Super symmetry and God

Zombrex

[edit]Meant just plain old symmetry, not super symmetry[/edit]

Was pondering this after watching a Horizon program about the Higgs field that touched briefly on symmetry.

The presenter was talking about how in its "perfect" state the universe was be totally symmetrical and exist purely as energy. Something caused a slight imbalance that set of a cascade of difference producing a ton of extra matter particles and no anti-matter. This allows the universe as we know it to exist.

My initial thought was "Well the believers are going to have a field day with that, they will say God did it". But then I thought how ridiculous that is, the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

While this is not proof God doesn't exist, it seems to me (though I haven't thought about it all that much) the closest to an actual argument against the existence of God rather than simply an argument for not believing in God (of which there are many).

If symmetry is correct then for all intensive purposes the universe looks like a quirk of nature. Something happened to imbalance this perfect system and we were produced. Does that sound like how an omnipotent all powerful being would produce a universe?

Of course believers can say "God did it" and then just shrug at why. But this is the argument that shows the silliness of an appeal to God the most. You are appealing to God to justify an imbalance, a crack in the perfect universe.

Thoughts?

Dades

Being ridiculous has never been an obstacle to using something to support a theological argument.


"EVERYTHING MUST HAVE A CAUSE!"

"What about God?"

"Except God."

18AD

Why is imbalance worse than balance or vica-versa? In purely physical terms neither is "better" or "worse". Perfect symetry isn't better than a big mess.

I guess you could apply the same to the God version. The universe, or "quirk" of existence, isn't better or worse than perfect balance.

Either way you're applying human values to something that has none.

Perfection is pretty sh*tty anyway. Like the argument against heaven. It's boring. My money is on there not being a best way to value it all.

i.e. the argument doesn't even get off the ground either way.

Sarky

If tomorrow the scientific community figured out that the universe really was just a quirk, or a zero-sum system that cancelled itself out or even a constructed illusion built by our robot overlords to pacify the rebellion, religious people would turn to the bible and torture out some passage that could possibly maybe have been a passing reference to this situation, and therefore god.

I'd say that the eventual heat death of the universe will be just as "perfect". If perhaps a little more spread out. That's the trouble with the word "perfect". I think it's terribly subjective for pretty much everything.

doctoremma

Is there not a parallel universe, exactly the same as ours, composed primarily of anti-matter? Balance?

sponsoredwalk

Zombrex wrote: »

the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

Why is an imbalance considered imperfect? Why does god prefer the concept of perfection over imperfection?

Zombrex

18AD wrote: »

Why is imbalance worse than balance or vica-versa? In purely physical terms neither is "better" or "worse". Perfect symetry isn't better than a big mess.

Its not in of itself. It is though in terms of what an all knowing being who likes to make things that are "very good".

This isn't an argument that our imbalanced universe is inherently bad. It is an argument that God wouldn't have produced it this way.

Zombrex

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Why is an imbalance considered imperfect? Why does god prefer the concept of perfection over imperfection?

Well depending on how you believe it is because he is perfect and holy or it is because that is how we made him up to be.

The point is that this a defined characteristic of God, and thus we can compare this description of God to the universe as we currently understand it.

Zombrex

don't think it would make any difference to the usual tortured arguments

Zombrex wrote: »

for all intensive purposes

intents & purposes

robindch

Zombrex wrote: »

The point is that this a defined characteristic of God

It's not a defined characteristic of the deity, but a stated one.

Big difference -- by stating it in the abstract and failing to provide any specific meaning, a religion will allow its clients to apply whatever meaning they themselves want to apply. This makes the religion more appealing, hence more likely to spread amongst the population, since the deity will match more closely the believer's preconceptions.

It's about as useful as stating that "god is love" without ever saying what "god" is, or what "love" is.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

intents & purposes

And I tried so hard to avoid doing that myself...

oldrnwisr

Zombrex wrote: »

[edit]Meant just plain old symmetry, not super symmetry[/edit]

Was pondering this after watching a Horizon program about the Higgs field that touched briefly on symmetry.

The presenter was talking about how in its "perfect" state the universe was be totally symmetrical and exist purely as energy. Something caused a slight imbalance that set of a cascade of difference producing a ton of extra matter particles and no anti-matter. This allows the universe as we know it to exist.

My initial thought was "Well the believers are going to have a field day with that, they will say God did it". But then I thought how ridiculous that is, the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

While this is not proof God doesn't exist, it seems to me (though I haven't thought about it all that much) the closest to an actual argument against the existence of God rather than simply an argument for not believing in God (of which there are many).

If symmetry is correct then for all intensive purposes the universe looks like a quirk of nature. Something happened to imbalance this perfect system and we were produced. Does that sound like how an omnipotent all powerful being would produce a universe?

Of course believers can say "God did it" and then just shrug at why. But this is the argument that shows the silliness of an appeal to God the most. You are appealing to God to justify an imbalance, a crack in the perfect universe.

Thoughts?

I think the big problem with this argument is what Sarky and 18AD have pointed out, the subjective nature of perfection. The presenter seems to just think that the universe is perfect rather than have some objective measure of perfection.

If there was some way to determine perfection and attribute it to the universe then I would agree that the Christian God at least would be in trouble.

"As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is flawless. He is a shield for all who take refuge in him."
Psalm 18:30

A perfect being doesn't make imperfect choices no matter what his reasoning.

Finally, I still don't see how, even if the pre-Big Bang universe, as it were, was perfect, that the change from perfection to imperfection necessarily requires or implies the existence or non-existence of a God. To paraphrase Laplace, we don't need that hypothesis.

sponsoredwalk

Zombrex wrote: »

Well depending on how you believe it is because he is perfect and holy or it is because that is how we made him up to be.

The point is that this a defined characteristic of God, and thus we can compare this description of God to the universe as we currently understand it.

If we play this game of assigning perfection to god then we either assume the existence of the concept of perfection independently of god - which assumes the existence of something 'He' didn't create, which doesn't really make him god - or else we have to call your concept of imperfection perfection (if we say god chose to create something he deems imperfect then again this assumes the concept of perfection exists independently of him). Whatever god does is then, by definition, perfect. In other words, there's no binary-ness here because to assume it implies something exists behind god, shifting this argument one turtle lower...

Kivaro

bluewolf wrote: »

intents & purposes

Maybe Zombie was implying that the purposes were really intense?

robindch

Kivaro wrote: »

Maybe Zombie was implying that the purposes were really intense?

Could be this:

18AD

Zombrex wrote: »

This isn't an argument that our imbalanced universe is inherently bad. It is an argument that God wouldn't have produced it this way.

It is though, isn't it? If this universe is as "good" as the perfectly symmetrical one then there's no argument as to whether God would produce it or not. The only reason God wouldn't produce it this way is because this way is crap (inherently not as good as perfect).

The, so called, actions become perfectly reasonable if either state is fine, imbalanced or balanced. No problem. No motive. No reason. Because it's the same either way.

There's a problem if the actions have essentially changed something. Especially in relation to the value of each, imbalanced or balanced



Edit: The error is to think that when the scientist says perfect symmetry, he means absolute inherent perfection, that he is saying it's "better". Where it's actually not a value judgement at all and only a relative comparison to imperfect symmetry. Neither is better.
I think the same view is subtly there when you call the change from perfect to imperfect an error, or that this is a quirk. It's not. It happened. That's the way it is. It's not an abnormality because of the only example we know of, that change, happened. It might be an anomaly in the maths, but it's not an anomaly in "reality", if I may dare to use such a word! Waffle, waffle, waffle...

AND, because it's not an anomaly, you don't need a God to explain it. Maybe... :P

Jesus Nut

Zombrex wrote: »

[edit]Meant just plain old symmetry, not super symmetry[/edit]

Was pondering this after watching a Horizon program about the Higgs field that touched briefly on symmetry.

The presenter was talking about how in its "perfect" state the universe was be totally symmetrical and exist purely as energy. Something caused a slight imbalance that set of a cascade of difference producing a ton of extra matter particles and no anti-matter. This allows the universe as we know it to exist.

My initial thought was "Well the believers are going to have a field day with that, they will say God did it". But then I thought how ridiculous that is, the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

While this is not proof God doesn't exist, it seems to me (though I haven't thought about it all that much) the closest to an actual argument against the existence of God rather than simply an argument for not believing in God (of which there are many).

If symmetry is correct then for all intensive purposes the universe looks like a quirk of nature. Something happened to imbalance this perfect system and we were produced. Does that sound like how an omnipotent all powerful being would produce a universe?

Of course believers can say "God did it" and then just shrug at why. But this is the argument that shows the silliness of an appeal to God the most. You are appealing to God to justify an imbalance, a crack in the perfect universe.

Thoughts?

The Roman Catholic definition of GOD is = Truth + Love. God is nothing more and nothing less! (God is not a being).

The whole man in the clouds is just something that we tell children as children cant grasp virtues!

The only way to understand god is to let go of your Ego. Then you will know what Jesus was harping on about and the bhudda etc.

Dades

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The only way to understand god is to let go of your Ego.

The only way to understand God is to employ cognitive dissonance.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

The only way to understand God is to employ cognitive dissonance.

COgnitive Dissonance = COD.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

PopePalpatine

robindch wrote: »

COgnitive Dissonance = COD.

Coincidence? I don't think so.

Call of Duty? :pac:

The Gnome

The concept of symmetry in the universe is fascinating to me, there's a great book I'm reading at the moment by Marcus du Sautoy, Finding Moonshine: A Mathematician's Journey Through Symmetry. The description is below, I'd highly recommend it!

This new book from the author of 'The Music of the Primes' combines a personal insight into the mind of a working mathematician with the story of one of the biggest adventures in mathematics: the search for symmetry.

This is the story of how humankind has come to its understanding of the bizarre world of symmetry – a subject of fundamental significance to the way we interpret the world around us.

Our eyes and minds are drawn to symmetrical objects, from the sphere to the swastika, the pyramid to the pentagon. Symmetry indicates a dynamic relationship or connection between objects, and it is all-pervasive: in chemistry and physics the concept of symmetry explains the structure of crystals or the theory of fundamental particles; in evolutionary biology, the natural world exploits symmetry in the fight for survival; symmetry and the breaking of symmetry are central to ideas in art, architecture and music; the mathematics of symmetry is even exploited in industry, for example to find efficient ways to store more music on a CD or to keep your mobile phone conversation from cracking up through interference.

Edit: Found a lecture by Du Sautoy on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmbxM4IcDtA

joseph brand

Zombrex wrote: »

[edit]Meant just plain old symmetry, not super symmetry[/edit]

Was pondering this after watching a Horizon program about the Higgs field that touched briefly on symmetry.

The presenter was talking about how in its "perfect" state the universe was be totally symmetrical and exist purely as energy. Something caused a slight imbalance that set of a cascade of difference producing a ton of extra matter particles and no anti-matter. This allows the universe as we know it to exist.

My initial thought was "Well the believers are going to have a field day with that, they will say God did it". But then I thought how ridiculous that is, the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

While this is not proof God doesn't exist, it seems to me (though I haven't thought about it all that much) the closest to an actual argument against the existence of God rather than simply an argument for not believing in God (of which there are many).

If symmetry is correct then for all intensive purposes the universe looks like a quirk of nature. Something happened to imbalance this perfect system and we were produced. Does that sound like how an omnipotent all powerful being would produce a universe?

Of course believers can say "God did it" and then just shrug at why. But this is the argument that shows the silliness of an appeal to God the most. You are appealing to God to justify an imbalance, a crack in the perfect universe.

Thoughts?

This reminds me of the argument from the theist side that the Universe was created in the perfect way, with it's laws of physics, enabling itself to exist. AKA the 'fine tuned' Universe.

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can only occur when certain universal fundamental physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is presently understood.

This argument is probably as valid as saying that when a seed from a tree sprouts and grows, that it must have been purposely placed. Never mind the fact that the tree has dropped thousands of seeds and only one managed to take root and grow. The initial conditions must be right. Pure chance. The Universe as we know it is likely the same. Chance. NOT divinely created from that which/who was not created, but has always been.

Not to mention that it's all crap (religion) because the vatican protects paedophiles, which any god would abhor, unless he were that way inclined.

There are many other analogies just like my tree analogy. I like trees.

Zombrex

Jesus Nut wrote: »

The Roman Catholic definition of GOD is = Truth + Love. God is nothing more and nothing less! (God is not a being).

That is not the Roman Catholic definition of God. But then there seems to be so many "Catholics" who have no idea what the Catholic church teaches on this forum that I'm not surprised if at some point it will be.

Jesus Nut

Zombrex wrote: »

That is not the Roman Catholic definition of God. But then there seems to be so many "Catholics" who have no idea what the Catholic church teaches on this forum that I'm not surprised if at some point it will be.

Ah, yes it is.
Ask any good catholic priest. Look at Bishop Fulton Sheen (He was watched by millions )
Even in all his talks and masses he says it cleary and is the best teacher that god is truth and love. Thats it.

Your problem is you think god is some magical man (king(monarc)) in a cloud somewhere!
When we die, we go to heaven, ie, eternal peace. There is only a eternal now. We will take the same form as our loved ones and everyone else who has gone before us. Death is eternal sleep where you will have no worrys, ie, eternal peace and will be whole (one) with the universe again (because you are not consious of it).
The immortal soul is your spirit thats left behind. ie, watching a dead person on youtube (you could say there spirit lives on) or when familiy members talk about dead loved ones (there spirit lives on in the person that remembers them).

Really, what we are doing at mass is celebrating High Holy day. The same thing the stars are doing when you look up at them like they are a big fire works display. Thats what the church is doing (its a daily celebration of this thing called life but they have a complicated way of doing it I know lol)
Just digg it. Religion is not supposed to be taken seriously for god sake.

The angles fly because they take themselves lighlty

Wiggles88

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Religion is not supposed to be taken seriously for god sake.)

How I wish religious people knew this.

Zombrex

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Ah, yes it is.
Ask any good catholic priest. Look at Bishop Fulton Sheen (He was watched by millions )
Even in all his talks and masses he says it cleary and is the best teacher that god is truth and love. Thats it.

Your problem is you think god is some magical man (king(monarc)) in a cloud somewhere!
When we die, we go to heaven, ie, eternal peace. There is only a eternal now. We will take the same form as our loved ones and everyone else who has gone before us. Death is eternal sleep where you will have no worrys, ie, eternal peace and will be whole (one) with the universe again (because you are not consious of it).
The immortal soul is your spirit thats left behind. ie, watching a dead person on youtube (you could say there spirit lives on) or when familiy members talk about dead loved ones (there spirit lives on in the person that remembers them).

Really, what we are doing at mass is celebrating High Holy day. The same thing the stars are doing when you look up at them like they are a big fire works display. Thats what the church is doing (its a daily celebration of this thing called life but they have a complicated way of doing it I know lol)
Just digg it. Religion is not supposed to be taken seriously for god sake.

The angles fly because they take themselves lighlty

Great, another "Catholic" on A&A who has no idea what Catholicism teaches. Only in Ireland.

raah!

You cannot use the word perfect as though it has some objective meaning. Whether or not something is perfect depends on what that thing was 'created for'. It depends on what you think the proper function of that thing is. So your argument won't ever go much further than simply stating that symmetric = perfect, or that the universe is supposed to be symmetric. This has been pointed out twice already however.

Sarky

That is not Catholicism. You are not Catholic.

Jesus Nut

Zombrex wrote: »

Great, another "Catholic" on A&A who has no idea what Catholicism teaches. Only in Ireland.

Well, if you know what God is why dont you enlighting us ? What is the catholic church??

Enkidu

Well regardless of the use of the word perfect, the program explains things very poorly.

The laws of physics are "almost" symmetrical with respect to matter and anti-matter. In experiments on Earth you can't notice the small effects which are evidence that the production of matter is slightly preferred over anti-matter, so it appears as if the two are completely equivalent, which initially led people to wonder why there is more matter. The Standard Model didn't seem to show any difference between the two types of matter.

The actual answer is as I said above, the laws of physics don't treat matter and anti-matter identically, a fact which the Standard Model does predict, it's just that we had to understand the Standard Model a lot more than we did in the 1970s.

None of this really has much to do with the Big Bang itself.

the culture of deference

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Well, if you know what God is why dont you enlighting us ? What is the catholic church??

en·light·en/enˈlītn/

Verb:

• Give (someone) greater knowledge and understanding about a subject or situation.
• Give (someone) spiritual knowledge or insight.

Catholicism in Ireland (1970's childs view point)

Wearing your best clothes to mass (noticed by the other holy congregation) who are trying to outdo each others piousness.
Repeating prayers, Looking solemn. Kneeling (why)
Listening to stories that made no sense, yet when you question that at 8yo you could end up with a box in the face or being put in a corner (by any adult.
I haven't been to a church in many years, yet I could probably say a mass, if only ours teachers had used that skill to teach us something useful.

Here we are 30 years later and kids nowadays are still having this sh1t pumped into their brains.

Northclare

That kinda answer must be well worn out on the A+A forums,can you be more original,taking the piss out of the RC church isn't cool anymore....

CerebralCortex

Northclare wrote: »

That kinda answer must be well worn out on the A+A forums,can you be more original,taking the piss out of the RC church isn't cool anymore....

I think it's cool especially when you consider that RCC still has a lot of power for no good reason.

Northclare

I see what you mean but,the more power you give it and the more you mention the RC the more it strengthens the RC faith.

The RC has nothing to do with Super symmetry and God.

When the RC gets brought into these discussions it creates a messy atmosphere.

And ill be the first to put my hand up and say "yeah I have been guilty of being a messer too"

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

You cannot use the word perfect as though it has some objective meaning. Whether or not something is perfect depends on what that thing was 'created for'. It depends on what you think the proper function of that thing is. So your argument won't ever go much further than simply stating that symmetric = perfect, or that the universe is supposed to be symmetric. This has been pointed out twice already however.

People seem to be getting very hung up on the notion of perfect when that wasn't actually central to the point.

The idea isn't that symmetry is perfect in the sense of being all good or holy. The idea is that to create this universe God would have had to break his own symmetrical system, unbalance it in order to actually produce anything.

That seems ridiculous. Why create a perfectly symmetrical system (which is the context the term "perfect" should be used) simply to break it in order to produce everything he wants to produce.

Existence itself is supposed to be evidence for the Christian God. It seems to be the opposite. We appear to be the result of an unbalancing of a perfectly symmetrical system.

Do you genuinely believe God would decide to produce the universe this way?

the culture of deference

French physicist Pierre Laplace, when asked by Napoleon where God fitted into his mathematical account of the universe, replied: "I had no need of that hypothesis."

Or better still. If god is omnipotent why did he take 13 billion years to make us? Why doesn't the bible have exact instructions (DNA, physics, particle explanation) described in it. Anti matter exists, it took 300,000 years for atoms to form. Why would you believe god did it?

The religious argument says that god must have done it, because ...... well JUST because. They allow god to exist without a creator, but pooh pooh the idea for anything else.

Who made the universe ? Hawkings reply

"The laws of nature themselves tells us that not only can the universe have popped into existence like a proton and have required nothing in terms of energy but also that it is possible that nothing caused the big bang"


"You only need three ingredients to make a universe, matter or mass, energy and space. But using Albert Einstein's famous equation, Hawking argued that mass and energy are basically the same thing.
The big bang created the now two necessary ingredients for a universe: energy and space.




While some argue that this is where God comes into the picture because you can't create something out of nothing, Hawking argued that it is entirely possible.
Particles such as protons, he said, behave according to quantum mechanics and can appear at random, then vanish, and then reappear somewhere else."

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Do you genuinely believe God would decide to produce the universe this way?

I don't have any particular fancy on how the universe should be created. You seem to, and are making value judgments based on perceived abberations from a form of creation which you consider more "perfect" than another. Even though you said the word perfect is not important, it is the same value judgments coming in when you say "a good thing wouldn't create the universe in this bad way". And it will always be some value judgement when you talk about which is a better way to create the universe.

It was this same presupposition of what is a good way to do things that you made in that thread in the christianity forum a while back. This was relating to
God's complexity. You were similarly notified of those value judgements in that thread.

I only quoted your last sentence because I feel the others in the thread have already said the things my original post said, and I was simply responding to a direct question. I don't think I've added anything extra to what has already been pointed out.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

I don't have any particular fancy on how the universe should be created.

Do you believe that the way the universe is suggests that God had a hand in its creation?

raah!

Yes, the way it is, that it is at all etc. It's not that I think it had to come to be how it is through any particular mode. If someone says "the beauty of this sunset inspires me in a teleological manner", and you were to say "that's burning gas" it wouldn't really be relevant. Likewise, if you were to say "that burning gas is an abberation in almost symmetry, therefore it doesn't inspire such and such feelings in you" you would be being silly.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

Yes, the way it is, that it is at all etc. It's not that I think it had to come to be how it is through any particular mode. If someone says "the beauty of this sunset inspires me in a teleological manner", and you were to say "that's burning gas" it wouldn't really be relevant. Likewise, if you were to say "that burning gas is an abberation in almost symmetry, therefore it doesn't inspire such and such feelings in you" you would be being silly.

So any existences, no matter what, suggests to you the existence of God?

raah!

To some extent I suppose. As my previous post detailed, it might necessary to see what those "existences" were like. But the existence of any universe certainly serves as one piece of evidence for a god which created a universe.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

To some extent I suppose. As my previous post detailed, it might necessary to see what those "existences" were like. But the existence of any universe certainly serves as one piece of evidence for a god which created a universe.

Why do you think a god is required to produce a universe, particularly if you are happy with any universe out of such a production?

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

My initial thought was "Well the believers are going to have a field day with that, they will say God did it". But then I thought how ridiculous that is, the idea that God would produce an imbalance in his own perfect creation in order to produce the universe.

While this is not proof God doesn't exist, it seems to me (though I haven't thought about it all that much) the closest to an actual argument against the existence of God rather than simply an argument for not believing in God (of which there are many).

Why would God have to create the universe as you would expect? Why couldn't God create the universe in this way, other than that you wouldn't expect Him to? The idea that an omniscient and omnipotent being would have to create things as you expect Him to is bizarre?

raah!

I don't think it's required, and as I said, it might be necessary to see them first, before deciding what it is that those universes seem to imply. The point was that, any universe serves as evidence for anything which purportedly created any universe. And also the teleological significance inferred form this universe serves as further support, in this universe.

Zombrex

raah! wrote: »

The point was that, any universe serves as evidence for anything which purportedly created any universe. And also the teleological significance inferred form this universe serves as further support, in this universe.

Ah yes, but "anything" is a bit different for "God" isn't it. Do you think this universe serves as evidence for God over any other thing that could produce a universe?

sponsoredwalk

I'm really sick so there's every possibility the post will contain errors:

Zombrex wrote: »

The idea isn't that symmetry is perfect in the sense of being all good or holy. The idea is that to create this universe God would have had to break his own symmetrical system, unbalance it in order to actually produce anything.

I don't think this makes any sense, there are far too many assumptions. For instance you are assuming that the concept of choice exists by assuming god originally made something symmetric & then changed "his mind" to create something non-symmetric. This assumption implies that the concept of choice exists independently of god but if god is worth a lick of his salt he is supposed to have created the whole notion of choice, if it existed before him then he isn't god. Futhermore it assumes something such as symmetry, & therefore non-symmetry, anti-symmetry etc... existed independently of god. & Lest we mention the notion of time - even just the time to make his decision... Even if you pushed it and said that behind the veil of the universe he created these concepts so that he could create the world then one has to ask how he created them in the first place - it's just non-sensical, I don't even see why logic has a thing to do with a question like this frankly (unless you employ fallacies)... The simple fact is that nobody can say a thing about these questions & justify themselves, it's impossible. It's entirely a question of faith, a step that makes it equally likely that wallpaper created the universe despite it being illogical because wallpaper was created billions of years after creation. I'd argue that to say any differently is an argument from authority or unsubstantiable faith & to argue that one choice is any different to another requires thoughtlessness, bias or just plain ol' indoctrination. I'd love to be convinced otherwise.

But pretending the questions make sense & trying to follow the logic of them you haven't explained why god prefers symmetry over non-symmetry, why god couldn't easily have chosen to create the world the way he did for a ton of either fathomable or unfathomable reasons, you haven't explained why imbalance is preferred over balance - let alone how any of these even hint at how these justifiably lead to the question "Does that sound like how an omnipotent all powerful being would produce a universe?" which as I'm sure you're well aware could easily be answered as saying that god did X despite the answer being entirely illogical because he created logic, for all we know he created every possible universe & in one we're simultaneously coexisting for eternity in the "moment" before the big bang on horses chanting left-handedly written backward Italian... In other words we may as well continue to ponder whether god could make a rock so heavy he couldn't lift it & analyze the biases & assumptions that go into those apparent responses to this question. What do you think?

raah!

Zombrex wrote: »

Ah yes, but "anything" is a bit different for "God" isn't it. Do you think this universe serves as evidence for God over any other thing that could produce a universe?

By "anything which purportedly created..." I was including any kind of God which created any kind of universe. As to whether there being a universe makes God's existence more likely than his non-existence, then I don't think that alone can weight the probabilities in that manner. But neither do I (to predict a subsequent circle back to the original topic) think that the way that the universe is, or the manner in which it was created, is evidence for the universe having always been or whatever else over having been created specifically.

I believe again, philo's and sponseredwalk's post gets to the crux of the problems with your argument. Why do you think the universe has to be created in the way that you want a God to create it? You'd have to offer some justification for that, especially since most people who have given the argument to have given no preferences for how it should be created.

Improbable

To be honest, I'm more of the opinion that you cannot at this time argue against the possible existence of a deity. It's a supernatural entity for which there is no evidence for or against insomuch as, as we discover increasingly more intricate and detailed knowledge about the universe, the goalposts of a deitys existence is pushed back. What I mean by that is historically in christianity, whenever a discovery is made about science which imparts some knowledge about our past, i.e. the big bang theory, evolution etc., god is simply placed as the agent of that discovery. But that does not influence the truth of whether or not a god exists in either direction. What it does influence is whether belief in a specific version of a deity, such as the christian one, is a logical or rational position to hold. That is something for which there is evidence that can be used to formulate a judgement on whether such a deity exists or not.

The more broad question is about the concept of a deity in general and once again, the same problem arises of there being no specific evidence for or against, but in this case, we can't make the same judgements on whether it is rational or logical to believe in one, because unlike say the christian god, there are no specific claims made through history that we can observe and use to decide on a rationally obtained position. Speaking more broadly, at this time it's not a scientific question in that it cannot be tested and it does not make any predictions, but it is making a statement about the nature of reality, which is the domain of science. There is of course no evidence for or against it because, as I have said earlier, it is not a scientific question. Personally, the way I base my judgements on whether something is real or not does not take the default position of "I'm going to believe it until you show me evidence that it does not exist" but rather "I'm not going to believe it until you show me evidence that it does exist". That is the default position for the majority of people for the majority of subjects. That is why I do not believe in a deity.

Not because I think a god would do this action or that action.

the culture of deference

In very simple terms

It is OK for god not to have a creator, but not the universe.

How can people accept one of the above but not the other.