A God Argument

[Eric Orwoll]

The following is an argument that I posted on youtube requesting the response of an atheist. It's not exactly the language I would use here, it pretty much assumes a scientific materialist perspective from the outset. Critics are welcome.


A.

The laws of nature are specifically aligned to allow for the existence of life. We exist, therefore our universe is hospitable to life.

3 Explanations:

1. One particular universe manifested arbitrarily and no others. (Extremely unlikely)
If only one universe manifested, why would the set of physical constants happen to land on the small likelihood which produces a life bearing universe? Without an explanation for why this would be, we are forced to consider other more statistically plausible scenarios.

2. One particular universe manifested by design and no others. (Unprovable and Circular)

3. Multiple universes manifest.

Let us take the case that multiple universes exist. What defines their properties? What is it that determines which sets of physical constants can exist and which can't?

Claim 1: There must be a mechanism explaining how the creation of universes would be restricted, or the conclusion must be that all sets of physical constants that may exist mathematically, do exist.

Let us take this to be the case.

B

All sets of physical constants exist.
Physics is the study of mathematical structures which exist in our reality.

2 Explanations:

1. It is Mathematical structures that are responsible for the nature of our reality. Mathematical structures shape the nature all all realities. All math corresponds to reality.

2. Mathematical structures exist which do not correspond to physical realities. If this is the case then there must be some mechanism for explaining how some mathematical structures manifest but not others. (don't see it)


Let us assume 1. All math corresponds to reality.

C.

All math corresponds to reality.

Explanations:

1. There is some reality which does not correspond to mathematics.

2. Math is reality.


In the case of 1- What is that reality which does not correspond to mathematics? Everything we've ever experienced does. What would the nature of a non-mathematical reality be? Its theoretical addition explains nothing.

So math is reality. We are experiencing math, through math.

What is math?

The relationship of information.

D.

All mathematical existence is relational.

Explanations:

1. There is no information by itself, only the relationship of information.

2. Information exists, as well as all relational perspective.

This is of the same epistemological order as the fundamental question of solipsism.
Impossible to confirm either way.

To attempt a selection I'll draw the mathematical understanding to its conclusion.

If all math can be reduced to a binary expression, and it can with a Binary number system, then all reality can be reduced to a binary expression.
The foundation of math is bivalent logic, the only values are true or false. If an infinite chain of binary existed it would contain all possible mathematical information.
True or false, means to be there or not to be there in reality.
The interaction of being and nothing is logic. Mathematics is logic expressed syntactically. Physics is mathematics which occur in this reality. Chemistry derives from physics. Biology derives from chemistry. Mind derives from biology. You would be produced from the interaction of being with non-being. It explains all reality we witness. It explains the existence of consciousness.

Examination of consciousness:
All math exists simultaneously. Time is a variable within mathematical systems, the systems themselves do not sit in time. The present has no special quality that makes it "now", 1834 happened just as surely then as 2012 is happening now. Why are we, out of all being, blessed with the present? "Nowness" comes from us not to us. We are where the now is. There is no present which moves through the background of time. We are systems which are characterized, in part, by the variable of time. All moments of your consciousness exist simultaneously. We constantly have the impression of having just arrived at the present because we have memory of the past. We feel as if there has been a given amount of time passing between now and the past, but this is not true. The distance into the past which you perceive is a projection of your memory. In truth, all moments coexist. Existence is not determined by time, time is determined by existence. Your perceived position in the dimensional axis of time is determined by the content of your memory.
The moments of your consciousness exist eternally, as abstract mathematical relationships of a single underlying totality.

The flow of time is the reading of a syntactic relationship of closely aligned spatially related information states.
All abstract information states exist, those that characterize your consciousness constitute a syntax of a mathematical/physical/chemical/biological/mental system which is you.

Thus consciousness emerges out of the interaction of being and nothing.

Thus all consciousness emerges,
All possible consciousness,
Infinite consciousness. God.

Let us choose 2. Information itself exists. Not just the relationship of information.


Conclusion: All differentiated reality is the application of perspective on an undifferentiated reality. Absolute infinity, God, exists in the form of an undifferentiated reality which contains all reality and forms all reality. (The common usage of the word form implies time, here I refer to the simultaneous emergence of complexity and simplicity- which share the relationship of being two syntactic expressions of the same infinite object.) All of existence can be reduced to an infinite singularity. That infinite singularity interacts with nothing, with perspective, to generate logic and consequently differentiated being. The whole is the part. Reality is an infinite fractal.

[Tomas]

The whole is the part.

Brother Eric..

Hey pal, when I was younger life was good but they days Surfin' UsA

[Tenver-]

I didn't read the post to be honest. I'll just answer with a few sentences anyway.

The only logical, coherent system is determinism except for it's one great flaw or mystery. There is no logical counter-part to determinism or any "random" thing (which couldn't then truly be defined as any system). This determinism rules the Universe. Maybe there are multiple universes. Reality is what really is you could say. It is a construct that feeds Nature. The hard thing is finding out what reality actually is then. It is what is, but what is it then? Nature is this world that we postulate to experience and must base our findings on, it is feeded by this construct of reality that ultimately decides what is in this Nature that we base our life and understanding on.

Determinism has one problem. It makes for an infinite repetition. If everything has a cause, what caused that? Next then, what caused that? And so on forever. If we are to avoid the "it's turtles all the way down"-argument, then this theory must have a better answer either by experimental argument or by a superior theoretical answer basically. I'm guessing the answer is pretty simply, but pretty damn hard to figure out. I ascribe that more to human lack than a failing of Nature. The interesting thing is that there is no coherent, experimental consistent counter-part to determinism.

This system of reality that feeds into a construct we experience and call Nature and works likely by determinism (this is the single, most interesting question for me - solving the paradox of determinism) you can call ontological reality. This ontological reality is everything in itself that is related to existence within our feeble limits of imagination. It is what creates and what exists - everything we so far can imagine to exist (or non-exist). It can simply be defined as "what is". No if's or then, just what is. As such there can only be one thing that is and this is this ontological reality.

To make case for an argument of a supreme being that creates (and how was this supreme being created then? And so on...) just further complicates the argument and seems an unlikely position for anything to begin with seeing the vastness of the universe and the limits of any seperable phenomena that we can observe (planets, atoms, theorized dark matter, light, mass, energy, living beings etc...) and the quantity of such phenomena.
This ontological reality that is, is all, creates all and destroys all can be called God. This is in my opinion what Einstein meant when he said that he believes that "God does not play dice" in reference to determinism. There is no logically, coherent counter-part to determinism, yet it has this very important paradox built into it. I think of this ontological reality as "the supreme master" which rules me and everything else and is likely completely based on cause and effect with the only problem being this paradox of infinite regression in determinism.

I've tried to make a theory for anything else than determinism but it falls flat on its face with logical inconsistency and no experimental evidence which is completely opposite for determinism (which though has this most important paradox which must be coherently explained before determinism is coherent). Again, I ascribe that more to my own failings and human limits than the inconsistency of Nature.

Putting a supreme being into it just makes it a lot more complicated and it will be damn hard to argue for such a thing. Also, a rock doesn't need a God. Theism is basically man thinking of a god thinking of man. Was there ever any God created that doesn't give a shit about man, positively or negatively? Theism is an expression of human needs, strengths and weaknesses as a living being - not of any argument for the creation of Earth or any good argument of any supreme being (because I say so isn't a good argument - not directed at OP, but at religion in general). Also, to quote Einstein again: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". Religion is good for humans probably looking at it's evolutionary power as a human behavior (and to a small degree also other animals with supersitious thinking, which maybe all animals of some size have), but it does not do well as a scientific argument - it serves other very human needs. Also, the human condition. Can't expand on that since I need to go now, but man is cultural man, thinking man and tool man in my opinion. We humans can think of that which is impossible - we can imagine things and conditions that we will never get. There aren't many or any other animals that can do that. Thus the tragic human condition. A starving, homeless orphan child in Africa can imagine being fed, having a home to live in and having parents - but many will never get that. Other animals live for today. Survive, eat, engage with something and rest. Nothing else. No horse or dog thinks of the tragedy of being killed early if that looks likely. They have much, much less brain power compared to us and will be happy if they live in happy conditions and die happy if killed instantly. They cannot think of what could be and what will not be to any real comparison with us. That is a privilege and a plight of humans. In that comes religions. "It is up to God".

[Diebert van Rhijn]

If only one universe manifested, why would the set of physical constants happen to land on the small likelihood which produces a life bearing universe? Without an explanation for why this would be, we are forced to consider other more statistically plausible scenarios.

How did you establish that it's a "small likelihood" for a life bearing universe to arise out of all possibilities? How would you argue there are so many possibilities for universes to form?

As for this "need" for an explanation, is there really? Once committed to causality as principle, the effect always arises with the set of causes necessary for the effect to appear. Another other set of causes which would counter the "alignment" cannot be in place at the same time. So can one really ask an explanation for causality itself? Isn't that the same as trying to explain explanations? Causality is an axiom, it's the very concept which remains after everything else is fallen away by examination.

As for mathematics and information theory: "entities are not to be multiplied unnecessarily".

[Eric Orwoll]

Diebert:

The small likelihood,

The forces (electro-magnetism, weak and strong nuclear, gravity) have fixed universal values in our ordinary experience, but physicists are now concluding that very distant regions may in fact have modified force values. If this is so, then other sets of physical constants are possible and, by extrapolation, we can view the particular relative value magnitudes to represent a very small segment of the possibility. The reason we "know" that even minor variations in the force magnitudes would not produce life-bearing universes is:
That we can use the equations of physics to predict what would happen in the case of any particular modification.
A universe with matter at all as opposed to energy is very rare, although not quite so rare as a universe that would produce the heavy elements necessary for complex chemistry.

[Eric Orwoll]

I didn't read the post to be honest.

It is clear that you didn't. Why attempt to respond to something you haven't read?

[David Quinn]

Determinism has one problem. It makes for an infinite repetition. If everything has a cause, what caused that? Next then, what caused that? And so on forever. If we are to avoid the "it's turtles all the way down"-argument, then this theory must have a better answer either by experimental argument or by a superior theoretical answer basically. I'm guessing the answer is pretty simply, but pretty damn hard to figure out.

This is actually a contrived issue that is generated by the mind habitually dividing Nature into "things". It is not unlike the way Zeno "proved" that a ball travelling towards a wall will never reach it on account that it has to pass through an infinite number of (mentally-created) intervals. The perception of infinite regression in Nature is equally contrived.

In reality, there are no "things" in Nature, other than what the mind decides to construct and where it decides to draw the boundaries. Nature is a continuum and thus there is no infinite regression involved.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The forces (electro-magnetism, weak and strong nuclear, gravity) have fixed universal values in our ordinary experience, but physicists are now concluding that very distant regions may in fact have modified force values. If this is so, then other sets of physical constants are possible and, by extrapolation, we can view the particular relative value magnitudes to represent a very small segment of the possibility. The reason we "know" that even minor variations in the force magnitudes would not produce life-bearing universes is:
That we can use the equations of physics to predict what would happen in the case of any particular modification.

Yes, this is well known science although a perceived change in "universal" constants does not mean you can just extrapolate all kinds of alternative universes from that. Perhaps those constants were just not defined properly yet and small corrective factors need to be added first.

A universe with matter at all as opposed to energy is very rare, although not quite so rare as a universe that would produce the heavy elements necessary for complex chemistry.

It's not clear how you arrived at the statistical calculations which would predict how "rare" one type universe would be in comparison to another type. As far as I know this is all very hypothetical theory at best. In any case it cannot function as firm base of your philosophical argument, even from a scientific materialist perspective. It turns the whole philosophical argument in pure speculative theorizing and as such not addressing the question of God, causality or certainties in any way. And it still doesn't matter if math correspondends to reality here or not. Assumptions do not make any good philosophical reasoning because like all scientific theory they are provisional. And religious concepts never are.

[Eric Orwoll]

Diebert,

Yes, this is well known science although a perceived change in "universal" constants does not mean you can just extrapolate all kinds of alternative universes from that.

IF the best scientific model for the operations of the physical constants includes their variability, and you assume the current best model to be true, then we have a starting premise- that the physical constants are variable.
If the physical constants are variable then we have no particular reason to believe that our set of constants hold any special place. If the physical constants can change, then we need to establish a mechanism which would restrain their change or we are left with the assumption that they are unrestricted.

Unless someone can provide a mechanism explaining why only our set of physical constants would correspond to a reality then my explanation (and max tegmark's) that mathematics equates to physics provides the more extensive account of reality.

Side note: Other sets of physical constants, or other mathematical structures, don't have to correspond to alternate universes- they could represent regional variations in an immense spatially expanding system of causally disconnected bubble universes. All part of the same dimensional axis but moving apart at faster than the speed of light. (This is the current big bang model- inflationary)

What this argument seeks to do is to prove the totality of being from within science. Inherently provisional, but perhaps more persuasive to the average person than a purely logical account.

It's not clear how you arrived at the statistical calculations which would predict how "rare" one type universe would be in comparison to another type. As far as I know this is all very hypothetical theory at best.

If the variability of the physical constants were unrestricted, as the Tegmarkian view holds, then the range of values, for each force, which produce matter and complex chemistry is narrow.
The argument asks for a method of explaining a restriction on the values of the physical constants, without this one would be left to assume the rigidity of their metaphysical potential on the basis of faith alone- and against the predominant scientific findings.

It is a provisional answer in the face of our epistemological limitation. The argument seeks to find the physical explanations for data received which conform to the best theories. If another theory, which doesn't include the variability of physical constants, explains the data more fully then my argument would fail.

In any case it cannot function as firm base of your philosophical argument, even from a scientific materialist perspective. It turns the whole philosophical argument in pure speculative theorizing and as such not addressing the question of God, causality or certainties in any way. And it still doesn't matter if math correspondends to reality here or not. Assumptions do not make any good philosophical reasoning because like all scientific theory they are provisional. And religious concepts never are.

The argument is meant for those who value provisional, empirically based, explanations. I have purely logical arguments for the Totality but I don't feel they would have been well received on youtube.

The other fault with the purely logical arguments is that they fall victim to the inexactitude of language far more easily. I've been thinking about a purely linguistic argument for the Totality to get around this, I'll post that when I've completed it.

[NobodyListens2Genius]

My God Argument:


Anyone that thinks we came about with no intention/planning/design is an idiot.


You can't see, you can't think. I truly am sorry, but once you accept that, maybe you can move on.

Random and unplanned are only concepts we made up :) The concepts themselves are wrong. No such thing exists as unplanned. These ideas are only due to a lack of understanding.

All that exists is the mysterious unfolding of the universal being, whatever you want to call it.


Actually, you can call it "me".

[oxytocinNA]

My God Argument:


Anyone that thinks we came about with no intention/planning/design is an idiot.


Actually, you can call it "me".

Ah - the old argument / proclamation of intimidation - "if you ______, then you are an idiot"

Hopeless cause.

The following is an argument that I posted on youtube requesting the response of an atheist. It's not exactly the language I would use here, it pretty much assumes a scientific materialist perspective from the outset. Critics are welcome.


A.

The laws of nature are specifically aligned to allow for the existence of life. We exist, therefore our universe is hospitable to life. etc. .....

You fail to grasp the nature of the pattern of existence, and a critical axiom there of. You will not get instruction (a correction)* because you post faulty arguments, based on faulty assumptions.

*There is no debate on this. There is a correct answer, and all those that are not. You do not know, and you have a long way to go before you will have a chance to see why.
That said, there are plenty of atheists who will waste time arguing this with you. It is because they also fail to see critical issues. I can give you the URL of a good site for this, if you wish to tangle with regular atheists.

[Eric Orwoll]

You fail to grasp the nature of the pattern of existence, and a critical axiom there of. You will not get instruction (a correction)* because you post faulty arguments, based on faulty assumptions.

*There is no debate on this. There is a correct answer, and all those that are not. You do not know, and you have a long way to go before you will have a chance to see why.
That said, there are plenty of atheists who will waste time arguing this with you. It is because they also fail to see critical issues. I can give you the URL of a good site for this, if you wish to tangle with regular atheists.

I absolutely agree, this argument is faulty. It was intended for people who have faulty assumptions.
I enjoy making arguments, not all of them reflect the "absolute".
As an exercise you might find it entertaining to point out exactly where the faultiness begins, from your perspective.

[oxytocinNA]

You fail to grasp the nature of the pattern of existence, and a critical axiom there of. You will not get instruction (a correction)* because you post faulty arguments, based on faulty assumptions.

*There is no debate on this. There is a correct answer, and all those that are not. You do not know, and you have a long way to go before you will have a chance to see why.
That said, there are plenty of atheists who will waste time arguing this with you. It is because they also fail to see critical issues. I can give you the URL of a good site for this, if you wish to tangle with regular atheists.

I absolutely agree, this argument is faulty. It was intended for people who have faulty assumptions.
I enjoy making arguments, not all of them reflect the "absolute".
As an exercise you might find it entertaining to point out exactly where the faultiness begins, from your perspective.

What is the perspective of the answer to 2+2

Just in case - disclaimer - this is not meant to be a frivolous response.

There is no exercise for me on this. I only offer some steering advice - no answers on serious stuff.

[Patrick Watts]

Conclusion: All differentiated reality is the application of perspective on an undifferentiated reality. Absolute infinity, God, exists in the form of an undifferentiated reality which contains all reality and forms all reality. (The common usage of the word form implies time, here I refer to the simultaneous emergence of complexity and simplicity- which share the relationship of being two syntactic expressions of the same infinite object.) All of existence can be reduced to an infinite singularity.

That infinite singularity interacts with nothing, with perspective, to generate logic and consequently differentiated being. The whole is the part. Reality is an infinite fractal.

I think we're close in our world view. I would add that the conception of a non-differentiated reality (some homogeneous void) can only exist in contrast. In other words, an undifferentiated existence is logically impossible. However, that does not mean that differentiation is not caused by perspective. There is an infinitely fractal nature of reality due to the nature of cause and effect, however, these differentiations are caused by (or better, relational to) mind. Therefore, a basis of reality is mind. This does not result in an omnipotent mind that can bend the forces of reality through sheer will, obviously. There are clearly "ways" to nature that we have no choice but to work with. However, essentially, the nature we are working with is our larger self, the larger mind.

Through this understanding, rather than find your ego, self esteem or self security in another person, applause from family, the crowd, or submit to the security of an organization, you can relate yourself to the totality, knowing that your current perceptions are put into relation to that. In terms of finding inner strength and good will, there is no better medicine.

This philosophy is good for doing two things:

a) dissolving the ego and opening up to higher realities.
b) strengthening the ego to unprecedented levels of fortitude

[ForbidenRea]

Animal Farm-
George Orwell

[jufa]

1. One particular universe manifested arbitrarily and no others. (Extremely unlikely)
If only one universe manifested, why would the set of physical constants happen to land on the small likelihood which produces a life bearing universe? Without an explanation for why this would be, we are forced to consider other more statistically plausible scenarios.

2. One particular universe manifested by design and no others. (Unprovable and Circular)

Everything one is aware of is of one particular kind. There are no two anything exact, not even in personal thought. Yet everything is an element of its kind, which means everything is from a pattern of cause and effect. (This is provable scientifically and logically)

1. It is Mathematical structures that are responsible for the nature of our reality. Mathematical structures shape the nature all all realities. All math corresponds to reality.

2. Mathematical structures exist which do not correspond to physical realities. If this is the case then there must be some mechanism for explaining how some mathematical structures manifest but not others. (don't see it)

Mathematical structure is not what is responsible for the nature of reality.

Everything man is aware of is found in the Immutable Rhythm of Breath. Breath is the forms which emanate the Wave of all potential forms. It is not only forms architect and master mason, it is the Principled Substance and Patterned Essence which is the Conscious "spark of life' as Pure Will and Awareness. There can be no Conscious "spark of life" nor Pure Will and Awareness of the Immutable Rhythm of the universe filling all space of being until realization that "the law of the Spirit of life" does not govern the Breath of the living Soul. - jufa

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com

[Undeniably Deniable]

Look up bootstrap paradox or newcomb's paradox to se that it is possible for information and objects to be created out of thin air. I would like your read on the cause effect domino.

[jufa]

"Because daylight cannot comprehend itself, what then is comprehensible to its vision of perception? {*_*}

Because darkness cannot comprehend darkness, what then is comprehensible to its vision of perception? {*_*}

Each depends on the other for being the immutable source of their lives of awareness, so what are they aware of? {*_*}

Because daylight and darkness must have an object of cause to express their Purity, Activity and Inertia spirits, how can they have perception which cannot visualize subjects of their own birthing? {*_*}

How could "bootstrap paradox or newcomb's paradox" exist at all if it was not 'cause of

the Immutable Rhythm of Breath? Breath is the forms which emanate the Wave of all potential forms.

All which one believes and acknowledge as truth is the truth which emanates spirits of ignorance. To the individual of flesh who believes flesh is infinite real, even though knowing flesh is temporal, and that which God created and made "by the Word of His power" shall endure on, and on into the infinity of Being. This individual is as much the influential deceit to mankind as the mentality of the god of this world itself." jufa

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa
http://theillusionofgod.yuku.com