Does Ggod Exist? Science, Philosophy, Logic and Probabilities.

[Andrew66]

DyingStrong wrote

So a spaghetti monster would exist somewhere in an infinite cosmos too.

Come on, Andrew. We, atheists, believe in the Spaghetti Monster and you will not tell us otherwise!

In an infinite universe, all things which can potentially happen, will have happened, and infinite number of times, and with an infinite number of infinitesimally small variations.

That sounds absurd... that's why Cosmologists wonder if there is something beyond mere "probabilities" at work assuming the backdrop of an infinite universe, when it comes to the nature of what we observe as a "relatively boring" physical reality.

The Cosmologists don't consider a conscious entity in control of things. Then the absence of silly things- in spite of infinitiy- can be explained.

That's were my book comes in... to shed the light.

[Andrew66]

Was thinking about the Spaghetti monster.
In an infinite universe - "all things possible" which can happen will have happened, an infinite number of times.
I don't think that spaghetti, can potentially be a monster?
I mean a monster could eat spaghetti, and have spaghetti within it (its tummy) but I don't think that's what you mean.
LOL

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

......I don't think ......

You should have stopped here - while you were winning ....

[DyingStrong]

Andrew66 wrote

In an infinite universe, all things which can potentially happen, will have happened, and infinite number of times, and with an infinite number of infinitesimally small variations.

That sounds absurd... that's why Cosmologists wonder if there is something beyond mere "probabilities" at work assuming the backdrop of an infinite universe, when it comes to the nature of what we observe as a "relatively boring" physical reality.

The Cosmologists don't consider a conscious entity in control of things. Then the absence of silly things- in spite of infinitiy- can be explained.

That's were my book comes in... to shed the light.

Could you explain this equation to me? since you are talking about the infinite universe and cosmologists and how you "shed the light, you have the obligation to know and understand this equation.

The Most Important Equation in the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe



Alexander Friedmann

[DyingStrong]

Andrew66 wrote

Was thinking about the Spaghetti monster.
In an infinite universe - "all things possible" which can happen will have happened, an infinite number of times.
I don't think that spaghetti, can potentially be a monster?
I mean a monster could eat spaghetti, and have spaghetti within it (its tummy) but I don't think that's what you mean.
LOL

The cover of your book should have this picture

LIVE FOREVER

[Andrew66]

DyingStrong wrote

Could you explain this equation to me? since you are talking about the infinite universe and cosmologists and how you "shed the light, you have the obligation to know and understand this equation.

The Most Important Equation in the Accelerating Expansion of the Universe



Alexander Friedmann

There are plenty of YouTube videos on that one.
What's your point. ?
The concept is very simple, elementary really. In an infinite Universe (infinitely old and/or large), all things which could possibly manifest will as a matter of inescapable probability. Its like the monkey who hits key strokes forever - eventually he will by random chance reproduce the entire works of Shakespear. A Supreme being (aka God) - would form at some point for sure. Its all in my book Does Ggod Exist? I use Penrose's CCC theory to show how a being would eventually learn and deveop to the point he/she/it becomes immortal, and learns all there is to know about science and technology.

[Smellyoldgit]

This article on Forbes suggests that Penrose's pet theory is not supported by any of the available evidence.

Unfortunately, Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose, although his work on General Relativity, black holes, and singularities in the 1960s and 1970s was absolutely Nobel-worthy, has spent a large amount of his efforts in recent years on a crusade to overthrow inflation: by promoting a vastly scientifically inferior alternative, his pet idea of a Conformal Cyclic Cosmology, or CCC.

The biggest predictive difference is that the CCC pretty much requires that an imprint of “the Universe before the Big Bang” show itself in both the Universe’s large-scale structure and in the cosmic microwave background: the Big Bang’s leftover glow. Contrariwise, inflation demands that anywhere where inflation ends and a hot Big Bang arises must be causally disconnected from, and cannot interact with, any prior, current, or future such region. Our Universe exists with properties that are independent of any other.

The observations — first from COBE and WMAP, and more recently, from Planck — definitively place enormously tight constraints (to the limits of the data that exists) on any such structures. There are no bruises on our Universe; no repeating patterns; no concentric circles of irregular fluctuations; no Hawking points. When one analyzes the data properly, it is overwhelmingly clear that inflation is consistent with the data, and the CCC is quite clearly not.

Although, much like Hoyle, Penrose isn’t alone in his assertions, the data is overwhelmingly opposed to what he contends. The predictions that he’s made are refuted by the data, and his claims to see these effects are only reproducible if one analyzes the data in a scientifically unsound and illegitimate fashion. Hundreds of scientists have pointed this out to Penrose — repeatedly and consistently over a period of more than 10 years — who continues to ignore the field and plow ahead with his contentions.

Like many before him, he appears to have fallen so in love with his own ideas that he no longer looks to reality to responsibly test them. Yet these tests exist, the critical data is publicly available, and Penrose is not just wrong, it’s trivially easy to demonstrate that the features he claims should be present in the Universe do not exist. Hoyle may have been denied a Nobel Prize despite his worthy contributions to stellar nucleosynthesis because of his unscientific stances later in life; although Penrose now has a Nobel, he has succumbed to the same regrettable pitfall.

While we should laud the creativity of Penrose and celebrate his groundbreaking, Nobel-worthy work, we must guard ourselves against the urge to deify any great scientist, or the work they engage in that isn’t supported by the data. In the end, regardless of celebrity or fame, it’s up to the Universe itself to discern for us what’s real and what’s merely an unsubstantiated hypothesis, and for us to follow the Universe’s lead, regardless of where it takes us.

Of course, getting from "complicated science" to "therefore Jesus" must be a fascinating read!

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

This article on Forbes suggests that Penrose's pet theory is not supported by any of the available evidence.:

Thanks Smelly, I enjoyed that article!

In my book "Does Ggod Exist?" on pages 107 - 116 I go into great detail on the pro's and con's of the Penrose's CCC theory, and on pages 167 to 168 I show how the Penrose CCC model, if true, which purports to a past eternity of time, would be expected to inevitably produce a "god".

Penrose describes and infinite number of universes (he calls them aeons) which came before and ultimately led to our Observable Universe. Over an infinity of time, eventually, a maximally supreme being (in fitness, wisdom, knowledge and power) would inevitably manifest by inescapable probability. I have schematically diagrammed Penrose's CCC model, showing how a perfected being "god" may evolve therefrom (on page 168 ) which u all can see courtesy of the book at https://religionconsistentwithscience.com - last figure at the bottom.

The main reason that most cosmologists don't like Penrose's CCC theory, is that Penrose argues that entropy can be reset (lowered) from aeon to aeon by black hole information loss (an idea Stephen Hawking originally had, and then retracted) and conformal re-scaling, which goes expressly against the 2nd law of Thermodynamics!

However Penrose points to observational data in the CMB which supports his cosmilogical model.

Black holes, as they expire, emit "Hawking radiation" - which provides Penrose's model the opportunity to be observationaly tested, by "blurry" points at which the CMB temperature is slightly increased, which he named "Hawking points". Penrose claims Hawking Points have been observed - and points to the work done by Daniel An and Krzysztof Meissner. See Penrose's interview with Joe Rogan at
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz1DAzYS9Kk&t=471s

The other big criticism of Penrose CCC 's model is that it demands the all the particles at the end of life of each aeon should be devoid of mass, and electrons have mass. The law of conservation of charge says that it is impossible to rid the Universe of all electrons. Penrose conjectures that over a very long time, electron's may shed their mass.

So yes - there are problems - but there is a great mechanism and some empirical evidence to support Penrose's CCC model as well.

But Smelly, the manifestation of a god or Ggod or God can also be entertained by other cosmological models, such as which include the front running concept of Inflation. Anthony Aguire's and Sean Carrol's models of Inflation divided by a bifurcated arrow of time are, given an Eternal Block Universe view of space-time, are infinite in both time and space! There is plenty of statistical probability in their systems as well for an evolved god (manifesting by evolution over infinite time), or an Eternal "Ggod" (manifesting given infinite space). These models are also discussed in the book as well.

Thanks for engaging in the discussion.

[Andrew66]

Atheists take heed!

Our Observable Universe is more "ordered" than it aught to be, if the Cosmos were governed ONLY by random interactions of matter and energy fields in the view of the laws of physics!

Typically cosmologists argue that there must therefore be a multiverse, where the vast number of alternative universes are so great that our Observable Universe is just one expected member of the Multiverse's infinite (or near infinite) diversity. This is commonly referred to as the anthropic principle.

But the cosmologists have another problem which keeps them up at night. Notwithstanding the above, if the state of our Observable Universe were ONLY dictated by random statistical outcomes (answerable by a multiverse), then it would be theoretically much more likely that we humans (as a complicated evolved species, with a prolonged consciousness) aught to be Boltzman brains! A Boltzman brain is a randomly produced, fleeting cosmic consciousness, with a false memory of events, which under incredibly rare circumstances (but much more likely than a Universe which can produce human like life) can randomly manifest for a moment in space.

We are obviously not Boltzman brains (our consciousness last more than a moment), but - that we exist, in complicated human form, is a far more statistically unlikely scenario! This problem is well attested to in modern Cosmology.

One answer to our Observable Universe's unique and incredibly unlikely specificity is that it was Intelligently Designed.

Cosmologists never theorize this way however, as they see it as a lazy God of the Gaps argument, which has historically been a scientific scape goat.

However, if space-time turns out to be infinite in time, and / or in space ( a view held by most modern cosmologists), a maximally supreme consciousness is expected to manifest by inescapable probability (again - see Does Ggod Exist? - Telwell publisher, https://godbornfrominfinity.com).

This provides therefore the substrate and potential for a plausible and reasoned Intelligent Designer!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

This provides therefore the substrate and potential for a plausible and reasoned Intelligent Designer!

Your buckets of horseshit provides therefore, the substrate and potential for a plausible and reasoned Intelligent Vomitter - hail Mbumbo!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

There is plenty of statistical probability in their systems as well for an evolved god (manifesting by evolution over infinite time)

If evolution over infinite time produces your hoped for 'god" - it must also accommodate an infinite number of extinction events - which is statistically more likely to fuck up the development of your cuckoo-land dream.

[DyingStrong]

Andrew66 wrote

There are plenty of YouTube videos on that one.
What's your point. ?
The concept is very simple, elementary really. In an infinite Universe (infinitely old and/or large), all things which could possibly manifest will as a matter of inescapable probability. Its like the monkey who hits key strokes forever - eventually he will by random chance reproduce the entire works of Shakespear. A Supreme being (aka God) - would form at some point for sure. Its all in my book Does Ggod Exist? I use Penrose's CCC theory to show how a being would eventually learn and deveop to the point he/she/it becomes immortal, and learns all there is to know about science and technology.

That your book is gay.

[DyingStrong]

Smellyoldgit wrote

This article on Forbes suggests that Penrose's pet theory is not supported by any of the available evidence.



Of course, getting from "complicated science" to "therefore Jesus" must be a fascinating read!

Andrew666 must have written his post in 30 min, and you make sense of it in 30 secs hahaha

[DyingStrong]

Pathetic. It's Saturday night and I am reading an Andrew666 post.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Your buckets of horseshit provides therefore, the substrate and potential for a plausible and reasoned Intelligent Vomitter - hail Mbumbo!

Sort of... all kinds of sentient beings of varying levels of power and with different desires and functions would theoretically manifest in an infinite Cosmos. So you can point to "absurdities".. which makes the argument sound silly.

However here is the hitch. There would ultimately be a "greatest, most powerful, fittest" being - the "top dog" so to speak.. and at the moment of said being manifesting - by whatever mechanism, it could be imagined that that being as master of physical reality could make "order" of the Cosmos, getting rid of absurdities, infinite variations, and silly stuff.