[Facticity]

(Original post by planetearth)
The Universe itself is needed for those quantum particles to come into existence.

Without a dimensional reality for them to exist in, they cannot exist.

Therefore, they are caused by the very existence of the Universe, which theists argue was created by God.

Nope you have misunderstood the Quantum Mechanic, particles spontaneously spawn and disappear even within a vacuum, we do not know what dark matter is but it is speculated to be essentially nothing. When you say "dimensional reality" it doesn't really make sense. They can pop into existence without cause and occupy a seemingly non-existent space, and then the matter can disappear into a seemingly non-existent space, via this logic, what you say is invalidated.

QM poses this issue that actually things can be created from nothing and something become nothing, even space (space in the dimensional sense).

[Facticity]

(Original post by Tfaska)
I meant that there is a cause for quantum phenomena, the nature of the cause remains elusive because we dont currently have the technology to investigate it - it is still a research area.
Saying that things just happen on their own as an explanation for physical phenomena would throw all of science out of the window, and would be tantamount to ancient ways of pseudo-medicine and astrology etc.

Actually no, if anything the speculation "Quantum phenomena have causes" is a greater theory to claim that "Quantum phenomena do not have causes" because from all the empirical science, that is what it points to. In any case, QM is a field very much unexplored, I was simply saying for the benefit of discussion.

[j.alexanderh]

(Original post by Tfaska)
I meant that there is a cause for quantum phenomena, the nature of the cause remains elusive because we dont currently have the technology to investigate it - it is still a research area.
Saying that things just happen on their own as an explanation for physical phenomena would throw all of science out of the window, and would be tantamount to ancient ways of pseudo-medicine and astrology etc.

Nonononono. The random creation of virtual particles in a vacuum has no cause, though it can be understood to be a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle (look this up before claiming that it is a cause - it isn't). As I understand it, the same stands true for the Big Bang - it is entirely possible that there are scientific reasons for the universe to have come into existence - we just don't know them.

[Broderss]

I think the thing is, we are here because we can be here. Thus it's inevitable we are here in these conditions. If we couldn't be here, we wouldn't be here and that wouldn't be so remarkable.

[Tfaska]

(Original post by j.alexanderh)
Nonononono. The random creation of virtual particles in a vacuum has no cause, though it can be understood to be a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle (look this up before claiming that it is a cause - it isn't). As I understand it, the same stands true for the Big Bang - it is entirely possible that there are scientific reasons for the universe to have come into existence - we just don't know them.

Oh dear...
It is impossible for something to have no cause; if things were uncaused there would not be the current regulation that exists in the universe. (eg the rate of radioactive decay is the same for the same substance although at the level of individual particles it appears random - probability also has constant values) I understand that they universe is how it is because of physical forces etc, but it can all be reduced to a quantum particle scale. If things at the tiny scale were random, there would not be the order that exists in the universe on the big scale. If you claim that something does not have a physical cause, you are resorting to supernatural causes. Either way the chain of causation can be traced back to God.

[damidude]

(Original post by j.alexanderh)
Nonononono. The random creation of virtual particles in a vacuum has no cause, though it can be understood to be a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle (look this up before claiming that it is a cause - it isn't). As I understand it, the same stands true for the Big Bang - it is entirely possible that there are scientific reasons for the universe to have come into existence - we just don't know them.

I could could use that irrational argument to support the existence of a God.

[qasidb]

Yeah but where did this multiverse come from?

How did it get there?

Something put it there.

If there was no God, how did the multiverse get there?

[und]

(Original post by Chucklefiend)
Creationists used to claim that life was too complex to have come into existence by pure chance alone, and that consequently, it must have been intelligently designed by an omniscient creator. In fact, bewilderingly, some still do. However, given the sheer body of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the more learned and liberal theist has moved on.

Rather than focusing on the complexity of life itself, they highlight the astronomical odds of the laws of physics being finely tuned to allow the existence of such complex, self-replicating, life. Now if there is just one finite universe, ours, they have a point. If we were to take one atom to represent our universe, there would not be enough atoms left in the whole of the rest of our universe to represent the other possible universes in which life would not be possible. It really is incomprehensibly improbable for a universe capable of sustaining life to exist, yet here we are. It is for this reason that, in my opinion, if one is going to be an atheist they must also postulate the existence of a multiverse.

This quote from an article published by MIT sums up my sentiments quite concisely:

“In the multiverse nature gets a lot of tries — the universe is an experiment that’s repeated over and over again, each time with slightly different physical laws, or even vastly different physical laws”

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/m...universes.html

In a infinite multiverse, life ceases to be a miracle and becomes an inivitability. Thus, in my view God becomes obsolete.

What do you think?

I don't think you need multiverse theory at all. It is merely because life exists that we are pondering this question. If it didn't, then there would be nobody to consider the probability that it might exist. I'm not sure if my reasoning is easy to follow, but I hope SOME people understand!

[j.alexanderh]

(Original post by Tfaska)
Oh dear...
It is impossible for something to have no cause; if things were uncaused there would not be the current regulation that exists in the universe. (eg the rate of radioactive decay is the same for the same substance although at the level of individual particles it appears random - probability also has constant values) I understand that they universe is how it is because of physical forces etc, but it can all be reduced to a quantum particle scale. If things at the tiny scale were random, there would not be the order that exists in the universe on the big scale. If you claim that something does not have a physical cause, you are resorting to supernatural causes. Either way the chain of causation can be traced back to God.

Don't dare to 'oh dear' me when you have no idea what you are talking about. MANY THINGS IN QUANTUM MECHANICS ARE NON-DETERMINISTIC - that is, it is an inescapable fact of nature that they are random. Take the motion of the electron around the nucleus of an atom - something else which is a consequence of the Uncertainty Principle. At any given moment, an electron does not have a well defined position and momentum. The more accurately we measure its position, the less accurately we measure its momentum and vice versa. This is not due to the incapability of human measuring equipment, it is a physical law. No matter how advanced our civilization gets, we will never be able to measure accurately both the position and momentum of an electron at the same time. It is not a limit of technology either.

For goodness' sake, in your own example of radioactive decay you admit that the decay of particles is random. It can only be quantified as a probability, in much the same way that the position of an electron can only be given as a probability cloud. This does not mean that the process is not random.

The problem of 'order form chaos' is interesting, and as far as I am aware it has not been fully resolved. Here is a good explanation (but a difficult read, only the second paragraph is necessary): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoherence

This is in no way supernatural.

[jklmn]

(Original post by plastercaster)
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.

________________________________ _____


So if the Bible is wrong on the subject of the origin of life why should we believe its other claims? It's not like there's any other evidence for it - and there are hundreds of equally groundless books making equally implausible claims. Which one to choose, given that almost all threaten damnation to unbelievers?

Didn't you know you're aloud to pick and choose (out of whichever religious storybook you follow) what suits your arguement? durr perfect theist logic that

[j.alexanderh]

(Original post by damidude)
I could could use that irrational argument to support the existence of a God.

Go on then.

[Chucklefiend]

(Original post by qasidb)
Yeah but where did this multiverse come from?

How did it get there?

Something put it there.

If there was no God, how did the multiverse get there?

Surely you can do better than that, this is such a primitive argument.

If, as I anticipate, your answer to my question: How did God come to be? Is something along the lines of 'God is infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect. What stops the multiverse being infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect?

[Tfaska]

(Original post by Chucklefiend)
Surely you can do better than that, this is such a primitive argument.

If, as I anticipate, your answer to my question: How did God come to be? Is something along the lines of 'God is infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect. What stops the multiverse being infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect?

The universe is dynamic. It is expanding. Play the tape backwards and the universe is reduced to nothing. Things do not create themselves and do not appear from nothing without a cause. therefore the universe is not eternal and has a cause.

[Tfaska]

(Original post by j.alexanderh)
Don't dare to 'oh dear' me when you have no idea what you are talking about.

Calm down dear, I never claimed to understand QM. I am pretty clueless to the workings of it. I'm just maintaining the obvious logical belief that all effects have causes, you dont need a physics degree to realize that.

[Barden]

Multiverse still needs to come from somewhere... (same argument as 'but what caused the big bang' etc)

[j.alexanderh]

(Original post by Tfaska)
Calm down dear, I never claimed to understand QM. I am pretty clueless to the workings of it. I'm just maintaining the obvious logical belief that all effects have causes, you dont need a physics degree to realize that.

Well, your 'obvious logical belief' is incorrect. I was only annoyed at your attempt to patronise me when you hadn't even bothered researching what you were talking about.

[Chucklefiend]

(Original post by Tfaska)
The universe is dynamic. It is expanding. Play the tape backwards and the universe is reduced to nothing. Things do not create themselves and do not appear from nothing without a cause. therefore the universe is not eternal and has a cause.

The universe is dynamic yes, the multiverse (which is what I said) might not be. Time is woven into the fabric of the universe as spacetime, therefore anything that may, or may not exist, outside of its boundaries may not be subject to time or cause and effect.

[Barden]

(Original post by Chucklefiend)
Surely you can do better than that, this is such a primitive argument.

If, as I anticipate, your answer to my question: How did God come to be? Is something along the lines of 'God is infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect. What stops the multiverse being infinite, eternal and transcendent of time and cause and effect?

You do realise that this argument actually makes the multiverse itself into God?

[Annoying-Mouse]

(Original post by Barden)
You do realise that this argument actually makes the multiverse itself into God?

No, it doesn't.

God:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"

idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

[Barden]

(Original post by Annoying-Mouse)
No, it doesn't.

God:

the supernatural being conceived as the perfect and omnipotent and omniscient originator and ruler of the universe; the object of worship in monotheistic religions

deity: any supernatural being worshipped as controlling some part of the world or some aspect of life or who is the personification of a force

a man of such superior qualities that he seems like a deity to other people; "he was a god among men"

idol: a material effigy that is worshipped; "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image"; "money was his god"

So you're advocating a universe that created itself, but doesn't control itself?

Okaaaay then....