If the universe was not so perfectly tuned as it is, would you be here to ponder its imperfection?

Quote: Original post by Eelco
So, this creator, is it less or more complex and well thought out than the complexity of the universe?

Complexity starts somewhere. In the absence of evidence of other forms of complexity preceeding it, one might aswell accept it as-is, no?

The Creator is the universe. The Creator grows from experiencing itself subjectively.

Quote: Original post by phantom
This line of thinking is often used as a way of saying "see, there must be a god!" the problem is it is flawed, and indeed any view of a 'creator' is flawed because it assumes that this is the one and only universe and that there hasn't been anything before it or after it.

The fact that we exist IS because the universe happens to have balenced itself out just right and because of that we are here to question it. The problem is, we don't know how many times the universe DIDNT get it right.

Maybe there have been multitudes of 'universes' before this one, each one different in some manner and the resulting end of said universe causes the beginning of the next and so on.

I guess it's like going to watch someone do a dangerous stunt; if you only ever see the stunt then as far as you are concerned it was amazing that he managed to pull it off so well. Of course what you don't see is the number of times he failed, broke bones and got banged up in the process.

I understand your reasoning: Before this universe appeared, the universe was in a state of constant chaos, forming and annihilating itself until the natural laws somehow changed and laid the framework for the organized structured universe we now inhabit to appear. Sure, I can't deny that. The idea that someone created it and got it right on the first try sounds better to me, though. [wink]
That possibility can't be denied either, can it?

If there has been many universes, then there must have been a first universe out of this collection of many.
What caused this first universe to appear? You say "it just happened", I say "something wanted it to."

Quote: Original post by Marmin
About the 'laws' that seem so nicely tuned; that is from the human perception. It is like looking at a cloud and you recognize a kitten in this shape; it is just like someone has lovingly shaped the cloud in the form of a cat, just for you.
It is, of course, just randomness.
:D

Well, I'll never be able to argue against that argument. I can say anything, but you'll say that I say that because of my human perception. [smile]

Something that is beyond perception, though, is the act of existing. We exist, we can agree on that, human or not. Why do we exist? You might say "we exist because we exist", but I want to say that we exist because something wanted it to be so.
If we exist just because we exist, then isn't it just as likely that we could have ended up in a state of non-existence? That we don't exist because we don't? What I'm trying to get at is why are we in a state of existence as opposed to non-existence?

Quote: Original post by Marmin
I think he does not want this to be a religious debate. As soon as the word 'God' is mentioned it tends to turn into just that.

Correct. This is beyond the man made concept of worship/religion. [wink]

Quote: Original post by Eelco

Quote: Original post by Straudos

Quote: I believe the universe is intelligently designed, but I don't call that entity God, but rather the Creator.

I'm pretty sure this is what people mean by "God" - the designer and creator of the universe. Why are you reluctant to use the word?

To assert that the universe is created is one thing; kindof pointless, but anyway. The word 'god' is however quite a bit broader than just 'creator'.

To assert that this creator would bother to spawn stone tablets, prophets or have other properties commonly associated with 'god', are entirely orthogonal assertions.

I propose creator machine. It simply runs random program for all eternity (for infinite number of steps), it runs another random program, and so on, forever.
Most programs just enter infinite loop but some are processing data in the loop, applying same rule over and over again. Simulating universes, essentially. Complicated rules are rare (unlikely to arise by chance), while simple rules are common (and a lot of programs can end up looping same loop). We're more likely to find ourselves in universe with simple rules, but not too simple as with too simple physics laws nothing interesting happens and no life arises.
Its every bit as good explanation as God.
edit: actually its better. It can provide some probability theory insights to anthropic principle, and descriptive complexity of such machine can be smaller than that of physics laws of our universe.

I love this stuff! Probably spent too much time thinking about it already, but here are my thoughts...

As someone pointed out the universe itself only seems incredible from the human perspective. Its something i've always thought was interesting once i took this point of view. I read this book called just six numbers i think? and it was how there are 6 numbers that if they were off by like a quadrilianth life as we know it could not exist. the problem there is the whole "as we know it".

Just like they are looking for water to support life, perhaps there is a totally dif type of life. and just like they are looking for a habitable zone around the sun, perhaps dif types of life like it hotter or colder.

My point is just bec things worked out this way, doesn't mean they were supposed to. the best way to address this wondering about how the universe is so perfectly designed (as i used to think so i understand what your saying) is to ask if the universe had unfolded much differently but life still formed would those people also think that the universe was perfectly designed for them? And theres lots of dif ways to answer that, I feel that life is a rare occurence that happend quite randomly only to exist for a very short time, celestially speaking.

I think this train of thought about the universe beings specially designed is a left over effect of the old geocentric mentality. We thought hte earth was the center of the universe bec we felt hte entire universe was made for humans. Now we accept that we aren't the center, but we still think the universe was made just for us. Possible, just not probable i would say.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
If there has been many universes, then there must have been a first universe out of this collection of many.
What caused this first universe to appear? You say "it just happened", I say "something wanted it to."

What caused this something to be created?

Just for clarification I believe the universe was created randomly when the various components settled into a balance. Although I respect others opinions.

Quote:
Something that is beyond perception, though, is the act of existing. We exist, we can agree on that, human or not.

Can't argue with that. Although, without consciousness we wouldn't know we exist.

Quote: If we exist just because we exist, then isn't it just as likely that we could have ended up in a state of non-existence?

We did. When we didn't have consciousness. (In the past, heck when we lived in caves.) A bird is a very living thing, but it is not conscious of itself.

Quote: What I'm trying to get at is why are we in a state of existence as opposed to non-existence?

So why did we develop consciousness..? Which brings me back to my point of mind and universe as a whole..

Quote: Original post by Marmin
When we didn't have consciousness. (In the past, heck when we lived in caves.) A bird is a very living thing, but it is not conscious of itself.

There is a very large difference between being conscious and being intelligent.

A bird is conscious of itself, however it isn't intelligent.(compared to humans, you know what I mean.)

edit: I just want to add that the problem may be differing definitions of conscious.

Quote: Original post by BleedingBlue
If the universe was not so perfectly tuned as it is, would you be here to ponder its imperfection?

Nope. But I think that the chances of the universe appearing as imperfect is a lot greater than it appearing as it is now by random. Couldn't it appear imperfect (unable to ponder its existence) and then just stay that way forever?
What I'm trying to say is, the probability of it being unable to ponder its own existence is probably the largest by a high margin.

If you assume that the universe is just constantly going to come up with new tries at natural laws, then you can logically say that it will get it right some time.
But the probability of it going into for(;;) and thereby freezing any progress for all eternity is probably there as well. Is the probability of the universe going into a never-ending loop greater than 50% is probably the core question.
Hmmm.

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Nope. But I think that the chances of the universe appearing as imperfect is a lot greater than it appearing as it is now by random.

Maybe the universe as it is now is imperfect. Who's to define perfection? We might be the scraps that will eventually end when the universe is recreated with life that is capable of actually understanding the answer to this question.

Quote: Original post by jColton

Quote: Original post by polymorphed
Nope. But I think that the chances of the universe appearing as imperfect is a lot greater than it appearing as it is now by random.

Maybe the universe as it is now is imperfect. Who's to define perfection? We might be the scraps that will eventually end when the universe is recreated with life that is capable of actually understanding the answer to this question.

Now that is depressing, but it could be so real. And so fair.