An infinite universe, quantum randomness, probability.. God?

[Tenth Speed Writer]

I'd like to bring out an idea that's emerged in our philosophy and metaphysics class at the University of Alabama.


The professor, planning a class on both metaphysics and argumentative reason, threw us in with Anselm and Aquinus. (The Ontological and Cosmological arguments for the existence of a divine being.)



For those not familiar with the cosmological argument, its basis is that all contingent beings ("being" applying to any thing or occurrence) must have some causal event, and that if we follow the universe back to T_1 (Time, one, the first contingent event,) the proceeding (T_0) must be a self-existent (Non-contingent, uncasued) being.

One counterargument that emerged toward the end of the lesson among myself and a handful of other students, was assuming that the set which contained all events of the universe was limitless.

Through this, we can state that by making our current point in time T_0, we achieve a set of (-infinity, infinity). As infinity does not have a defined ending point, -infinity is equally without end, and thus, beginning.
From that, it's deduced that the universe lacks any one starting point, and hence, no "original cause."

Then, in explaining the existence of time and space as we know then, we move to the idea that quantum physics brings about truly random happenings. The appearance or disappearance of a particle, a fluctuation in energy, so on and so forth. The unlikeliness of the singularity resulting in the big bang coming into existence is so astronomical, that it's virtually beyond calculation. However, as the number of chances for it to occur is equal to the size of the set which contains all events in the universe, you have an infinite number of chances. This increases the probability of time and space as we know it coming into existence, to 1.


If anything, I'm going by this to reaffirm my belief that if there is a god who had an active hand in creating what we know as reality, his greatest mark is mathematics.


(Spoonfeed: Idea. The universe possible-'d itself into existence. Discuss?)  

[Daffodil the Destroyer]

The argument you've made is what I consider to be the most likely. Either way, if one does make the argument that the "original cause" was a god, then one is still left saying that the god involved must have existed before what we perceive as "time," so what created that god? If the person arguing for god can say, "Well, God just always existed," then certainly we could say that the universe "just always existed" or "had no starting point." Occam's Razor helps us decide that the universe having always existed is the more reasonable of the two choices.  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Daffodil the Destroyer

The argument you've made is what I consider to be the most likely. Either way, if one does make the argument that the "original cause" was a god, then one is still left saying that the god involved must have existed before what we perceive as "time," so what created that god? If the person arguing for god can say, "Well, God just always existed," then certainly we could say that the universe "just always existed" or "had no starting point." Occam's Razor helps us decide that the universe having always existed is the more reasonable of the two choices.

True, but isn't Occam's Razor a bit sketchy in this case?

At the bare bones of it, the only assumptions to be made are, "The Universe extends indefinitely, but has a definite beginning," "The being we identify as god is self-existing" and "The self-existing being known here as God is the cause of the first event."

With this theory, we make two assumptions. "The set which contains all events in the universe is infinite," and "the idea of 'random quantum occurrences' is true."


Occam's Razor does apply, but only by a small margin.  

[Edi Gammon]

I think that "the idea of random occurrences is true" is contained within "the set which contains all events in the universe is infinite"... Making your theory #2 a little bit leaner ninja

Tenth Speed Writer

(Spoonfeed: Idea. The universe possible-'d itself into existence. Discuss?)

This assumes that the universe is a 'thing' and this thing does the 'action' of making itself 'exist'. We can't say it made itself exist before it existed, because there was no 'before' before it existed.

What is the difference between a 'thing' and and 'action' on a quantum scale anyhow? Are you sure an asymptote never reaches its limit? Which came first the chicken or the egg? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Hmmmmmmmm....  

[[The Looney Bin]]

The dinosaurs are returning...

One could also use the flying spaghetti monster argument as well.
Saying that the idea that a "god" created everything is equally as likely as a flying spaghetti monster creating everything.

...and they want their oil back.

 

[SkeletonPhoenix]

Edi Gammon

I think that "the idea of random occurrences is true" is contained within "the set which contains all events in the universe is infinite"... Making your theory #2 a little bit leaner ninja

Tenth Speed Writer

(Spoonfeed: Idea. The universe possible-'d itself into existence. Discuss?)

This assumes that the universe is a 'thing' and this thing does the 'action' of making itself 'exist'. We can't say it made itself exist before it existed, because there was no 'before' before it existed.

What is the difference between a 'thing' and and 'action' on a quantum scale anyhow? Are you sure an asymptote never reaches its limit? Which came first the chicken or the egg? How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop? Hmmmmmmmm....

You realize that the question of "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Has an answer right?  

[Edi Gammon]

SkeletonPhoenix

You realize that the question of "Which came first the chicken or the egg?" Has an answer right?

Yes, and so do the others.  

[Xiporah]

I think I'm actually, seriously, too stupid to read that. My head started hurting around the third paragraph.

So, I bring nothing to the table.

 

[Edi Gammon]

Xiporah

I think I'm actually, seriously, too stupid to read that. My head started hurting around the third paragraph.

So, I bring nothing to the table.

Don't worry Xiporah, I had to go over it 5 or 6 times to get it straight myself.... And i'm still not sure if I am. razz  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

[The Looney Bin]

The dinosaurs are returning...

One could also use the flying spaghetti monster argument as well.
Saying that the idea that a "god" created everything is equally as likely as a flying spaghetti monster creating everything.

...and they want their oil back.

I hate to be the one to pick on everyone's favorite RAA argument, but (at least in a deistic sense) the idea of designer being a human-like, intelligent being is more reasonable than our being blessed by His Noodly Appendage (although we all know that's what really happened.)

Given the innate complexity of the universe, and the bare-bones concept presented by the new design argument, the possibility of an intelligent force interfering in this universe isn't entirely discountable. While it still borders on the absurd to label that force as the theistic God of tradition, the NDA is, for the most part, a valid argument.  

[Edi Gammon]

Could you post some reference or web page explaining what this NDA is?  

[Tenth Speed Writer]

Edi Gammon

Could you post some reference or web page explaining what this NDA is?

The New Design Argument.

http://www.discovery.org/a/91

The Cosmic Fine-Tuning argument, specifically.