do wrong, then what is our conscience? Why do most people try to do good? Because a God influences all of us to do good.

Peh, that's a rather naive, theologically-driven assumption that completely ignores both reason and behavioral evolution. Why is doing whatever i want to whoever i'd like bad without god? Cuz if there's nothing to stop me, there's nothing to stop them. Everyone's exploiting everyone else, no one wins. It's in all of our own best interests to behave cooperatively and empathetically. Even vampire bats do it. They have to have a certain amount of blood everyday to survive, but sometimes they can't get it, so they'll get blood-loans from luckier bats. But they have to repay the loan; a bat that doesn't repay will quickly be identified as such, and the bats that know it will refuse to loan to it anymore. Bats with genetic "cheating" dispositions die, and their behaviors weeded from the gene pools. Similarly, male cleaner wrasse will punish females that nip the scales of their "client" species. Even though eating bits of flesh is more nutritious than simply cleaning off parasites, if the wrasse keep nipping their clients the clients, a reliable food source, won't come back.

Concepts of "proper" interactive behaviors will always develop in social species. Bats, fish, wolves, us.

[sr.vinay]

They talk of god's plan and that it was already known to the entity before it happened.

I feel it's more of : it happens and it's included in the so-called plan. For example, a leaf falls down, it's the plan. If it had fallen later, that would've been the plan. The so called order is just a conglomeration of nice observations that would've been present even if everything had been different. I'd like to see people point out to order when anarchy and chaos break out.

[Severian]

I, on the other hand, have the position that if the universe were completely and utterly different, with completely different physical constants and laws that make absolutely no sense to us now, there'd still be intelligent life sitting on a corner going "gee, nothing like us could ever exist if you changed the slightest variable!"

 

That is not a very good argument. Many of the fine tunings are not just fixing chemistry, but fixing very much more fundamental things.

 

For example, if you get the cosmological constant wrong, the acceleration of the universe ends up being so fast that particles don't even get to interact with one another. So unless you believe in mono-particular life, that universe couldn't lead to life forming.

 

Similarly, the wrong charge on the electron would stop atoms forming; the wrong gravitino mass would prevent big bang nucleosynthesis, the wrong dark matter content would stop galaxies (and stars) forming.

 

Having said that, I don't see these problems as evidence for God, since they are just evidence that there are other mechanisms out there that force these apparent fine tunings to be natural. We just don't know what they are yet. Some of them may also be coincidence (like the fine-tunings of Earth's moon).

 

Yeah, and if the force that one body exerts on the other were not exactly equal to the force the other body exerts on the first, all kind of weird and probably fatal things would happen as well. But, this example doesn't seem very surprising. What I suspect, is that rather than fine-tuning, we will end up finding rules which explain why said variables are what they are, and then it won't seem very surprising in the least.

 

While I agree in principle, I suspect there are some which are truly coincidence, and will never be explained.