Ep. 88: Objective meaning, value, and purpose

[tonyenglish7]

Pseudo,

I think you meant "teleological argument", not "ontological argument".

BTW, I would like to see Tony's take on the anthropic principle. I'm not sure that I buy Lawrence Krauss' explanation specifically, but it does have an appealing simplicity to it. I agree with Leonard Susskind's take on it, that the anthropic principle may well be correct, but it runs the risk of becoming a thought-terminating cliche. If there is a physical reason why physical constants are what they are, then we should find out why.

Yes, I addressed this back a few pages in more detail but the anthropic principle fails as a device to explain the fine tuning because it simply says, Since we would not be here to discover that life didn't exist, we should not be surprised to find life existing when we are here. But it is not that we should be surprised that we are here in this particular universe that demands an explanation, but that any life permitting universe would exist.

String theorists have calculated that there are at least 10 to the 500 possible universes of any kind using the laws of nature with different values and different constants.

Examples; Paul Davies calculated that a change in the weak force or in gravity by one part in 10 to the 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe. Hawkings calculated that during the early expansion of the universe that a change decrease in the rate of one part in one hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapse very early, before life could develop. And a similar increase would have precluded galaxies. The cosmological constant is fine tuned to one part in 10 to the 120, otherwise life would not exist. These numbers are bigger than the number of particles in the universe.

But even further, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of the special low entropy conditions by chance is one part in 10 to the 30 to the 123, a number so big we cannot even put an analogy to it.

So, the question is not why this universe exists, but why any life permitting universe would exist? The anthropic principle is often analogized to be like the lottery. Some person has to win and that person, after winning cannot claim a miracle because even though the chances were low, once they won, it is not a miracle whatsoever.

But this is more like filling the universe with black ping pong balls and 5 white ping pong balls and mixing them up randomly. Then, go out and pick a ball, find it is white, randomly pick another, find it is white, another, white... five times. At that point, it makes sense to conclude that the lottery is fixed from the onset for white balls. The white balls are the life permitting universes and the black balls are the non-life permitting. It's not that any ball was picked, but that only white balls were picked. That is different than the lottery and anthropic principles.

The discovery of fine tuning is not dismissible as silly or logically flawed, it is evidence for either chance, necessity or design. Chance and necessity are not feasible so design has to be accepted as the most plausible answer.

And once again, I am not talking about other universes with different laws of nature, only different universes with different values and/or constants to the laws of nature we have now. Other universes are irrelevant in the discussion.

Krauss appealed to the quantum vacuum as the source of an infinite number of universes. First, this is simply a mistake. The quantum vacuum is not nothing. It is part of the actual universe and within the quantum vacuum, there is energy which bounces to matter and back to energy. It is not "nothing."

He said, every time you have nothing, you will get a universe. that leads to absurdity as discussed prior. (See page 12 http://www.achristianandanatheist.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=42&t=2312&start=165 )But it shows the lengths those who have faith in materialism will go to justify the non-existence of God.

[scomsjw]

But even further, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds of the special low entropy conditions by chance is one part in 10 to the 30 to the 123, a number so big we cannot even put an analogy to it.

Penrose and Hawking understand this stuff better than most and they are both atheists. Why do you think they find your argument unconvincing? I would suggest that it is because they would not put the idea of god outside this kind of argument. They might ask the question: "What is the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence is the explanation?" Of course you couldn't measure that probability but I can imagine Hawking's electronic voice declaring it to be quite small.

Some theists can imagine a universe with nothing in it. Literally nothing. Then kaboom - in that area of space where there was previously nothing there is now a sun with planets. That sun was not always there - some time before the universe had contained no matter whatsoever. How did we get from nothing to all that complicated matter? The proposed answer is that god did it. But this is not an explanation it is just an assertion. It seems to me that someone already convinced of the existence of god (because of personal experience for example) might have no difficulty accepting this assertion. In fact if you presuppose the existence of god the assertion seems very reasonable. But only if you make that presupposition. It doesn't work the other way around - as a proof that god exists.

I find the argument that we evolved from ape-like ancestors persuasive. To me this is the explanation for why we struggle with quantum theory and speculation about how the universe began. Our brains did not evolve to understand these things. We evolved conceptual models to help us visualise objects moving in three dimensions and through time. But we are most comfortable with objects that have a size close to our own size, and with things that happen over a proportion of our own life time.

When we try to understand quantum theory we are struggling to understand things that are so much smaller than we are that our conceptual models are no longer helpful - we have to start accepting things that our reason would tell us are impossible - one object being simultaneously in two places and so on. Evolution is difficult to grasp because you have to think about processes that unfold over millions of years - and our imagination isn't up to it. Similarly the size of the universe is pretty much incomprehensible.

I would just make the point that our judgement of probability is grounded in our ability to predict tomorrow's weather and so on. When you start to talk about the probability that universal constants could have different values you are really pushing at what it is possible to know. Behind those calculations of probability there are many, many assumptions. And the probability seems remote because we are accustomed to thinking about things that have very high probabilities - that it will rain tomorrow for example.

And what about that question: "What is the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence is the explanation?"

Versus the question: "What is the probability that there is another explanation?"

One that we have not worked out yet. One that we may never work out. One that the human mind might be incapable of grasping.

[tonyenglish7]

Scomsjw,

Penrose and Hawking understand this stuff better than most and they are both atheists. Why do you think they find your argument unconvincing? I would suggest that it is because they would not put the idea of god outside this kind of argument. They might ask the question: "What is the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence is the explanation?" Of course you couldn't measure that probability but I can imagine Hawking's electronic voice declaring it to be quite small.

Some theists can imagine a universe with nothing in it. Literally nothing. Then kaboom - in that area of space where there was previously nothing there is now a sun with planets. That sun was not always there - some time before the universe had contained no matter whatsoever. How did we get from nothing to all that complicated matter? The proposed answer is that god did it. But this is not an explanation it is just an assertion. It seems to me that someone already convinced of the existence of god (because of personal experience for example) might have no difficulty accepting this assertion. In fact if you presuppose the existence of god the assertion seems very reasonable. But only if you make that presupposition. It doesn't work the other way around - as a proof that god exists.

I understand what you are saying but your comment comes out of a presupposition that God doesn't exist. What you are accusing the theist of doing, you are doing because the rational person starts with the world view that God may or may not exist. If you start with a neutral position, then the evidence leads to God's existence. The reason Hawking and Penrose reject the possibility of God, is not scientific, but faith based in scientism or naturalism. They will always believe something we don't know over the concept of an un-embodied mind, no matter what. It is impossible to prove God to anyone in that mindset, no evidence will ever persuade such an individual. So, only the honest inquirer who is really looking for the most plausible answer will be able to determine the truth from a neutral position while evaluating the scientific and logical evidence.

I find the argument that we evolved from ape-like ancestors persuasive. To me this is the explanation for why we struggle with quantum theory and speculation about how the universe began. Our brains did not evolve to understand these things. We evolved conceptual models to help us visualise objects moving in three dimensions and through time. But we are most comfortable with objects that have a size close to our own size, and with things that happen over a proportion of our own life time.

When we try to understand quantum theory we are struggling to understand things that are so much smaller than we are that our conceptual models are no longer helpful - we have to start accepting things that our reason would tell us are impossible - one object being simultaneously in two places and so on. Evolution is difficult to grasp because you have to think about processes that unfold over millions of years - and our imagination isn't up to it. Similarly the size of the universe is pretty much incomprehensible.

I would just make the point that our judgment of probability is grounded in our ability to predict tomorrow's weather and so on. When you start to talk about the probability that universal constants could have different values you are really pushing at what it is possible to know. Behind those calculations of probability there are many, many assumptions. And the probability seems remote because we are accustomed to thinking about things that have very high probabilities - that it will rain tomorrow for example.

All you are saying is we are easily tricked by our limited knowledge. But that cuts both ways. Maybe this same truth keeps one from realizing the existence of God as well. But even worse, your point that you evolved for no reason, out of matter, by chance processes, entails that even your rational ideas are not that of a personal mind, but a brain that is only caused by random prior events and therefore it cannot be trusted as a truth instrument, only a survival instrument at the very best. So, if you are right, you can never really know you are right by your own standard because prior events caused your thoughts, not a rational personal mind. You may believe what you believe because of the physical configuration of your brain and all that you are is brain. All else is an illusion. (Although even to have an illusion you have to be a non-physical person but that is another discussion).

And what about that question: "What is the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence is the explanation?"

Versus the question: "What is the probability that there is another explanation?"

One that we have not worked out yet. One that we may never work out. One that the human mind might be incapable of grasping

If you first reject materialism and naturalism in favor of a neutral view, then the answer is obvious. Since all matter and time came into existence in a finite manner, the only rationally plausible answer is personal mind. If you choose some other explanation to be scientific and rational, it has to be non-material, timeless, powerful, and intelligent. Or you can choose no explanation whatsoever. The universe has been shown scientifically not to be necessary so those are your only choices. No explanation, or God.

Saying we just don't know is not scientific, not logical, not rational, and not wise given your gift of life. the evidence is really there...

[JustJim]

Tony,

I understand what you are saying but your comment comes out of a presupposition that God doesn't exist.

I think this is where you make a tragic mistake that prevents you from understanding the atheist position. You see your own beliefs as the most reasonable conclusion that can be reached by way of an unbiased, rational examination and consideration of all the available evidence and arguments out there regarding the existence of God, but you see atheist non-belief as a "presupposition". For most atheists, and certainly all I've ever known or read, that is simply not the case. You really need to understand that atheists also have reached their position as a reasonable conclusion they came to via an unbiased, rational examination and consideration of all the same 'evidence' and 'arguments' you considered. Theirs is no more a "presupposition" than yours is. Until you understand and accept that, you'll never be able to carry on a meaningful discussion with them about whether God exists or not.

If you start with a neutral position, then the evidence leads to God's existence.

Name me someone who starts with a neutral position regarding the question of the existence of God. There's no such thing as starting with a neutral position. You can only start from where you are, which includes the culmination of your entire history of all of your life's experiences up to this instant. And that's why the "evidence" you accept isn't acceptable to everyone else, and also why your 'evidence' doesn't lead to God's existence for everyone else. It leads there for YOU, Tony. Let other people be 'led' to where their lives' experiences take them.

Jim

[JustJim]

Some theists can imagine a universe with nothing in it. Literally nothing. Then kaboom - in that area of space where there was previously nothing there is now a sun with planets. That sun was not always there - some time before the universe had contained no matter whatsoever...

I think this misrepresents Tony's position, as well as that of many other theists, deists, pantheists, panentheists, etc., etc., etc. They do not propose an empty universe that came to be filled with stuff by a creator God. They propose that NO universe, indeed, that NOTHING existed EXCEPT God before the creation of the universe. There was no empty space, no "nothing-ness", no void, no... nothing at all. There was ONLY God.

That, of course, doesn't make things any easier. But I think it makes it clearer, and closer to what many actually believe.

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

JustJim,

I think this is where you make a tragic mistake that prevents you from understanding the atheist position. You see your own beliefs as the most reasonable conclusion that can be reached by way of an unbiased, rational examination and consideration of all the available evidence and arguments out there regarding the existence of God, but you see atheist non-belief as a "presupposition". For most atheists, and certainly all I've ever known or read, that is simply not the case. You really need to understand that atheists also have reached their position as a reasonable conclusion they came to via an unbiased, rational examination and consideration of all the same 'evidence' and 'arguments' you considered. Theirs is no more a "presupposition" than yours is. Until you understand and accept that, you'll never be able to carry on a meaningful discussion with them about whether God exists or not.

I know that atheists are honest in their thought processes and feel they are following the rational evidence where it leads. But the truth is, both sides have presuppositions and the atheist has one that doesn't allow the existence of God to be rational, logical or meaningful. They will always prefer, 'I don't know", to, God must have created the universe. There is no example of theoretical evidence that an atheist can project would cause him/her to believe in God. But this should not be the case. If the skepticism knob was not turned up so high for no reason, then the atheist would be convinced by the evidence.

I admit that most theists do not believe based upon the scientific evidence, just the gut feeling that there is a reason for reality rather than no reason. But they have presuppositions once they put faith in theism just like the atheist, not for scientific reasons as he/she supposes puts faith in materialism and decides afterwards how strong the arguments are for God. But you are right, both sides have presuppositions. So, that is not the issue, what is the issues is which side has a more plausible argument?

Name me someone who starts with a neutral position regarding the question of the existence of God. There's no such thing as starting with a neutral position. You can only start from where you are, which includes the culmination of your entire history of all of your life's experiences up to this instant. And that's why the "evidence" you accept isn't acceptable to everyone else, and also why your 'evidence' doesn't lead to God's existence for everyone else. It leads there for YOU, Tony. Let other people be 'led' to where their lives' experiences take them.

We all should be committed to thinking clearly which entails starting from a neutral position. My position is there is a God, but that started from a more neutral position than one that eliminates the possibility of God from the onset. I appreciate others have a different view, but I actually think it matters if one does or doesn't realize the purpose and the opportunity of the life that has been given. I could be wrong but I must act upon what I think is true, and both sides cannot be right at the same time.

[tonyenglish7]

Jim

I think this misrepresents Tony's position, as well as that of many other theists, deists, pantheists, panentheists, etc., etc., etc. They do not propose an empty universe that came to be filled with stuff by a creator God. They propose that NO universe, indeed, that NOTHING existed EXCEPT God before the creation of the universe. There was no empty space, no "nothing-ness", no void, no... nothing at all. There was ONLY God.

That, of course, doesn't make things any easier. But I think it makes it clearer, and closer to what many actually believe.

Yes, thank you, you are right. And this is what science and logic have determined as well. However, Pantheists and Panentheists, (*Mormons), think that the universe is God or is an attribute of God and most think it has always existed or is eternal or necessary. Science has shown them to be wrong. Deists are just a subgroup of theists who think God doesn't intervene in nature. The resurrection has shown them to be wrong.

[scomsjw]

I think this misrepresents Tony's position, as well as that of many other theists, deists, pantheists, panentheists, etc., etc., etc. They do not propose an empty universe that came to be filled with stuff by a creator God. They propose that NO universe, indeed, that NOTHING existed EXCEPT God before the creation of the universe. There was no empty space, no "nothing-ness", no void, no... nothing at all. There was ONLY God.

That, of course, doesn't make things any easier. But I think it makes it clearer, and closer to what many actually believe.

The problem I was struggling to express is that Craig et al seem comfortable with the idea that god was able to create matter from nothing. Obviously we have absolutely no idea how such a thing could be done. I don't really undestand how someone can say dogmatically that "nothing can come from nothing" whilst believing that "god can make something from nothing". I would not go so far as to say that the latter is impossible. It just seems very odd to assert it with such confidence when you have literally no idea of mechanism. I think Craig could make the case that science has not ruled out the possibility that "god can make something from nothing" but to suggest that science has proved that "god can make something from nothing" is disingenuous.

By the way has anyone read the chapter on the resurrection? That is a masterpiece. Utterly unconvincing but brilliantly argued.

Record another podcast you lazy men.

[tonyenglish7]

Scomsjw,

The problem I was struggling to express is that Craig et al seem comfortable with the idea that god was able to create matter from nothing. Obviously we have absolutely no idea how such a thing could be done. I don't really undestand how someone can say dogmatically that "nothing can come from nothing" whilst believing that "god can make something from nothing". I would not go so far as to say that the latter is impossible. It just seems very odd to assert it with such confidence when you have literally no idea of mechanism. I think Craig could make the case that science has not ruled out the possibility that "god can make something from nothing" but to suggest that science has proved that "god can make something from nothing" is disingenuous.

Oh, I see what you are saying. Yes, here is the rub, if you always have to know "how" something was done before you can admit, "that" it was done, science would never work. We can know that bumble bees flew prior to knowing how they flew. We can know that electricity exists prior to know how it works. The list goes on. If we had to know "how", before concluding "that", all of science would be an infinite regress.

We can safely conclude that an un-embodied mind created the universe because all other categories are stripped away by science and logic. How he did it is a mystery however the bible states he spoke it into existence. It is interesting to me that string theory states the apparent particles are only a cross section of vibrating energy, sort of like a wave made by a voice? I know, speculation but makes me kinda wonder... But it would take a very powerful mind to actuate this universe. We cannot relate because our minds are limited to causing things through our bodies before we cause things to the outside reality. But that may be just us as contingent, created, limited, finite beings.

We are recording another podcast today (I think) on the Leibniz argument for God from sufficient reason....

[JustJim]

...what is the issues (sic) is which side has a more plausible argument

Absolutely!

But what is more plausible to one is not necessarily more plausible to another, as is clearly evidenced by the wide controversy that exists over the question of the existence of God.

What each of us considers more plausible or less plausible is a function of the totality of our individual reasonings based on our subjective experiences. And so you conclude that "the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence" is the most plausible explanation, while many others conclude there's a greater probability that there's a different explanation - one we haven't worked out yet, or that we may never work out, or that we may even be incapable of understanding.

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Jim,

Absolutely!

But what is more plausible to one is not necessarily more plausible to another, as is clearly evidenced by the wide controversy that exists over the question of the existence of God.

What each of us considers more plausible or less plausible is a function of the totality of our individual reasonings based on our subjective experiences. And so you conclude that "the probability that a disembodied, superintelligence with the ability to think matter and time into existence" is the most plausible explanation, while many others conclude there's a greater probability that there's a different explanation - one we haven't worked out yet, or that we may never work out, or that we may even be incapable of understanding.

Yes, that is true, if one starts out with an aversion to the idea of God, then the ignorance choice is more rational. Yet this is only more rational once you have rejected the possibility of God by faith.

[JustJim]

Tony,

I didn't start out with an aversion to the idea of God. And I've never been happy with ignorance, either. I also don't reject the possibility of God. I just think it's more intelligent to say, "I don't know", than it is to accept an extremely improbable answer to a possibly unanswerable question. You disagree. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant, stupid, or blinded by my "presuppositions", which, by the way, were fully Christian ones for the first 20 - 30 years of my life, and were well-fueled by many years of religious education, indoctrination, and training, including preparation for and some experience in the ministry. And, as you already are aware, Mitch grew up in an environment of experiences that probably gave him atheistic 'presuppositions', yet he was able to reason his way out of them based on his life experiences. And neither of us has come to the same conclusions you have, even though he and I disagree on many things related to God.

So much for your 'presuppositions' theory....

Jim

[scomsjw]

Yes, that is true, if one starts out with an aversion to the idea of God, then the ignorance choice is more rational. Yet this is only more rational once you have rejected the possibility of God by faith.

Does anybody actually have an "aversion to the idea of god"? I suppose you mean that some atheists have an "aversion to the idea of god as expressed in some religions". But I don't think even that is true.I think most people are attracted to the general idea of god but some people don't believe he actually exists.

You seem to suggest that once you have accepted the possibility of god by faith it becomes more rational to believe he created the universe. But by definition a person in that position would only accept the possibility that he created the universe. I don't see how accepting the possibility that christianity is true leads you to a rational conclusion that god created the universe. It would be more consistent to say "I don't know but have an open mind".

It seems to me that many people have come to the conclusion that christianity is true because of personal experience. A person who is absolutely convinced that christianity is true believes that god created the universe. Science seems to be offering alternative explanations but is a long way from having a complete answer. Apologists like Craig seem to be addressing a largely christian audience with the message that they have nothing to fear from science.That it will eventually prove that christians have been right all along. But to suggest that it has already done so is, at the very least, premature.

[tonyenglish7]

Jim,

Tony,

I didn't start out with an aversion to the idea of God. And I've never been happy with ignorance, either. I also don't reject the possibility of God. I just think it's more intelligent to say, "I don't know", than it is to accept an extremely improbable answer to a possibly unanswerable question. You disagree. That doesn't mean I'm ignorant, stupid, or blinded by my "presuppositions", which, by the way, were fully Christian ones for the first 20 - 30 years of my life, and were well-fueled by many years of religious education, indoctrination, and training, including preparation for and some experience in the ministry. And, as you already are aware, Mitch grew up in an environment of experiences that probably gave him atheistic 'presuppositions', yet he was able to reason his way out of them based on his life experiences. And neither of us has come to the same conclusions you have, even though he and I disagree on many things related to God.

So much for your 'presuppositions' theory....

Everybody has presuppositions, it is impossible not to. But if you know what they are and understand how they influence your world view, then you can think outside the box and seek what is true from a broader perspective. I don't think it is out of line to point out that those who prefer "I don't Know" to God have a bias towards naturalism if they have understood all the evidence for design, purpose, personhood, morals, the big bang, the cosmological arguments and the testimony of others having trusted God.

I can step fully into the materialist world view without any problem and I fully empathize with how they think. The idea of God is considered "supernatural" and science is always better than supernatural. The whole "God-of-the-gaps" issue keeps materialist drinking the cool-aid. It is a modern revelation that design is just an illusion, purpose is subjective, and morals are emergent properties from society. It is a whole connected theology without the "theo" part. Scientist in scientism congratulate each other for keeping the faith even against overwhelming odds in that intellectual integrity is displayed in being ignorant, (I don't know) and skeptical to the infinite degree. The more skeptical, the higher moral and intellectual you are.

Now, obviously there are times when being skeptical is useful, especially in the scientific method which is a tool for determining truth. (skepicism for somethings is completely missing in science like macro evolution and abiogenisis). The discussion of God is a metaphysical truth that is a higher question than that of the scientific subject, yet science is a tool to determine metaphysical truth as is math a tool for scientific truth. Those members of the faith of scientism reject the question of metaphysical truth from the onset, as they claim it is meaningless. "Only scientific truth is meaningful".

Yet there are a lot of things that cannot be determined by science. You cannot prove using science that other minds exist, you cannot prove that the universe is real, (It could be an illusion produced by aliens), you cannot even prove that the scientific method is to be trusted using the scientific method. You cannot prove that the medical experiments done to the Jews by the Nazi's was wrong. So, there is more to the world than the scientific method. But just like a cult member who has given over their minds to the leader who causes them to only care about the themes within the cult, the members of scientism are completely incapable of seeing the world from the perspective from which they were intended to see it.

At what point does skepticism become skeptical of itself?

[tonyenglish7]

Scomsjw,

Does anybody actually have an "aversion to the idea of god"? I suppose you mean that some atheists have an "aversion to the idea of god as expressed in some religions". But I don't think even that is true.I think most people are attracted to the general idea of god but some people don't believe he actually exists.

You seem to suggest that once you have accepted the possibility of god by faith it becomes more rational to believe he created the universe. But by definition a person in that position would only accept the possibility that he created the universe. I don't see how accepting the possibility that Christianity is true leads you to a rational conclusion that god created the universe. It would be more consistent to say "I don't know but have an open mind".

It seems to me that many people have come to the conclusion that Christianity is true because of personal experience. A person who is absolutely convinced that Christianity is true believes that god created the universe. Science seems to be offering alternative explanations but is a long way from having a complete answer. Apologists like Craig seem to be addressing a largely Christian audience with the message that they have nothing to fear from science. That it will eventually prove that Christians have been right all along. But to suggest that it has already done so is, at the very least, premature.

Well, I think that it doesn't take a scientist to determine that God must exist. We were created with a mind that can understand very easily that something doesn't come from nothing and there has to be an explanation for the reality in which we move around. We understand without argument that things are right and wrong, that life is valuable and other persons exist. The universe, and all of reality is a way to know some things about God. He is powerful, intelligent, eternal and morally good. So, science, just reveals what he did and sometimes how he did it.

With more study we see that the bible was first on the scene to proclaim the order of development of the earth, the late appearance of Man. The historical interaction between man and God and the ultimate solution for the state of mankind including the purpose of life. I think Craig and others are stealing back what Hume and Kant did to the realm of science. They are showing that the thousands of years of scientific development only supports the existence of God instead of eliminates it.

The Bible teaches that man is in darkness mentally, and without a touch from God, man will stay in that state of blindness to the reality of a purposeful universe. God is willing to touch anyone who wants to be set free to serve the living center of reality, God. So, Craig and others, maybe even me, will keep on making the case for a God centered universe using science, logic, theology and other tools, but the ultimate choice is up to each individual. Here is where the aversion comes in. It is nice to live for oneself without regard to any higher authority. But these are ignorant of the type of person this authority really is. He is so good...