Goddidit Vs Naturedidit

[trdsf]

I know that's what you think is true... considering the myriad of factors involved in allowing sentient life to exist I argue it was intentional.

I know it's what is true, based upon the best available evidence taken at face value rather than trying to twist data to fit a pre-supposed opinion, and subject to modification pending better observations.

So we just got lucky....very very very lucky! How lucky can it be that forces that didn't intend us to exist, didn't plan for us to exist, didn't want us to exist stumbled upon the formula to cause our existence. Not to mention the forces that do exist didn't even intend their own existence never mind ours. If you are a skeptic why aren't you skeptical of those claims? I find that skeptics are usually only skeptical of claims they don't believe but swallow beliefs they do believe in hook line and sinker without even a burp.

Again, wrong end of the telescope.  It only looks lucky if you assume we specifically are inevitable, which you are clearly doing, and if you assume the universe has intent, which you are also clearly doing, and if you assume we are special, which you are unsurprisingly also doing.  Evolution -- physical, chemical or biological -- doesn't work that way.  It's a blind process, reactive to existing environments, not predictive of future ones.  There's no intent involved.  We happened to be a good fit at one time, and happen to still be a good enough fit.

I refer you to Douglas Adams' Parable of the Puddle:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8mJr4c66bs

If intelligent life is a one in a billion chance, that means there are statistically several trillion sentient life forms out there in the universe, and probably at least one or two others in this galaxy, and the only way your argument here holds water is if they are all carbon-based DNA-coded hairless primates like us.

So luck had nothing to do with it.  The vagaries of chance did.  And Planet Earth did just fine -- arguably better, ecologically -- for billions of years without us on it.  It doesn't need us to be here.  Anyway, because evolution hasn't stopped, we're only a temporary waypoint, not a final destination.

[Baruch]

My Anthropism, isn't the Anthropic Principle, which is what Drew is alluding to.

[Drew_2017]

Yes, but unlike magical sky daddies we have observed instances of naturalistic causation. In fact of all things once attributed to magical sky daddies (which includes pretty much everything) the only ones we have determined the real cause of with any degree of certainty have been naturalistic. So believing a naturalistic cause is more likely than magical sky daddies without any verifiable evidence of magical sky daddies isn't that much of a stretch.

I'm happy to stipulate that actions and phenomena within the universe can be traced back to naturalistic causation. You will be happy to know I agree they're naturalistic models (theories) of how the universe always existed although you told me you don't believe those either apparently you share my incredulity in that regard. The problem appears to be the notion that if theism is true then the universe was caused by magical sky daddies who materialized the universe out of thin air or perhaps via some incantation. Suppose rather than magic sky daddies we owe the existence of this universe to a technologically advanced beings from another universe who used technology and intelligence to intentionally cause this universe? Would that be more palatable than the notion of sky daddies? Its my contention the universe was caused by a transcendent being using intelligence and design. Of course that would appear magical to us. 

What about these guys? Are they magical beings?

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

Cambridge, MA -

Move over, Matrix - astronomers have done you one better. They have created the first realistic virtual universe using a computer simulation called "Illustris." Illustris can recreate 13 billion years of cosmic evolution in a cube 350 million light-years on a side with unprecedented resolution.

"Until now, no single simulation was able to reproduce the universe on both large and small scales simultaneously," says lead author Mark Vogelsberger (MIT/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who conducted the work in collaboration with researchers at several institutions, including the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies in Germany.

Instead of wearing lab coats should they wear a tuxedo and a top hat with a cane? Instead of using intelligence, design, 100,000 lines of code and super computers should they just tap their magic wand and make a virtual universe exist? I might add these sky daddies...er I mean scientists used the theistic method to cause this virtual universe to exist. Suppose with many technological advances, they eventually cause a universe in which a planet like earth emerges and eventually sentient beings come into existence strictly by the laws of physics the scientists created (actually in this case it would be mimic). These sentient beings don't think they are in a virtual universe, the simulation is so real they can't tell the difference. No doubt some of those sentient beings would come to think a fix was in and there existence was caused by sky daddies while (much smarter people) would believe it was caused by naturalistic forces minus a plan, an engineering degree or the desire to do so. In that case the smarter people would be wrong.

For the record I'm not suggesting our existence is actually a computer simulation what I'm demonstrating is that the belief our universe was caused intentionally by a sentient being doesn't mean said being needs to employ magic to cause it to happen. Many of the thing we do today would appear magical to someone from 300 years ago...

[trdsf]

I'm not so sure about this.

If we live in a Hubble volume embedded in an infinite expanse of space, then every possible combination of particles must, no matter how unlikely, necessarily come to be somewhere in that infinite expanse. And, because we and our world comprise a possible combination of particles, we were bound to come into existence in some volume of space. Actually, in an infinite universe, we would have to come into existence an infinite number of times throughout infinite space. Everything that is possible must come to pass. In which case we could all consider ourselves to be "necessary beings."

It's fun to consider how this idea applies to fictional characters and stories.

Well, yes, in an infinite universe (in time and in space), anything that physically can happen must happen, and infinitely many times, as well as infinite variations thereon.

But in that case, all other possible forms of life are also necessary beings so there's still nothing special about us.

As much as I would like my fictional world to exist somewhere, alas, I think it is not possible.  Especially as there's an assumption of a limited form of Universalia (the concept of Gaia extended to the entire universe) underpinning some of it, which concept I think is exceedingly improbable in reality.

[Drew_2017]

Again, wrong end of the telescope.  It only looks lucky if you assume we specifically are inevitable, which you are clearly doing, and if you assume the universe has intent, which you are also clearly doing, and if you assume we are special, which you are unsurprisingly also doing.

When we say something is lucky what we mean is that a rare occurrence happened by chance as opposed to an intentional cause. You say it only looks lucky if we assume we are inevitable then you immediately proceed to make a case that states our existence is inevitable.

If intelligent life is a one in a billion chance, that means there are statistically several trillion sentient life forms out there in the universe, and probably at least one or two others in this galaxy, and the only way your argument here holds water is if they are all carbon-based DNA-coded hairless primates like us.

Your one in a billion chance starts with a universe already existing in which the law of physics caused stars to exist, galaxies to exist, planets to exist and solar systems to exist. Do you have any facts or data that indicate if a universe exists it has to have the laws of physics we observe? Do you know of any reason gravity exists or has to exist? Do you agree if gravity didn't exist we wouldn't be here?  If you agree that gravity doesn't have to exist then it is (if not lucky) very fortunate for us it does...right? You're starting off at incredibly convenient starting point to make up odds. 

[trdsf]

When we say something is lucky what we mean is that a rare occurrence happened by chance as opposed to an intentional cause. You say it only looks lucky if we assume we are inevitable then you immediately proceed to make a case that states our existence is inevitable.

You're the one who said 'lucky', not me.  I made no such case.  We are not necessary to the universe, we are only a byproduct of it.  If you're referring to my comments with regard to a universe infinite in space and time, you'll please note that I clearly stated inevitability only in terms of a spatially and temporally infinite universe -- and the inevitability of all other possible life forms, as well.

Your one in a billion chance starts with a universe already existing in which the law of physics caused stars to exist, galaxies to exist, planets to exist and solar systems to exist. Do you have any facts or data that indicate if a universe exists it has to have the laws of physics we observe? Do you know of any reason gravity exists or has to exist? Do you agree if gravity didn't exist we wouldn't be here?  If you agree that gravity doesn't have to exist then it is (if not lucky) very fortunate for us it does...right? You're starting off at incredibly convenient starting point to make up odds.

My one in a billion is simply  to illustrate the point about what the huge numbers of potential habitats in the universe does to even exceedingly small odds.  We do not know what the probability of life arising on a clement world is.  And we only have an outline idea of what constitutes clement.  Probes that explore the polar ice, permafrost, and frozen northern ocean of Mars and the subsurface oceans of Ceres, Europa, Titan, Enceladus and Ganymede will tell us something.

And we also do not know if the current set of laws of physics as observed are the only set that allows a universe sufficiently large in space and time to allow physical, chemical and biological evolution.  But there is no reason to suppose that this is the only possible spatiotemporally large universe.

As for why gravity exists: it does because that's what you get when you have mass.  As for whether life can evolve without it?  We don't know but probably not, given that we assume the need of energy and a solvent in which biochemical processes may arise.

You realize that in a theoretical gravityless universe with sentience in it (highly unlikely, but just posit for a moment), they could ask the precise reverse question, just as incorrectly and shortsightedly as you do.

You're still assuming everything in terms of us.  That is an exceedingly tiny view.  If the environment had been different, something else would be here, and it makes no difference to the universe whether that something is us, some other sentience, or nothing at all.

There is a thing called the Anthropic Principle.  In its base form, it states that we should not be surprised that we find ourselves in a universe in which we can exist since we are a part of that universe, and if the universe couldn't support life, we wouldn't be in it.  The universe happens to be able to support life like us.

There's nothing preventing other universes from having existed 'before' (that is, prior to the Big Bang that we observe in our universe) ours.  Since they cannot be observed directly, they are strictly hypothetical, but they are not ruled out by the laws of science as we currently understand them.  There is also nothing in the laws that says they have to have had the same physical laws as our own.  And there could have been millions, billions, trillions of them, some collapsing instantaneously, some expanding and contracting before any sort of life could evolve... and some different from ours but still lasting billions of years and with sentient life therein.  Denizens therein could have just as easily -- and just as wrongly -- assumed that their universe was made for them and that no other one is possible.

What you're proposing is that this universe is explicitly tuned to us and by extension that we're inherent in it.  I can only call that the Completely Remarkable Anthropic Principle -- and from its acronym, you can guess what I think of it.

[PopeyesPappy]

I'm happy to stipulate that actions and phenomena within the universe can be traced back to naturalistic causation. You will be happy to know I agree they're naturalistic models (theories) of how the universe always existed although you told me you don't believe those either apparently you share my incredulity in that regard. The problem appears to be the notion that if theism is true then the universe was caused by magical sky daddies who materialized the universe out of thin air or perhaps via some incantation. Suppose rather than magic sky daddies we owe the existence of this universe to a technologically advanced beings from another universe who used technology and intelligence to intentionally cause this universe? Would that be more palatable than the notion of sky daddies? Its my contention the universe was caused by a transcendent being using intelligence and design. Of course that would appear magical to us. 

What about these guys? Are they magical beings?

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/2014-10

Cambridge, MA -

Move over, Matrix - astronomers have done you one better. They have created the first realistic virtual universe using a computer simulation called "Illustris." Illustris can recreate 13 billion years of cosmic evolution in a cube 350 million light-years on a side with unprecedented resolution.

"Until now, no single simulation was able to reproduce the universe on both large and small scales simultaneously," says lead author Mark Vogelsberger (MIT/Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics), who conducted the work in collaboration with researchers at several institutions, including the Heidelberg Institute for Theoretical Studies in Germany.

Instead of wearing lab coats should they wear a tuxedo and a top hat with a cane? Instead of using intelligence, design, 100,000 lines of code and super computers should they just tap their magic wand and make a virtual universe exist? I might add these sky daddies...er I mean scientists used the theistic method to cause this virtual universe to exist. Suppose with many technological advances, they eventually cause a universe in which a planet like earth emerges and eventually sentient beings come into existence strictly by the laws of physics the scientists created (actually in this case it would be mimic). These sentient beings don't think they are in a virtual universe, the simulation is so real they can't tell the difference. No doubt some of those sentient beings would come to think a fix was in and there existence was caused by sky daddies while (much smarter people) would believe it was caused by naturalistic forces minus a plan, an engineering degree or the desire to do so. In that case the smarter people would be wrong.

For the record I'm not suggesting our existence is actually a computer simulation what I'm demonstrating is that the belief our universe was caused intentionally by a sentient being doesn't mean said being needs to employ magic to cause it to happen. Many of the thing we do today would appear magical to someone from 300 years ago...

It's not that I don't believe the naturalistic models. One of them, or one of them no one has thought of yet, could be correct. I just don't know which one. I do however find naturalistic causes more likely as we have confirmed naturalistic causes for many things. We have no such conformation that god causes anything. I don't find advanced aliens did it likely either because we have no evidence for advanced aliens with the ability to create universes.

As far as simulations on the development of the universe go, they are not evidence for the existence of god. We have models that can, believe it or not, predict short term weather fairly accurately. Based on your logic the fact we have developed simulations that are useful for predicting the weather is evidence that god is going to cause it to rain here tomorrow night. It simply doesn't follow.

[widdershins]

The laws aren't just so ... we create toy situations to simplify things, then discount that effect (which is observable in quantum mechanics directly) that there is no Platonic objectivity.  Newton's laws are Newtons (and very useful).  Einstein's laws are Einstein's (not as useful).  Without man, there are no laws. our simplifications create the regularity, nature without that, is mostly chaotic.

Not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're simply saying that if there were no men they wouldn't be written down.  Okay.  If there were no men, the effects of said laws would still be the same, though.

[Unbeliever]

Amazing, what materialists grasping at straws are willing to believe ;-)

Better to grasp at straws than to grasp at vacuum...

[Unbeliever]

Nietzsche had the idea of Infinite Return.

That's not the same as a level-one multiverse. Though the "eternal return" seems plausible to me if the universe is repeated infinitely, as well as being spatially infinite.

[Unbeliever]

You can't even type "GOD"?  Wow. that shows how religious you truly are even though you try to disguise it most posts.

Yeah, some people can't bring themselves to use the name of God for fear of...something or other. Even though the word "God" is not even a name, but only, at best, a title. How could the creator of all of infinite reality be so mundane as to have a name in the first place? But I guess we can let Baruch have his God-fear if it makes him comfortable...

[Unbeliever]

The universe exists ... unjustifiable premise.  You don't know what a universe is, nor existence.  You claim without justification, that you know what those words mean.  Everything is a dream, after a bad night drinking down your sorrows at a bar.

So, if no one knows what anything means, how do we even have a discussion at all? No one can say anything, because neither they nor anyone else knows what the hell they're talking about.

[Unbeliever]

Well, yes, in an infinite universe (in time and in space), anything that physically can happen must happen, and infinitely many times, as well as infinite variations thereon.

But in that case, all other possible forms of life are also necessary beings so there's still nothing special about us.

Nope, nothing in the least special about us. But not everything is possible - such as logically inconsistent things, like a square circle. I think what the universe is doing is bringing all potential conditions into actuality. Many of those can't come into actuality without beings like us being here to create them. We are the creators, not any God. We didn't create the universe, but we do create things that couldn't come into existence without us being here to make them.

[Mike Cl]

Not sure what you're saying here, but it sounds like you're simply saying that if there were no men they wouldn't be written down.  Okay.  If there were no men, the effects of said laws would still be the same, though.

That takes us back to the old ' if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody to hear it does it make a sound?' question.  Supposed to be sage and all that.  Of course the sound waves are produced whether there are people there or not.  The physical laws of physics function whether or not there are people to notice it and figure them out. 

[Drew_2017]

You're the one who said 'lucky', not me.  I made no such case.  We are not necessary to the universe, we are only a byproduct of it.  If you're referring to my comments with regard to a universe infinite in space and time, you'll please note that I clearly stated inevitability only in terms of a spatially and temporally infinite universe -- and the inevitability of all other possible life forms, as well.

I also note you state everything as if its incontestably true. Are these statements you make fact or opinion?

My one in a billion is simply  to illustrate the point about what the huge numbers of potential habitats in the universe does to even exceedingly small odds.  We do not know what the probability of life arising on a clement world is.  And we only have an outline idea of what constitutes clement.  Probes that explore the polar ice, permafrost, and frozen northern ocean of Mars and the subsurface oceans of Ceres, Europa, Titan, Enceladus and Ganymede will tell us something.

You pulled the one billion out of thin air and pretend its a scientific fact of some sort without calculating all the conditions for stars, galaxies and planets to occur. No one knows what the odds are that a universe exists in the first place do they?

And we also do not know if the current set of laws of physics as observed are the only set that allows a universe sufficiently large in space and time to allow physical, chemical and biological evolution.  But there is no reason to suppose that this is the only possible spatiotemporally large universe.

One crazy reason would be because we don't know other universes exist. It appears you are making up conditions that suit you as you go along.

As for why gravity exists: it does because that's what you get when you have mass

That sound you heard was my jaw dropping...