The Improbability of our Universe and Existence (Actual Pro-Creationism Argument?)

[flexy]

It's the old argument brought up by creationists, that our existence, life in general, statistically seen, is "improbable" and thus must have been "designed".

Now, it is true that the universe had "chances" to develop in many different ways and that this universe which we observe today is a result of multiple almost rather "impossible" factors.

Examples
- The universe could have developed without the exactly tuned factors that ultimately bring about life
- The universe could have never developed at all, this "random" quantum fluctuation which at some point expanded into the universe could've never happened.
- The universe could have developed in almost infinite other ways where neither of them would bring about life (or gravity, matter, galaxies, planets etc.)

YET, HERE WE ARE.

Because we exist, we can trace back and see that many "impossible" things happened in just the right way, regardless how "impossible" they are, mathematically and statistically.

* Obviously, from a certain point of view this DOES speak for a pro-creationism argument.

or

* I am believing that this universe is one of (almost) infinite universes where we just happen to be in the one universe where "everything is right", but then there must be many more "other universes", including universes where life has never come about, where there is more antimatter than matter, where gravity might not have come about, universes where matter cannot exist etc....or whatever other factors

Differently speaking: How big is the chance that one, "the one" universe pops out of a quantum fluctuation and then develops in the way it did, bringing us about? Because - the chance that this happened IS actually extremely low.

 

[Nashemon]

I don't see any need for the multiple universe theory you detailed. The universe we belong to (and the only one I imagine there being) is expansive and damn near infinite enough to include all of the different factors you mentioned throughout it, any one of which could trigger that chance of sparking life. We are but one rock among millions of rocks of varying types and gases, revolving around one star among hundreds of billions of stars or various types and gases each with their own millions of rocks, revolving around a cluster of who knows what at the galactic center of our galaxy. There are billions of galaxies each with their own unique characteristics visible from our solar system, let alone what we can't see. The chance of there being spontaneous life out there somewhere is ginormous, IMHO. We'll never find it, though.

If we were put here by God, just to find the remains of dinosaurs he put on the same planet 200 million years ago, I wonder what other fun he's having throughout the rest of deep space.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

I think that what we think is a universe we can see is the universe: with most of it 'dark' because our DNA didn't react to create a consistent pattern regarding those other parts of the infinite universe.

Nash: The infinite universe is clearly the case, please watch this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

The probability argument is based on a lot of assumptions and anthrocentrism.

What actually happens in all those other posited universe? If there's more antimatter then matter, the universe would be different - but we don't actually know what that universe would be like. No gravity and a universe like we have doesn't come into existence - but what would? Can we actually forsee all the effects of those variations? We barely know what this universe is like.

It's essentially reaching into a bag, pulling out a $20 bill, then arguing you're super lucky - without knowing what else was in the bag that you could've pulled out.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Flexy: It's not improbability, it's actually an inevitability. BUT the improbability is that we would be the ones that live in such a universe; given the nearly infinite number of other combinations and temporalities in which such a question can exist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Yet it is still improbable that a god created all this as well. I see no need to fill in one unknown with an equally unknown variable.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Yet it is still improbable that a god created all this as well. I see no need to fill in one unknown with an equally unknown variable.

Why do it has to be a a *single* god? Why not millions and billions of other gods coexisting at the same time?

My claim is no less solid than any other abrahamic creationist.

 

[soulcougher73]

Why do it has to be a a *single* god? Why not millions and billions of other gods coexisting at the same time?

My claim is no less solid than any other abrahamic creationist.

Can be as many gods as you want. Doesn't change anything I said though

 

[cbrunny]

if time is infinite then even the most improbable is guaranteed to happen.

 

[flexy]

"time is infinite" is a very vague and incorrect expression.

For example we know the universe is 13.7 billions years old, and we can predict the "death" of the universe in X trillions of years as well. So, at least for *this* universe we have a beginning and an end, so "time" is not exactly infinite and the probabilities are, although vast, not infinite either.
Alone from the existing physical forces, built-up of the universe etc., probabilities are also not unlimited.

For example, according to our current understanding, in many more billions of years when the universe is "dying" and becoming cold, molecules won't move any more. This means that life as we understand it won't be possible.

Even something vast like the universe is bound to laws.

 

[flexy]

Flexy: It's not improbability, it's actually an inevitability. BUT the improbability is that we would be the ones that live in such a universe; given the nearly infinite number of other combinations and temporalities in which such a question can exist.

Can you explain why you think it's an inevitability - ASSUMING that only one universe ever came about.

In a multi-universe scenario, with infinite (or lots of) universes, yes of course. We would be the ones in the universe that turned out "just right". But if only one universe came about?

UNLESS something like a "life force" exists that would "want to" bring about life and consciousness in ANY type of universe - even in universes where we right now assume life wouldn't be possible.

Scientists currently assume that things like that matter was created, gravity etc. is more an "anomaly" or a "fluke, there would be AT LEAST equal odds if not much higher odds universes come about where not even matter is possible.

Mind you: I am not arguing from a religious point of view, at all. But it's current scientific understanding that this universe and therefore WE are anything *but* ordinary.

 

[Dr. Zaus]

Why would you assume that everything doesn't happen?

Quantum physics and astronomy make It really clear: everything happens.

we are inevitable and improbable. But so is a "greatest being" capable of knowing all existence and re-creating it at will.

 

[cbrunny]

"time is infinite" is a very vague and incorrect expression.

For example we know the universe is 13.7 billions years old, and we can predict the "death" of the universe in X trillions of years as well. So, at least for *this* universe we have a beginning and an end, so "time" is not exactly infinite and the probabilities are, although vast, not infinite either.
Alone from the existing physical forces, built-up of the universe etc., probabilities are also not unlimited.

For example, according to our current understanding, in many more billions of years when the universe is "dying" and becoming cold, molecules won't move any more. This means that life as we understand it won't be possible.

Even something vast like the universe is bound to laws.

there's nothing wrong with the statement "time is infinite"

All you've said here is that "our universe will not exist for an infinite time" which is perhaps true. Does not mean that not-universe does not exist in an infinite time-space. Further, what does life or the movement of molecules have to do with whether or not time is infinite?

I stand by my statement. If time is infinite, even the most improbable is guaranteed.

 

[Tormac]

there's nothing wrong with the statement "time is infinite"

All you've said here is that "our universe will not exist for an infinite time" which is perhaps true. Does not mean that not-universe does not exist in an infinite time-space. Further, what does life or the movement of molecules have to do with whether or not time is infinite?

I stand by my statement. If time is infinite, even the most improbable is guaranteed.

The thing is "Time" is a property of the universe. It may be a property of other universes, we don't really know. But it does seem that time has a beginning as far as our universe goes.

There is nothing wrong with the statement that "time may be infinite" but that is not the same as saying "time is infinite".

(see http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity1.htm)

 

[Dr. Zaus]

The thing is "Time" is a property of the universe. It may be a property of other universes, we don't really know. But it does seem that time has a beginning as far as our universe goes.

There is nothing wrong with the statement that "time may be infinite" but that is not the same as saying "time is infinite".

(see http://science.howstuffworks.com/science-vs-myth/everyday-myths/relativity1.htm)

Time is almost certainly not a property of some other universes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

 

[Tormac]

Time is almost certainly not a property of some other universes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhnKBKZvb_U

It does seem likely doesn't it. But who can say for sure?