Define God

[ideologyhunter]

Didn't realize this Organizing Mind did such masterful work in making the universe orderly and fine-tuned.
> possibility of an asteroid strike on earth big enough to destroy all life
> species extinctions in earth's history; just ask my pet trilobite
> the sun to become a red giant in 5 billion years, making earth a cinder
> the neuromuscular diseases; alzheimers; idiopathic cancers (let these stand in for a fuller list)
> Plasmodium, which is the malaria parasite; can't forget a shout-out for Naegleria fowleri (the brain-eating amoeba; it's popular at HHS)
> tsunamis and other fine-tuned events
Some entity planned all this -- and I am to stand in speechless awe of It?

It's also worth pondering this Organizing Mind's coyness and irresistible sense of humor, peeking from behind the curtain as the Panglosses among us ferret out Its wondrous existence, but never deigning to appear. Apparently the OM is okay with a multiplicity of human explanations, in the form of bizarre scriptures in a multitude of traditions, over which humanity has proven perfectly happy in hacking each other to pieces, burning, hanging, looting, exterminating the people of the "other explanations."

 

[pood]

It is odd that most of the universe is a howling, empty vacuum of quantum fields. That there are innumerable planets, moons, and other physical bodies that are uninhabited and uninhabitable. That the universe seems mostly “fine tuned” for the creation of black holes rather than life. That the only life we know of is present on a tiny blue speck orbiting a nondescript sun on the outskirts of a standard-issue galaxy. Odd, that is, if you presume a creator, rather than just a naturalist account of stuff in which shit happens from time to time, including, rarely, life.

It’s true that most of the universe looks empty and hostile. But that observation doesn’t actually weaken the explanatory case for fine-tuning — it strengthens it.


1. Vastness ≠ meaninglessness.
The fact that the cosmos is mostly vacuum is exactly what modern physics predicts: stability requires low entropy on large scales. The same expansion and quantum fields that make most regions barren are also what allow any habitable islands to exist at all. The “emptiness” is a necessary backdrop for the small but critical zones of order.

I’ll start with this, and how it completely misses the point.

A vast and ancient universe that is mostly vacuum may indeed be what modern physics predicts in order for there to be life at all. So why invoke a creator? Presumably, an omnipotent creator could make a universe any way it wanted, which would include life everywhere, a universe absolutely bursting with life. The universe as it is fails to be compatible with a creator that has a special interest in life, but is fully compatible with a naturalist account.

 

[pood]

2. Fine-tuning isn’t about abundance, it’s about possibility.
The constants of physics sit in extremely narrow ranges. A slight shift in the strong nuclear force, the cosmological constant, or the fine-structure constant — and not only would life be impossible, but stars, chemistry, and even black holes wouldn’t form. The fact that the same tuning permits both black holes and complex chemistry doesn’t erase the improbability; it underlines it.

No, it doesn’t.

Suppose I take hunks of undifferentiated metal and using maths and engineering, fine-tune it to produce a car. If the car later rusts, it would be silly to argue that I fine-tuned the car to produce rust. The rust is a largely unavoidable product of the car itself.

If there is a creator, it seems the creator was largely interested in quantum vacuum and black holes. But under the circumstances, invoking a creator is superfluous.

Also, I wouldn’t be so sure that the constants have to be the way they are for life to form at all. The late Victor Stenger produced toy universes with scrambled constants that were consistent with life arising.

Implicit in the fine-tuning argument is an invalid appeal to probability: What is the probability of the constants being just what they are, to be consistent with life arising? But if the universe is a one-time only event, we have absolutely no way of assigning a prior probability to the constants being what they are. The problem is even more acute if the universe has always existed.

Appeals to different constants arise because we can conceive how it is logically possible that different sets of constants could exist. But it may not be physicallly possible.

However, speculative science suggests we may life in a multiverse in which different isolated universes possess different constants. If that is the case, then via the anthropic principle, it is utterly unsurprising that life finds itself living in a universe that has a set of constants consistent with … life.

So the whole fine-tuning argument collapses on several fronts,

 

[pood]

3. Consciousness changes the equation.
Against all odds, matter not only self-organized into galaxies but also into minds capable of writing equations about galaxies. That “tiny blue speck” hosts observers who can comprehend the entire system. If the universe were only tuned for collapse into black holes, you wouldn’t be here to make the objection.

Against all odds?? The universe is, the way that it is, regardless of whether there was a creator. Self-organization of matter into galaxies is an unavoidable byproduct of the metric of spacetime and the distribution of matter. Therefore the odds of self-organizing galaxies are unity, with no creator needed.

As to mind, the materialist account is that it is produced by brains that took a staggeringly long time to evolve. One wonders why an all-powerful creator would take such a prolonged and circuitous route to getting the minds it presumably wanted.

And no one said the universe was only tuned for collapse into black holes. However, a universe that produces lots of black holes may also from time to time, by chance alone, produce here and there residues of life, like a car ending up with rust.

 

[pood]

4. The decision rule remains.
So the real question isn’t whether the universe is big or mostly empty. The test is:

• Which framework better explains (L) law-like regularity, (F) life-permitting fine-tuning, and (C) the rise of consciousness?
• A naturalist “stuff happens” model gives no unified account.
• A model positing an organizing Mind explains why improbable fine-tuning yields not just black holes, but also life and minds that can grasp them.

Rarity does not negate design. Diamonds are rare; consciousness is rarer. What matters is that it exists at all — and the explanatory burden is to account for why.

Once again, you have no grounds to assign a probability to so-called fine-tuning, but the the larger point is that positing an organizing mind explains nothing. What is the explanation for the existence of the mind? Where did it come from? Was it made by another mind? Is it minds all the way down? The universe as a brute fact is much more parsimonious.

 

[steve_bank]

As somebody said, if the universe was designed or guided it was not a very good job.

Either that or the designer designed the universe to be exactly as it is. Plagues asteroid strikes, earthquakes. Donald Trump.

 

[pood]

This is the best of all possible worlds that God could have created, according to Leibniz. God must be a real incompetent buffoon.

 

[Gospel]

Didn't realize this Organizing Mind did such masterful work in making the universe orderly and fine-tuned.
> possibility of an asteroid strike on earth big enough to destroy all life
> species extinctions in earth's history; just ask my pet trilobite
> the sun to become a red giant in 5 billion years, making earth a cinder
> the neuromuscular diseases; alzheimers; idiopathic cancers (let these stand in for a fuller list)
> Plasmodium, which is the malaria parasite; can't forget a shout-out for Naegleria fowleri (the brain-eating amoeba; it's popular at HHS)
> tsunamis and other fine-tuned events
Some entity planned all this -- and I am to stand in speechless awe of It?

It's also worth pondering this Organizing Mind's coyness and irresistible sense of humor, peeking from behind the curtain as the Panglosses among us ferret out Its wondrous existence, but never deigning to appear. Apparently the OM is okay with a multiplicity of human explanations, in the form of bizarre scriptures in a multitude of traditions, over which humanity has proven perfectly happy in hacking each other to pieces, burning, hanging, looting, exterminating the people of the "other explanations."

So your definition of God is sloppy, inefficient & cruel?

 

[pood]

Didn't realize this Organizing Mind did such masterful work in making the universe orderly and fine-tuned.
> possibility of an asteroid strike on earth big enough to destroy all life
> species extinctions in earth's history; just ask my pet trilobite
> the sun to become a red giant in 5 billion years, making earth a cinder
> the neuromuscular diseases; alzheimers; idiopathic cancers (let these stand in for a fuller list)
> Plasmodium, which is the malaria parasite; can't forget a shout-out for Naegleria fowleri (the brain-eating amoeba; it's popular at HHS)
> tsunamis and other fine-tuned events
Some entity planned all this -- and I am to stand in speechless awe of It?

It's also worth pondering this Organizing Mind's coyness and irresistible sense of humor, peeking from behind the curtain as the Panglosses among us ferret out Its wondrous existence, but never deigning to appear. Apparently the OM is okay with a multiplicity of human explanations, in the form of bizarre scriptures in a multitude of traditions, over which humanity has proven perfectly happy in hacking each other to pieces, burning, hanging, looting, exterminating the people of the "other explanations."

So your definition of God is sloppy, inefficient & cruel?

And a buffoon. A kind of supernatural Donald Trump.

 

[pood]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

 

[pood]

The philosophical argument here is metaphysical supernaturalism vs. metaphysical naturalism, which I would prefer to call metaphysical materialism to distinguish it from naturalist idealism.

 

[steve_bank]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

 

[ideologyhunter]

Didn't realize this Organizing Mind did such masterful work in making the universe orderly and fine-tuned.
> possibility of an asteroid strike on earth big enough to destroy all life
> species extinctions in earth's history; just ask my pet trilobite
> the sun to become a red giant in 5 billion years, making earth a cinder
> the neuromuscular diseases; alzheimers; idiopathic cancers (let these stand in for a fuller list)
> Plasmodium, which is the malaria parasite; can't forget a shout-out for Naegleria fowleri (the brain-eating amoeba; it's popular at HHS)
> tsunamis and other fine-tuned events
Some entity planned all this -- and I am to stand in speechless awe of It?

It's also worth pondering this Organizing Mind's coyness and irresistible sense of humor, peeking from behind the curtain as the Panglosses among us ferret out Its wondrous existence, but never deigning to appear. Apparently the OM is okay with a multiplicity of human explanations, in the form of bizarre scriptures in a multitude of traditions, over which humanity has proven perfectly happy in hacking each other to pieces, burning, hanging, looting, exterminating the people of the "other explanations."

So your definition of God is sloppy, inefficient & cruel?

Occam says: Nonexistent.

 

[pood]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

It is not a debate over definitions, but over how to interpret bare data. Which is philosophy.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

None. As noted, empiricism is a philosophical stance championed by Hume, a philosopher.

Philosophy is everywhere.

 

[TomC]

Here I want a simple definition.

I'll give you my simplest definition.
God is a character type commonly found in fiction.

The character is often recreated in the image of the folks creating the new fiction/Scripture. But no more to do with reality than wizards and fire breathing dragons.
Tom

I've never gotten a response to this.


I see the simple answer to the question "Why is there something, rather than nothing' to be 'God." I'm nothing like a hard atheist.

I dismiss the opinions of theists when they claim to know anything about the Original Source, or Ground of Being, or whatever. I'm especially obnoxed by the Abrahamic god. A bumbling sky king with superpowers, but little common sense or foresight. An ineffable sentient entity who can create humans, but can't fix our God Given Nature well enough to make us smart enough to behave morally?
I simply am not able to have faith in the people who describe such a Creator.
Tom

 

[bilby]

Against all odds?? The universe is, the way that it is, regardless of whether there was a creator.

Indeed. We don't have access to any other universes, so the only thing we can say about the probability of the one we are in is that it is a certainty. The probability of anything we observe to have happened is one.

I was in a bar the other day, and they were advertising the Radiers v Broncos NRL final. I asked the manager if I could still place a bet on the match, but he said no - probably because the match was played over a week ago, and the system that updates the screens to display future sports failed just before that game.

That's a great shame, because the Broncos won 28-29 in Golden Point, after Extra Time, through a Ben Hunt field goal. The odds against that are astonishing; Finals matches rarely go to Extra Time in the NRL, and even more rarely to Golden Point; Ben Hunt has previously only kicked one field goal in his 353 first grade matches; And the Raiders were favourites to win, having finished the regular season at the top of the league.

A few hours before the match, I could have gotten HUGE odds against such an unlikely outcome. But now that it has happened, and we can all see the result, nobody will take my bet - because the odds of any event in the past are always one.

Imagine you are Elon Musk, and you crashed your Cybertruck, and woke up with amnesia. The nurse tells you "You are the richest man in the world" - Do you say "That's impossible, the odds against it are more than eight billion to one"? That's true, of course; But the probability that somebody is the richest man in the world is one - it's a certainty.

We live in a universe that's suited to the existence of life. How could it be otherwise? If the universe wasn't suited to life, we wouldn't be here to question why not, or to ponder how likely or unlikely it is.

 

[Swammerdami]

Can you, as skeptics, provide one unified naturalistic model that explains — together — law-like order, life-permitting fine-tuning, and the rise of consciousness?

A universe based on mathematics will have law-like order. A universe based on the whims of some supernatural creature(s), OTOH, might have events that do NOT obey the "law-like order", e.g. miracles.

The other constraints you seek -- fine-tuning that permits life, and consciousness -- can be readily explained by observation bias. Any universe NOT tuned for life will not develop life. Without life, or when NONE of the life has consciousness, then there will be no life advanced enough to observe its own consciousness and to celebrate it by writing "Cogito, ergo sum." The fact that 100% of any universes -- however they arose -- which are capable of producing conversations like this one, satisfy your constraints is just a tautology and tells us nothing further.

A model I use is Tegmark's  Mathematical universe hypothesis.

 

[steve_bank]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

It is not a debate over definitions, but over how to interpret bare data. Which is philosophy.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

None. As noted, empiricism is a philosophical stance championed by Hume, a philosopher.

Philosophy is everywhere.

Philosophy is everywhere?

So is Yahweh, or so Christians say.

 

[pood]

Posterior probabilities are always 100 percent. So it is 100 percent that the constants of nature are consistent with life. The prior probabilities, if there was a prior, cannot be formulated. So the whole fine tuning argument is, shall we say, stupid bullshit?

 

[pood]

This discussion, though, is philosophy in action, and philosophy is always inevitable. Each side looks at the same bare empirical data and comes to diametrically opposite metaphysical arguments and conclusions.

Philosophy inn action, endless debate over definitions.

It is not a debate over definitions, but over how to interpret bare data. Which is philosophy.

What is the empirical evidence pertaining to the OP?

None. As noted, empiricism is a philosophical stance championed by Hume, a philosopher.

Philosophy is everywhere.

Philosophy is everywhere?

So is Yahweh, or so Christians say.

Unlike Yahweh, philosophy can be observed, experienced, and practiced. And yes, it is everywhere.