Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

quote:

---

Yes. But the difference is that not only does a theoretical metaphysical force, like God, not require an explaination, but the attempt at explaining a metaphysical being or process through physical means would be absurd.

---

That sounds like a pitiful copout. Why on earth would a theorectical metaphysical force need any less of an explanation than the physical universe? All you're doing is passing the torch here. You're taking a seemingly arbitrary universe an attempting to explain by postulating the existence of an equally arbitrary designer. Simply assigning magical attributes to God is not going to explain sweep that problem away.

quote:

---

Because any metaphysical force is, by definition, impossible to explain by means of physics.

---

It has nothing to do with physics. You are simply replacing an unexplained physical universe with an unexplained supernatural entity. In other words, you've solved nothing. What I don't see is how anyone can find any explanatory power in that.

quote:

---

No, Collins is proposing that, even ASSUMING the legitimacy of every materialistic theory, the our universe is still INEXPLICABLE.........not UNEXPLAINED, but INEXPLICABLE.........

---

No, you made this specific claim: ...the difference is that not only does a theoretical metaphysical force, like God, not require an explaination..... Remember? The claim is nonsense, and you're just replacing an unexplained universe with an unexplained magic entity (God). Simply saying god is magic and therefore requires no explanation isn't serious thinking.And as to your claim that:

quote:

---

And anything that is completely inexplicable by natural means is or has an origin in what is by definition super-natural.

---

There is no reason the natural world needs a cause at all, at least no one has been able to demonstrate such a necessity.

quote:

---

Then why are you making the exact same assertion about the many universe generator?

---

I've made no such assertion.

quote:

---

Nope.........it was just magic........

---

No magic required - I leave that kind of explanation for theists who are too lazy to think. If you find an uncaused universe unbelievable, see if you can actually demonstrate it is actually impossible. I you can't, sulk all you want. Just don't be dishonest and attempt to explain one unexplained entity by postulating the existence of another.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-11-2004 11:34 PM

quote:

---

By saying "that's just the way nature is", that's EXACTLY what you're doing.

---

Since I never claimed that either, your above text is pointless. Regardless, to be equivalent of your claims one would need to state nature is without need of an explanation due to some ascribed magic or supernatural properties. I don't believe anyone on these forums has made such an inane statement.

quote:

---

Ok, it's called "the Big Bang". You might've heard of it.

---

And?

quote:

---

Conversly, if you find an uncaused God unbelievable, see if you can actually demonstrate it is impossible.

---

Since I haven't argued against the deity in question, it is not my responsibility to show how the concept is impossible. I have merely questioned that rather thoughtless and intellectually dishonest remark you posted. Please follow.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-12-2004 12:38 PM

Yeesh, another one. Postulating the existence of a supernatural entity as an explanation for the physical universe is simply passing the torch. You are simply replacing one unexplained phenomena with another. It is absurd for one to be baffled by the unexplained, purposeless existence of the universe yet be satisifed with the explanation that it was created by a magic being who's existence is also unexplained. Actually, it's a sure sign one isn't thinking.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-12-2004 06:23 PM

quote:

---

The ONLY way you can have a self-contained explanation of existence is to look outside the natural realm.

---

That is the same thoughtless nonsense that has been repeated serveral times in this thread without justification. An uncaused universe is already self contained, by definition. There is no need for an outside cause, or at least no theist here has been able to demonstrate otherwise. Adding a magic, uncaused being who created the universe (which rules out it being timeless) does not simplify existence in any way. All it does is make the picture look more complicated, and unnecessarily so.Hangdawg13, you seem to be arguing that since the universe is bound by the laws of physics, it must therefore have an explanation. But I don't see any laws that state this. You will neeed to demonstrate what laws of physics are violated by an uncaused, unexplained universe. Otherwise, you are simply passing the torch, as is so common here.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-13-2004 12:30 PM

quote:

---

That statement is false. I'm thinking very hard about this.

---

Perhaps you are, but the claim you posted in this thread is a thoughtless claim. When you say one must resort to the supernatural without bothering to show how an uncaused natural world is impossible, it doesn't look like a lot of thought when into the argument.I have attempted to snip irrelevant claims and posts that will sidetrack the matter. Here are the crucial points:

quote:

---

Also a false statement. I gave the circularity as my justification.

---

No, you claimed any attempt to explain the laws of physics through natural means would be circular. But you haven't shown how such an explanation is necessary in the first place. I can understand how one can be unhappy with accepting a brute fact, which in this case would be the physical universe. But all you're doing is replacing this brute fact with a supernatural brute fact.Here is what you said:

quote:

---

The only laws we've ever observed, the laws that govern this universe, demand it... But there is no law that says these laws must exist.

---

I have bolded the crucial text above. Now here is bolded text with the important question I asked before: which physical law demands the universe has a cause? I don't know of any such laws.Oddly enough, you then contradicted yourself here:

quote:

---

No law is violated, but no question is answered. How does that profit us?

---

Wait a minute here. You just claimed no laws of physics would be violated with an uncaused universe. But further above, you claimed that the laws of physics do in fact demand the universe to have a cause. If that's so, then an uncaused universe would certainly violate those laws. Here is what you posted, in case your forgot:The only laws we've ever observed, the laws that govern this universe, demand it...Well, which is it? Are you claiming the laws of physics demand the universe have a cause? Or are you agreeing with me that no such law exists, effectively leaving you with no argument?

quote:

---

I'm arguing that no law of physics can explain the existence of the laws of physics because this is circular.

---

You're missing the point. You haven't yet demonstrated that such an explanation is required. A physical universe as a brute fact is no less possible than the supernatural deity as a brute fact you are in favor of.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-13-2004 06:55 PM

quote:

---

This, of course, begs the question.......if quanta don't exist unless they're being conciously observed, who conciously observes all the quanta in existence? Or, to put it another way, there must have been a conciousness observing the creation and evolution of our universe.........this is unavoidable fact.

---

Here is the source of confusion. When physicists use the word "observer", it does not necessarily mean a conscious being. Generally, an observer is anything that receives information from a system. What this means physically in quantum theory is the big question.There are in fact different interpretations of quantum theory that do require a conscious observer. On example would be the many minds interpretation. However, I don't think these are taken seriously by many physicists, and is certainly not mainstream. These seem to be forms of idealism.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-16-2004 12:57 PM

No, this is a factual statement. Physicists use the word all the time without refering to consciousness. From an article archived at Angelfire - error 404While conscious observers certainly partake in the creation of the participatory universe envisioned by Wheeler, they are not the only, or even primary, way by which quantum potentials become real. Ordinary matter and radiation play the dominant roles.Further...Wheeler likes to use the example of a high-energy particle released by a radioactive element like radium in Earth's crust. The particle, as with the photons in the two-slit experiment, exists in many possible states at once, traveling in every possible direction, not quite real and solid until it interacts with something, say a piece of mica in Earth's crust. When that happens, one of those many different probable outcomes becomes real. In this case the mica, not a conscious being, is the object that transforms what might happen into what does happen.There you have it. As for your second statement - anyone can plaster their own personal interpretations (not to be confused with a theory) of quantum theory on the net, but it doesn't mean the physics community takes it seriously.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-17-2004 11:23 AM

Hooked on Phonics, Jason? At this point, I must ask if you know how to read. In the article posted, Wheeler is not supporting a conscious-based universe theory. In fact, I even posted bolded text where he clears up that misconception. Wheeler not only states that an observer does not have to be conscious, but he also says conscious beings aren't even the primary observers in the universe. It was in the text I posted and in the article, which is clear to anyone who reads it.It's no wonder Wheeler and other physicists are constantly being misquoted when morons who can't be bothered to actually read the content start mixing religion and science.This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-18-2004 11:16 AM

If by "consciousness-effected" you mean a universe that requires conscious observers, then that is also a factual error. Do you even know what a scientific theory is?This message has been edited by Beercules, 10-18-2004 11:17 AM