Why not God of the Gaps?

Faith & Science Conversation
, , , ,
111

It has something to do with quantum theory. Now I’m curious to see if that’s where it had its beginning as a theory.

112

Not sure that answers the question. Are we talking about the notion that everything vibrates to a certain frequency and that other Universes would have a different one?

The question remains. Who cares? What use is the information? It’s not as if we can change or affect it.

Richard

113

I look at it as this universe could have been caused by a blackhole in another universe. There is nothing inherently irrational about that.

114

Nothing rational either. Where did the other Universe come from?

What is the point? What benefit is there to humankind? Is knowledge/speculation enough?

Richard

115

Yes, it’s God or multiverse. T has said as much with the third option just being that’s the way it is (brute facts).

The multiverse is being touted by so many today because of what they deem “the fine-tuning problem.” Some do more legitimately believe in it as a corollary of certain inflationary models. But Guth and others have shown inflation it’s not past complete and in general inflation is highly amorphous and difficult if not impossible to falsify.

As noted above, some models of inflation do more legitimately lead to other universes. But just saying there are infinite universe with different physical laws to explain the obvious fine tuning is akin to the mental gymnastics apologists use to harmonize obvious errors in the Bible. Multiplying entities to infinity to explain something is rather questionable.

A scientific minded person who should wonder how anyone could test them . A philosopher should wonder if it really solves the fine tuning problem if true? Or does it commit the inverse gamblers fallacy? Interesting questions.

1 Like
116

The same question applies to that one as well. The better question is whether there can be an infinite regress of universes. Or whether this universe came from nothing. These are propositions that can be spoken or written: “nothing exists” or “an infinite number of things exist,”, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are rational or thinkable statements.

1 Like
117

We can only talk about those probabilities because we know all of the conditions surrounding the lottery. We have no such knowledge for the creation of our universe.

118

The fine tuning argument is based on the idea of other universes. The fine tuning argument says that our universe is highly improbable because it is the only universe, or at most, one of a few universes. Therefore, it has to establish how many universes there are.

Why would the car stand out with all of the complex life around it?

Perhaps the universe is like the woods.

Our universe being the only universe has not been demonstrated.

1 Like
119

I leave that to the physicists.

It isn’t a religion to note that no one has demonstrated that our universe is the only universe.

120

The existence of God is not provable, but there are some pretty big flashing neon arrows of inductive evidence pointing to him. We might be able to find a couple of people who know they have factual evidence of him in their lives, and records of a maybe few more here and there who have in the past. George Müller was one who had phenomenal numbers of instances (or ‘co-instances’ :slightly_smiling_face:). And then there’s Ockham’s razor and Marcelo Gleiser.

So it would be wiser than not to not exclude the possibility and to not ask for evidence like merchandise from a vending machine. Evidence can be had upon request, but only conditionally I guess:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Hebrews 11:6

I suppose that may seem circular, but not really if you consider existing evidence, like awe and beauty. (I know a man whom beauty stopped from throwing himself off a cliff, who then became a Christian and eventually a seminary professor.)

The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork.
Psalm 19:1

1 Like
121

It is circular, but I don’t doubt the power it has had in other peoples’ lives. Just not in mine.

We have discussed all of this before, so I don’t want to torture this thread with rehashing. I will say that I do respect what you have said and I have taken it seriously.

3 Likes
122
  • Really? I’d find that odd.
  • Fred Hoyle: Father of Nucleosynthesis
    • “He began his career in science as a resolved atheist, but by the time of his death, believed that life, as we know it today, “must have been the result of some unseen intelligence and that ‘there is a coherent plan for the universe, although I admit I have no idea what it is’” (Easterbrook 2003”.
    • Hoyle soon argued that life, in the form of animate compounds, could not have simply spontaneously appeared one day, and claimed that the chances of that happening were worse than a group of monkeys that was chained to typewriters, would eventually type out Hamlet. Hoyle actually reasoned that it would take the monkeys billions of years just to come up with a grocery list. Studies showed that it took the monkeys hours to even stumble across the shortest of words, and would never be able to write out Shakespeare (Easterbrook 2003). Because he conclusively proved that life was not just simply created, he believed that life was brought to Earth through the influence of some higher intelligence. He didn’t exactly know what to make of this, and claimed that either some sort of advanced natural intelligence, or maybe even God played a role in our being. Both theories got him into some hot water. It was bad enough that he, being an atheist, was actually admitting there was a chance that God did exist, but what really made people mad was when he said that maybe aliens were responsible for life being here on earth.
1 Like
123

I’m not sure how this is supposed to be related to the fine tuning argument. Hoyle is talking about the origin of life, not the origin of universes.

124
  • Really?
    • Here’s my cards:
      • The fine-tuning argument is an argument for the existence of God that is based on the observation that the laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe seem to be finely tuned to allow for the existence of life. The argument goes something like this:
        • The laws of physics and the initial conditions of the universe are very finely tuned for the existence of life.
        • The probability of such fine-tuning occurring by chance is very low.
        • Therefore, the most likely explanation for the fine-tuning is that it was caused by a designer with a purpose, such as God.
      • There are a number of objections to the fine-tuning argument. One objection is that the probability of the fine-tuning occurring by chance may not be as low as is often assumed. Another objection is that the fine-tuning may be due to a multiverse, in which case there would be many universes, each with different laws of physics and initial conditions, and some of these universes would be fine-tuned for life.
        • Despite these objections, the fine-tuning argument remains a popular argument for the existence of God. It is a complex argument, and there is no easy way to resolve the debate over its validity.
      • Here are some additional points to consider:
        • The fine-tuning argument is not the only argument for the existence of God. There are many other arguments, such as the moral argument, the cosmological argument, and the design argument.
        • The fine-tuning argument is not the only argument against the existence of God. There are many other arguments, such as the problem of evil, the problem of suffering, and the problem of lack of evidence.
        • The debate over the existence of God is a complex and ongoing one. There is no easy answer, and each person must decide for themselves what they believe.
  • So when did you compose your version of the Fine-tuning Argument and in what Multiverse did you compose?
125

How does one calculate this probability? I don’t see any way of doing this, which is my main criticism of the argument.

I will agree that many people find this argument compelling.

It isn’t my version. From what I can tell, the fine tuning argument suggests that the conditions seen at the beginning of our universe could not have come about by chance because the probability of one universe landing on those values is exceedingly improbable. That assumes one universe. I don’t see how this assumption can be supported at this time.

All good points.

126
  • From what you can tell? As Ed Sullivan might have said, “there’s a r-e-a-l-l-y big Cosmos.” In a boundless, eternal universe, from what I can tell. “Conditions seen at the beginning of that Cosmos” never existed, because there never was a beginning. Ergo, bye bye chance.
  • Bard thanks you.
127
  • Did I miss something? Does the opening question of this thread ask: "Why not God of All the Gaps, Some of the Gaps, or None of the Gaps? Or does it ask: “Why not Gods of All the Gaps, Some of the Gaps, or None of the Gaps?” Or does it ask: “Why not All/Some/No Gods of All/Some/None of the Gaps?”
128

I’m not seeing how that relates to what I said.

129

“He signed their “Dissent from Darwinism” list.” Note that the statement which the DI sought signatures for was vague enough to not clearly identify someone signing it as being doubtful about evolution by natural selection.

If a gap not explainable scientifically is found, it is not unreasonable to consider whether God achieved the particular event/action miraculously, But there are several caveats:
Is this “gap” a case of “we’re just discovering this and have not yet done much to investigate it scientifically” or “we’re making gradual progress in developing scientific models but certainly don’t have an exhaustive theory yet” or is it “we have a very strong understanding of how such things work by scientific laws, and this doesn’t follow them”? (There are also imaginary gaps)
Does this claim follow the biblical view that God is at work in what happens without “gaps” as well as in what happens with one, or does it fall into the error of treating non-gaps as less theistic? Both the “I’m giving greater glory to God by claiming that He did something miraculously” and the “science, so God wasn’t involved” person are making this error.
Is such a conclusion scientific, or is it drawing a conclusion from the perceived failure of science? This is a matter of semantics, but it is important to clarify a claim that “Science says this…”

1 Like
130

Talking to die-hard Evolutionists… There are no gaps, just undefined progressions. You do not have to be precise. All you need is to declare the progression and let time fill in the blanks. They do not admit to any gaps for God to fill.

Richard