God, Science and The Clock.

I could never understand how science could be used to DIS-prove the existence of god. The more order there is in the world/universe, the more I would personally believe god to exist. The laws of physics as we know them could hardly be a 'fluke'.

With respect to understanding about God (if there is one), he'd clearly be aside from this universe. Time is a part of this universe as much as I am. I can only think in a linear fashion (that is before during and after.). As time wouldn't apply to anything outside of this universe, I can NEVER understand anything from outside of this universe. The closest I could probably come, would be to accept that outside of 'THE CLOCK' there is always. Not a present, or past, just always.

With respect to him interfering, I'm sure there are plenty of worlds far more worthy of his attention, and even so, I'm sure passive spectating is probably just as involved as God would be. Why bother creating a world of free choice, just to jump in and change it? Having said that, I've always felt my life to be guided....

But surely the universe's creator (UC), or whatever created UC (UCC), or whatever created that, or.....one of those had to be a fluke by the same line of reasoning.

Why could we not be the fluke?

Because you're going back into the argument that someone had to create the creator. Outside this universe there is no time. There is no before or after, just always (and therefore does not need to have a creator). And taken that time doesnt exist outside this universe, by default we can hardly be epected to truly understand it, as we are completly linear in the way we think....



Incidently, here's a nice link on dark matter...

OK, so you're effectively saying "we cannot understand what is outside the universe, so thats where god/UC is, and we shouldnt try figuring it out cause its a waste of time" ???

I think you're confusing me with somebody else

By saying we cant understand what is outside the universe, I never said, nor implied that it was futile trying to figure it out, or pointless discussing it. I'm not dismissing anyone who says there is no God, simply by saying "you don’t understand, nobody can." That's somebody else's argument.

My point was simply, if there was no creator, why isn’t there chaos? For me, the order in this universe, points to a creator that is not bound by the same laws of physics (time etc) that we are

sure you could guess things about a clockmaker from his work, but you could never be sure that he existed just based what you percive as good work by him.

I never said he was good bad or indifferent (although i suggested passive interest i think...), but that the constants/rules lead me to believe that there is a creator.

My point was simply, if there was no creator, why isn’t there chaos? For me, the order in this universe, points to a creator that is not bound by the same laws of physics (time etc) that we are.

how do you know that this isn't chaos ?

Because there is reasonable order?

With respect to much of the universe being completely chaotic, is this true? Or is it simply that we don't understand which rules certain 'phenomenon' occur under? [/B]

right ! we dont know. we may find out someday, or possibly not, depending on how we grow - and we're back to an original premise of the thread. Can anything inside this universe tell us anything about what is outside it? does god exist and what is his address?

From the simple structure of the atom, to the way molecules behave under certain criteria, to the way my own body reacts in relative harmony with the environment....

again - does the percieved existance of consistency in the universe imply the existance of god? we can choose to believe this or not.


by the by, your body did not automaticly fit into the enviroment, it evolved to fit. and its still evolving

Originally posted by kamobe
The order I speak of is the order of nature/physics. There are certain constants which hold steady, allowing us to be here today.

Yup.

What you are saying is that while the universe may be chaotic, it appears to follow ordered rules? Its more or less true - the universe is very uniform, or very chaotic, depending at what level you look at, and its not an even band of "the closer you look the more/less chaotic it is". If you look at galaxies, you have roughly even star distribution. If you look at a larger scale, you have galaxy clusters, with large holes surrounded by super-clusters. If you look larger still, it all becomes statistically uniform again. Same applies as you move down the scale too.

This is why there is no right answer as to whether or not the universe is chaotic. It really depends on what you mean Current thinking says that, at the "bottom" - the smallest level we can go to, it is ordered. Of course, once we actually get there, we may discovered more levels. So...is it chaotic or not? Current scientific thinking says "not".

Now...science mixing back into arelgious theology coming up here

According to science, the universe is defined by one (or more) base equations, from whence all things are derived - a Theory of Everything (TOE). From this lowest-level-that-we-are-even-slightly-aware-of, it would appear that we have equations, and rules, thus giving an ordered system. Complex, but ordered. Our limited scientific knowedge gives us tantalising glimpses that these equations would form the basis for an infinite number of universes - depending on the values applied to the variables.

For example - we have (at present) a model which has a Universal Constant close to 1. People ask "but why is it close to 1. What made it that way". Well, nothing had to make it that way - it just is. If it wasnt, then we wouldnt be here asking that question. If it wasnt close to 1, then (according to our models) the universe could never have evolved at all - it would either have contracted again very rapidly, or would have expanded too rapidly for energy to ever coalesce into matter.

Now, Hawking has argued on various occasions that the existence or not of "other" universes is a moot point, as they are completely seperate to ours, and therefore can have no bearing on the "reality" of our universe. In this he is correct, assuming the base assumption that universes do not interact is correct...which it more or less has to be, as our universe is everything with which we can interact, by definition (or interpretation of definition).

However, from another point of view, it is very much not a moot point.

Why is our universe the way it is? Well, what if there are an infinite number of universes, all somehow sprung from the same base equation, but with differing values for the variables. We are simply one of those, which means that it is no longer a case that our universe was especially "chosen", but rather that all possibilities occurred, and we just happen to be a part of this one. Indeed, all possibilities of all equations may exist, and only a tiny subset of those have formed an infinite number of universes...of which we are one.

This multiverse concept then of course begs the invariable statement from the "believers" of "well, what created the multiverse then, and why does it spawn all these universes. See, god must exist". Unfortunately, these are typically the same people who will attribute no need for god to have been created, as we cannot understand what is "beyond" our universe.....so there is no need for the multiverse to have any explanation either.

Now, this in no way validates or invalidates the idea of a god. It does not rule out the possibility that all of this was created sentiently (or deliberately, or whatever anthropomorphisisation (?) you choose to use). Nor does it rule out the possibility that it all happened for no reason or cause, (or whatever cause-effect analagy you're happiest with).

So...is the universe ordered or chaotic? Both.
Why? Cause it is.
What can we infer from this? Nothing, or whatever you choose to believe in blindly, because no argument has a stronger case.
Can we ever prove it? No. Because no matter how far we push our knowledge, someone can always ask "why" something we understand is the way it is, and ultimately, when you get back to the beginning - god or "no reason", you are basically saying "that is now beyond what we understand, and therefore, we dont need to explain this bit".

For me, I see no need for a god, other than to salve our own insecurities. I see no questions answered by the existence of a god...only hidden or deferred.

If someone wants to argue that my multiverse is, ineffect, the "Universe Creator", and therfore analgous to god, then fair enough. All I would say is that, for me, the distinction is that a god or creator concept implies some degree of purpose and sentience, which I disagree with.

jc