pierro wrote:
If there are other universes:
-If you don't accept that premise, then you have to deal with the fact that the physical laws of the universe make it statistically impossible for it to have been conceived through natural causes (that was what the previous discussions were about)
No, I don't see how the natural laws fitting together necessitates a god, much less proves the existence of one.
pierro wrote:
Requiring one of them to meet a certain condition:
-I see it another way, if there are many other universises and sets of physics (as was established earlier) why shouldn't one of them meet that condition? Even if there weren't an infinite number of universes (which doesn't sound intuitive), a lower end guess would probably be 10 to the power of a 3 digit number, which would lead to such vareity that it would be statistically impossible for a universe to exist without random and contrived laws of quantum mechanics meaning that this "condition" would be met.
I don't agree with that. I can't fathom what kinds of natural laws could form on their own except for the ones in this world. When dealing with large numbers of anything (and in a universe, there are a LARGE number of particles), it is difficult for me to imagine a world where statistics and probability are not used to describe things. (Read about statistical mechanics to see how fundamental statistical and probability distributions really are). But I think you may have mistyped something -- are you arguing that at least one such universe would lack physical laws based on probability? Or are you saying that it would be impossible for such a world to exist?
pierro wrote:
As a side note you are acting as if a "simple" universe without overly complicated laws such as quantum mechanics would be relatively rare...that is highly unlikely as the simple occurs far more commonly then the complicated (that's why something like 98% of all matter is hydrogen, the simplest element)
Krebs cycle?
Claiming that there are huge amounts of hydrogen in the universe to be proof of simple processes forming on their own is a fallacy. Yes, hydrogen is the simplest element.
pierro wrote:
Making a model:
First let me first say that conventional computers (using carbon fibre nanotubes, they would have basically unlimited processing power) do not require quantum physics to run so they could be built in one of these other hypothesized universes. At this point I can say that the only thing that matters is if there is the ability of this to occur, not if it occurs or not.
OK.
pierro wrote:
The best way I can confront those of an opposing view saying that this program would have to be run to create this paradox is to use the following example:
Imagine this computer had been built and a programmer had inputted the code to model the universe and therefore predict the future(as in the example). Those saying that this program having to run to be a condition for god's existance would state that if the computer programmer did not press go, god wouldn't exist but would be forced to concede that if the programmer did, god would. Does it make any sense to say that god's existance would be determined by the push of a button? God would either exist or not exist beforehand no matter what the programmer did.
So a programmer creates a model to track the universe. Why would it running be a condition for the existence of god? I don't understand that jump.
pierro wrote:
I'm sorry if the making a model portion is not articulated particularily effectively, looking at the Schrodinger's Cat thought experiment may provide some insight
I am familiar with the Schrodinger's Cat concepts. The cat is alive and dead before a particle's state is measured. You are saying that god would both exist and not exist until the button is pressed. I see how on a superficial scale, that relates. But when you think about it more, it really doesn't parallel it any more than "a before and after some action" scenario.
Aside: This whole scenario is based on something unprovable at current to try and give legitimacy to something you have already decided. There is nothing wrong with believing in god. Personally, I am on the fence with a large helping of "I don't really care all that much". But I do take exception to people assigning scientific principles to 'prove' god exists (creation scientists, I'm looking at you).