Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: briskit who wrote (12166)	4/22/2002 9:03:54 PM
From: briskit	Respond to of 28931

Nicholas Beale 6 June 98 14:38 The brilliant physicist Max Tegmark has proposed that "all logically possible universes exist" as a way of 'getting round' the increasingly deep anthropic fine-tuning of the observed universe. I think this idea is philosophically questionable (becasue it negates the distinction between the potential and the actual). However if it were true, then the existence of God is a corollary. Proof: The existence of a Loving Ultimate Creator (ELUC) is not logically impossible. Hence, according to Tegmark, there exists a non-empty set S of universes in which ELUC is true. Hence ELUC is true in the 'multiverse' (the set of all existent Universes) and if an Ultimate Creator exists in the Multiverse the UC must be the Ultimate Creator of the Multiverse, and hence of each extant Universe, hence ELUC is true in our Universe. Steven Carr 6 Jun 98 {a}It would be intriguing to know in which Universe the existence of the tribal god of the Israelites (Yahweh) would not be a corollary. {b} Perhaps you could devise a universe we could observe which is not capable of sustaining observers? {c} Would you like to prove that Baal did not create the universe? {d} One Biblical test is to see which god can produce fire from heaven. You can choose Yahweh to produce your fire, and I'll choose Swan Vesta. Nicholas Beale 7 Jun 98 {a}YHWH is not "the tribal god" - the whole point is that The Lord is universal - "the Earth is The Lord's and all that is in it", "in the beginning God created the heavens & the earth" - ie the universe. Even if it were true that some of the human writers in the OT had a defective concept of YHWH this would not alter what YHWH means, merely what some people thought it means. {b} Any number - just have one like ours with the fundamental constants a bit different. These can be devised and even simluated readily. Anthropic fine-tuning is really not a non-question. Tegmark is driven to such an extravagant suggestion precisely becasue the fine-tuning evidence is overwhelming. {c} From what we know of Baal, "Baal" does not denote a LUC. If Tegmark is right then ENLUC must be a contradiction. There are various proofs for this, eg: P1: A1: an UC must be greater than all his creatures. A2: Loving is greater than non-loving. A3: Some creatures are loving. Hence ENLUC is a contradiction. Clearly A1 and A2 are questionable, but you have to start with some axioms. {d}Swan Vesta's could not possibly have created the sun. I'll stick with YHWH - at least this is logically possible! Don Seigel 7 Jun 98 {a} I certainly agree that the universe we are in is logical and beautiful and miraculous (in the wonder sense). But Nick, we have but a sample of one--and we are IN it. {b}And again, if there is a god, then who made god? My bottom-line problem with religion is that it is proponents seem to easily accept that a god or whatever surrogate for it just "existed" forever, while having a hard time just assuming that the matter and energy in some form in the universe just has existed forever (whatever forever means). The fundamental assumption or "belief" is really the same. Nicholas Beale 8 June 98 {a} But thanks to the deep understanding of cosmologists, we now have a clear idea of what would happen if the Universe were slightly different. You don't need lots of earths to do geology. {b} I'm not saying that 'Green' (just matter/energy/stuff) is logically impossible. Can you accept that either Red (Loving Ultimate Creator) or Green are possible? If so, doesn't the debate show that the weight of evidence is strongly pro-Red? polkinghorne.org