If the Universe didn't need an intelligent creator to get started, then did it need lots of 'luck' instead?

Question

If you actually believe that this very complex universe with its multitudes of different parameters and some 12 dimensions 'self-started' then what was behind the self-starting . . . luck? What then caused water to boil at 212 degrees F and ice to float and not sink, which two are needed greatly for life to exist in the universe, as we know it? What then caused the universe to use only 4 dimensions and not all of the other dimensions available to it? Would Gravity work right in such a universe! If not a super intelligent, all powerful creator, then what could account for all the precisness of the universe?

Answer 1

You're right, It does need a creator. The only creator qualified for the job is God.

Answer 2

Let's over simplify.

You're going to become a universe builder. Your universe is going to have only two dimensions -- one spacial, one temporal.

Your universe will start with a single 'cell' that holds '*'.

Your universe has six universal constants, each having an option of = or *... three of these describe what to do with =, and the other three describe what to do with *.

We can describe the possible combinations as such:

===
==*
=*=
=**
*==
*=*
**=
***

So let's say you CHOOSE = -> =*= and * -> *==.

Your universe evolves:
*
*==
*== =*= =*=
*== =*= =*= =*= *== =*= =*= *== =*=

Now, imagine that instead, you get two 8 sided dice. You label each of the eight possible constants 1 through 8. You roll for = and get 2, and you roll for * and get 4.

*
*==
*== =*= =*=
*== =*= =*= =*= *== =*= =*= *== =*=

Notice that it doesn't matter one bit if an intelligent being chooses the rules or if random chance does.

Also notice that there are 64 (8 * 8) possible combinations of the two rules sets, and that each combination is unique and of equal probability. So there's nothing 'mystical' about this overly simplified universe looking the way it does, it's purely by random chance. All of the possible 'universes' are equally probable.

Still further, let's add one more complication. Only universes that somewhere have *===*= in them are capable of self aware life. Some rules sets will generate this string, others won't. This means all self-aware 'life' will always arise in universes where life is possible, never in a universe where it is not possible. Their universe will seem, to them, uniquely suited to self-aware life, regardless of if it was random chance (the 2d8) or if it was you (a creator).

In short -- yeah, random chance determined the 19 free variables in the einstein equations (possibly 11, it looks like 8 can be folded into the other 11 and are redundant). Even if a creator specifically chose these values, there'd be no way to distinguish between the two scenarios from the inside of the universe.

Answer 3

The problem with ascribing the creation of the universe to a divine creator is that you introduce a whole new level of complexity to the original problem. If all we want to know is, how did it start?, then you're left with a bigger question, where did the creator come from?

"Life as we know it" is a very revealing statement. If water behaved differently, life would be different. Instead of carbon-based, perhaps it would be silicon-based.

Answer 4

Imagine a universe which isnt set.

Instead imagine a series of universes maybe many thousnds of them - where physical laws are formed randomly.

Which one would you expect to find yourself in? Thats right. The one which randomly has traits which allow chemical bonding and organic life. Asking isnt it amazing that we live in a universe that can support life is a bit silly considering if it wasnt you wouldnt be able to ask the question?

This is the cosmological version of the anthropic principle. You can find out lots about it with a web search.

Indeed they may not have randomly been set - the laws of physics may not be able to vary randomly - they may fit together in a way that causes this kind of universe. Thats all eintein meant when he asked if god had any choice in creating the universe - he just meant are physical laws forced to create a universe like ours.

Answer 5

The All Powerful Creator is the universe.. with all the natural laws... so you are right. Nature is all powerful.

But if there is an all powerful creator in your sense... then he wouldn't need laws in the first place to make the universe. Why would God create brains and laws of gravity in the first place. He is all powerful.

Lots of innocent people and God loving believers died just because of the law of gravity. If God was all powerful he would just make gravity works only when it would benefit his followers... which isn't the case. Gravity always works..... for the good and the bad.

Remember those who jump out of buildings when they are on fire. Is it God that pulled them down to smash them... or was it God's law that caused them to death... in this case the law is pointless if its not doing good!

Answer 6

If the Universe was inhospitable to life, you wouldn't be here to comment on it. The Anthropic Principle nullifies any comments on alternative universe structures until you can actually demonstrate they could exist. If water didn't have it's specific physical properties, life might still evolve, but would not resemble anything we know.

Answer 7

Do you really think us primitive human beings could possibly know the answers to such questions?? You give us way too much credit. Just accept things as they are and enjoy your life.

Answer 8

No Luck has nothing to do with it. The apparent fine tuning is entirely a result of the selection effect of our existence. Do you think it is surprising or lucky when a snowflake finds itself at a perfect temperature for snow to form? Given an infinite number of universes all with different constants, those conducive to life will contain living things and those not conducive to life won't. Luck has nothing to do with it. And neither do gods.

I have never seen credible evidence for any god. I see evidence for other things but no god. Sorry.

This doesn't seem at all surprising. The idea that you need a more complex being to explain why we see apparent complexity just makes no sense. You can't explain the origin of apparent complexity by a greater prior complexity. That should be obvious. One doesn't explain the seemingly improbable with an even greater improbability.

As a mathematician I understand where apparent complexity comes from and it is not from design. Design only requires a greater complexity. Instead complexity ( What we mathematicians call Kolmogorov Complexity ) comes from selection operating on variance. The variance comes from mathematics itself. The selection comes from us. Our existence greatly restricts the regions of reality we can find ourselves in.

What confuses people is they don't understand that our understanding of nature is layered. They see objects like people and trees and understand that those people are made up of atoms. They may even understand that those atoms are made up of sub-atomic particles. They may even understand that those particles might be made up of knots in mathematical manifolds as part of string theory. But it doesn't really register to them that what we see as space and time are not fundamental and what that might mean. Einstein gave us our first clue that time was not fundamental when he combined it with space. The fact time may not be fundamental means that it is fundamentally wrong to think of reality as space changing with time. It looks like it is, but that is because we observe it as a layer above (or several layers above) what it really is . Rather it is eternal (timeless) space-time. Or better yet ( at a deeper layer ) it is eternal mathematical truth masquerading as space-time.

Another clue that time may not be fundamental is that we never ever measure time. We measure change between states of matter. If the state never changed you would nave no means of claiming that time had passed.

Reality looks like space changing with time because we see so little of it. This is because of the selection effect of our existence.
We see upper layers because we do not see the lower layers. We see trees because we don't see individual atoms. We see atoms because we don't see them as sub-atomic partices. We don't see reality as mathematics because we are unable to see reality as it truly is. Our layered understanding of reality is a direct result of our myopia.

I think it is Christians misunderstanding of the layered nature of reality that leads them to believe in gods and other superstitions. They conclude nature is not eternal because they see the wrong layer. Yes there is a big bang event but it is not a creation event. It is just a special point in reality. It only looks like a creation event because we are seeing the wrong layer.

Further they don't understand the power of selection effects and completely misread just how incredibly vast (infinite actually ) reality really is.

Answer 9

Disclaimer: I am a deist.

The "God of the Gaps" isn't a real convincing argument. One should believe in God because of positive confirmation, not because of a lack of negative evidence. The former is logical, the latter isn't.

Answer 10

There is no other reason, but that it was planned by God. Take any scientific notion and see how rigorously it is tested, see how scientists establish truth by probability, but then when it comes to creation, their brains seam to break down and they get into wishful thinking mode, and irrational beliefs that everything happened by chance - If anyone seriously believes that, then I have some magic beans that I would like to sell.