Elfdude's Guide to Evolution

[Jack04]

Indeed. Well, I wrote, "Let´s wait and see when the gamma rates are updated".
But in fact, Higgs boson took more than two decades to find. And now, there is nothing peculiar about the particle´s behaviour.

Perhaps not, but it needed to be found. Also, the gamma rates (by which, I presume you mean the gamma-gamma decay branch) aren't the only thing of interest.

But this forum is not the Atheneum. We are creating a false dichotomy here: God or Physics. Even if the idea behind the non designed universe/ multi-verse theory is that there was never a beginning to the universe (?), a multiuniverse/whatever does not invalidate the need for a first mover, beyond the multiverse. Spontaneous creation ex-nihilo, the creation of the universe out of nothing? doesn´t make sense. The Heideggerian question is pertinent: why is there something rather than nothing?nothing means no energy/space/time; in other words, nothingness lacks any possibility of changing. Even according to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty.

Alternatively, why should there be nothing rather than something? Nothingness is hugely unstable. It only takes the smallest drop of something to ruin it and we know that "somethings" can appear and disappear quite happily.

Scientifically yes, you should however consider who hears "neat idea" and essentially registers it's like making stuff up without thought.

True. I'd like to credit the readers of this forum with a modicum of intelligence though. Enough to make the distinction.

[Elfdude]

I dare to say, I prefer the Aleph. Well, P. Woit has spent years (not one hour) studying the subject and he says, (March 2013)
" But the question of string theory itself is complicated by not even knowing what the theory is"

You can't cease to make personal attacks can you? I haven't even bothered reporting any of this stuff because I find it utterly rich. My hour of study was dedicated to simply understanding the implications of a double higgs versus a single higgs. Since the single higgs is predicted by string theory and the standard model nothing about it defies expectation. Your out of context quotations are hilarious. Furthermore when you say years studying the subject you mean physics, not cosmology.

Strong evidence for BSM effects? not really, Moriond Higgs update, Beyond Standard M. effects, link,
This means that expectations of significant BSM effects from run 1 are now lower.

BSM means beyond the standard model. The standard model is string theory. You're making nonsensical/strawmanning claims and I don't think you even realize it.

I have never said anything about beyond the standard model. I have asserted the validity of the standard model. Get it right.

[Ludicus]

You can't cease to make personal attacks can you?

It was not a personal attack. I was merely joking...I couldn´t resist.I don´t use humor in an passive/aggressive way to put other people down. Don´t be so sensitive. Mr Kelada? read Somerset. "Mr Know-All" is always very friendly and hearty to others. In fact, its a compliment. Well, a half-compliment (damnit, I couldn´t resist..again)

I have never said anything about beyond the standard model.

In fact string theory implies super-simmetry, and super-simmetry is beyond the SM.

It's not enough to prove string theory alone...

Right. Precisely. What if the LHC doesn´t ever see evidence for super-symmetry? furthermore, there is no direct experimental evidence that string theory itself is the correct description of Universe. Call it "string hypothesis", but is not tested science. The forces in string theory are beyond the forces observed in nature and incompatibility with experiment is very difficult to avoid. As Woit put, one cannot disprove the theory by finding experimental evidence against predicted results, nor can one find evidence in favor of it by accumulating corroborating results.
----
Jack04

Nothingness is hugely unstable

Why?... if nothing is "unstable" (?), nothingness is not nothingness. Is "something" unstable.

[Jack04]

Why?... if nothing is "unstable" (?), nothingness is not nothingness. Is "something" unstable.

... because it only takes the slightest "something" to make nothing cease to be. "Something", however, is fairly stable in it's form because one can remove elements of it and still be left with "something".

The point is that the question can be phrased both ways: Why should there be nothing rather than something? Given our current knowledge, "nothing" is very unstable, because fluctuations are prevalent and ultimately end up creating "something". Essentially, the question might be intuitively appealing but is ultimately fairly meaningless.

[Ludicus]

... because it only takes the slightest "something" to make nothing cease to be

Ah, the metaphysics of nothing. Well, nothing cannot cease to be. Something cannot come from nothing or become nothing:
"Nothing of nonbeing comes to be, nor does being cease to exist"verse of The Bhagavad Gita, Hindu epic Mahabharata

Why should there be nothing rather than something?

According to the creationists, God.

---

Given our current knowledge, "nothing" is...

Nothing...is?

[Jack04]

Ah, the metaphysics of nothing. Well, nothing cannot cease to be. Something cannot come from nothing or become nothing:
"Nothing of nonbeing comes to be, nor does being cease to exist"verse of The Bhagavad Gita, Hindu epic Mahabharata

A verse from The Bhagavad Gita? Well that's me convinced...

According to the creationists, God.

Eh?

You've not answered the question. Why should there be nothing rather than something?

Also, no scientific hypothesis says the universe comes from nothing. Some of them involve the rapid expansion from an extra-dimensional brane of some description, for example.

[Elfdude]

As much fun as the whole cosmology debate is it's ultimately irrelevant to the facts of evolution. To help people that aren't understanding DNA very well here's a short video explaining it:

Unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a way to embed vimeo player.

http://player.vimeo.com/video/60747882

[Mangalore]

sorry, for that last derail concerning nothing but the issue with the term is that it is a negation and as such meaningless without defining first what the something is, it stands in opposition to. Usually this definition of something is implicit with the context the word is used with but in case of physics you'd need to define what aside of physical laws, space, time, energy you expect as something so this absence isn't nothing. It's a nothing of all those major foundations of reality.

[Scruff Dog]

Some of them involve the rapid expansion from an extra-dimensional brane of some description, for example.

Where did the extra-dimensional brane of some description come from? In any case I don't think you can explain the existence of physical laws and why the the physical laws are the way they are with more physical laws, because then you will just have to explain those physical laws as well. Fair enough you can say that it doesn't have to have anything to do with water turning into wine but the premise is if God exists then God could do that, it would be a trivial thing to do compared to making the universe itself in the first place.

[fkizz]

I don't want to be that guy, but how do you find so much free time to write such a big OP? I mean at the end of the day this is just a forum about videogames.

And plus some of the scientific discussion here while above average for a website about videogames, it would be considered as rookies playing around in a professional research comunity.

In the same way philosophy students playing around with philosophal issues would be considered babbies first philosophy by actual legit philosophers who left a legacy.

[Elfdude]

Where did the extra-dimensional brane of some description come from? In any case I don't think you can explain the existence of physical laws and why the the physical laws are the way they are with more physical laws, because then you will just have to explain those physical laws as well. Fair enough you can say that it doesn't have to have anything to do with water turning into wine but the premise is if God exists then God could do that, it would be a trivial thing to do compared to making the universe itself in the first place.

What do you base your knowledge of their inability to explain the universe on? Do you understand string theory? Are you saying you can disprove the standard model of cosmology? I'd be very interested to see this.

I don't want to be that guy, but how do you find so much free time to write such a big OP? I mean at the end of the day this is just a forum about videogames.

I generally write about 20-40 pages a week fully cited in apa format just for school and that only takes me a day maybe two depending on if I'm doing statistical calculations/chemistry or not. Explaining things in a very general terms is like comparing competitive swimming to floating in a pool.

Back on topic:

For some reason youtube posts aren't working for me link below to the BBC Secret life of the cell, helps explain a lot of the intracellular workings.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/4GZXRMG5i_w

[Jack04]

Where did the extra-dimensional brane of some description come from?

Why must it come from anywhere?

This needs to be understood: As far as we are aware, time is a local property of the universe. If this is the case, everything external to the universe is eternal (that is, it does not experience time). There is nothing intrinsically problematic about an infinite, eternal spatial dimension.

In any case I don't think you can explain the existence of physical laws...

No, I cannot say why the universe has exactly the properties that it does. That does not mean that we won't one day be able to.

Edit: ... also, neither can you. Go on. Explain how and why the universe has the exact properties that it does. An intended consequence isn't an explanation, remember.

... and why the the physical laws are the way they are with more physical laws, because then you will just have to explain those physical laws as well.

No. Physical laws are not some kind of infinite regress. They are just properties of the universe and (in all likelihood) the way it came into existence. Incidentally, what exactly do you think a "physical law" is?

...also, I'm loving the double standards you're working with here. By your logic, how do you explain God without needing to invoke another God?

[fkizz]

I generally write about 20-40 pages a week fully cited in apa format just for school and that only takes me a day maybe two depending on if I'm doing statistical calculations/chemistry or not. Explaining things in a very general terms is like comparing competitive swimming to floating in a pool.

Ok.
I still think the effort doesn't suit the place (a video games forum) but you're free to do your thing I guess. I respect that.

[Elfdude]

Ok.
I still think the effort doesn't suit the place (a video games forum) but you're free to do your thing I guess. I respect that.

Tell me why does a musician put effort into practicing, why does an artist doodle, why does anyone do anything that entertains them? This entertains me.

[Scruff Dog]

What do you base your knowledge of their inability to explain the universe on? Do you understand string theory? Are you saying you can disprove the standard model of cosmology? I'd be very interested to see this.

You can explain all the physical laws of the universe just fine but you won't be able to explain why the physical laws you explained have to exist at all or why they exist in such a way to allow life to exist to begin with. They exist because God created them for the purpose of forming a universe with life in it. There is nothing at all wrong with that explanation, it was good enough 3000 years ago and it's good enough now regardless of what we now know about the universe being formed of vibrational strings of energy. God can create a universe of vibrational strings of energy just fine if that's the way he wants or needed to do it.

[Elfdude]

You can explain all the physical laws of the universe just fine but you won't be able to explain why the physical laws you explained have to exist at all or why they exist in such a way to allow life to exist to begin with.

Why do you say that?

[Scruff Dog]

Why must it come from anywhere?

Because it's here and it exists in a state of natural balance and organised complexity. Where did it all come from? It has to come from somewhere ultimately. It doesn't originate from itself that doesn't work. It can originate from God just fine, it also explains why it the complex arrange is perfectly balanced for life. Otherwise you're going to have to say it was an unlikely coincidence of some kind. Yes clearly there is some chance invoolved as to whether a planet will have life on it or not the laws of physics aren't perfectly balanced everyqwhere in the universe all at once. No-one said it has to be it just had to be at certain places within the universe, the Earth being one of places. Either it's intentionally this way or its coincidence. A coincidental arrangement for this to operate at this degree of structural of complexity is absurd therefore it is very likely to be (almost certainly) intentional. An intentional agent can be some form of conscious sentient being. So in conclusion God must exist even if it is possible in theory for God to not exist, it would be an unlikely possibility.

This needs to be understood: As far as we are aware, time is a local property of the universe. If this is the case, everything external to the universe is eternal (that is, it does not experience time). There is nothing intrinsically problematic about an infinite, eternal spatial dimension.

And God is external to the universe and eternal that's fine. If it's not God themn what is it and how did it create the kind of universe of the complexity that would allow us to exist in the first place? If it's coincidental it's just staggeringly unlikely. It's the tornado through a junkyard creating a jumbo jet scenario. You don't arrange something of that complexity by chance only deliberate design and construction can account for something like that, we simply understand complex design when we see it. Yes we can of course describe cosmological and organic natural formation (to some extent) but but it's only the universe as a whole that has to be intentionally created to produce that overall effect not the individual plants and animals and planets. You'll see in Genesis doesn't describe God creating anything himself he commanded the Earth to bring forth life within itself and life went through a sequence of different stages before humanity was eventually arrived this is aa natural cycle of some kind. It happened on Earth I'm almost certain it will happen on other planets where conditions are suitable it will be a universe wide creative event, we happen to be a part of that. You can start with what we know as fact before you arrive at the conclusion that God exists.

We can't know God exists for 100% certain but just go with whatever happens to be the most likely outcome based on what we do know actually. That's how faith works ultimately. It certainly doesn't matter if you can't know anything for certain or can possibly be wrong because that would apply equally to a non-belief in God. It isn't necessarily even based on a greater scientific understanding of the universe even if atheists on average tend to be better educated than theists. There will still be a greater number of theists in the world who have equally as good a scientific education, they will fully accept evolution an old Earth and so on.

No, I cannot say why the universe has exactly the properties that it does. That does not mean that we won't one day be able to.

Either it has these properties because it was created and designed with the deliberate intention of forming life or it wasn't at all and it just because there was a remote chance that it somehow could happen by chance. Given the chance would be remote to an extreme I think we would be able to discount it as a credible possibility. If it isn't a product of chance it's a product of God. What kind of God you can't realy rationally deduce but it would make sense if this God cared enough about what he made to reveal something about himself to us. Yes it could perhaps have been through the Guru Granth Sahib and not the Bible if you're seriously considering becoming a Sikh or whatever else but I think you ought just stick to Gods general existence before getting into the details of his relationship with us and what we know about him. It could be God gave different cultures different revelations through different people, that would be something like what Muslims believe happened and I don't mind that idea myself.

Edit: ... also, neither can you. Go on. Explain how and why the universe has the exact properties that it does. An intended consequence isn't an explanation, remember.

Because God made the universe intentionally with those properties that allowed for the formation of intelligent organic life to form within it. That's the Biblical explanation and it still works today perfectly well there isn't a problem with it, there hasn't been a scientific discovery to refute it. If anything you will have to provide the other viable alternate explanation, you can say "science is working on it" but you will need to have some idea of what it is science is supposed to be working on to begin with. You will need a hypothesis to start with. You can say you don't know but no-one knows because belief in God involves faith not absolute certain knowledge, belief and knowledge are two different things. If you think it's random chance coincidence I think I already explained how that's going to be unlikely in the extreme given the level of complexity involved in the production of this world and all the life upon it. Evolution ok that's part of the process of organic formation but you will need all the elements in place within the universe for that process to operate and you can say it's merely an extension of the process cosmic level natural formation of stars, planets and elements. It's all part of one system and ties in together as part of the natural physical order there from the moment of the Big Bang onwards.

No. Physical laws are not some kind of infinite regress. They are just properties of the universe and (in all likelihood) the way it came into existence. Incidentally, what exactly do you think a "physical law" is?

I didn't say they were an ifinite regress I said they must all originate from one source which sets them the way they are. It's called God, some people will call it Allah or whatever but it's the same thing. If the point of origin isn't God then what the heck is it? You will have to explain what the alternative is, you must have something in mind, I know I do.

...also, I'm loving the double standards you're working with here. By your logic, how do you explain God without needing to invoke another God?

That would be asking for an explanation for the explanation for something you need explained. But God wasn't created by anything and exists eternally beyond time and space, he created time and space to begin with. It's not like Odin who came out of a giants armpit and you ask where the giant came from and so on. That would be the kind of thing you end up with if the ultimate source of all that know to exist wasn't eternal in itself and required an explanation the same way we require one.

[Jack04]

Because it's here and it exists in a state of natural balance and organised complexity. Where did it all come from? It has to come from somewhere ultimately. It doesn't originate from itself that doesn't work. It can originate from God just fine, it also explains why it the complex arrange is perfectly balanced for life. Otherwise you're going to have to say it was an unlikely coincidence of some kind. Yes clearly there is some chance invoolved as to whether a planet will have life on it or not the laws of physics aren't perfectly balanced everyqwhere in the universe all at once. No-one said it has to be it just had to be at certain places within the universe, the Earth being one of places. Either it's intentionally this way or its coincidence. A coincidental arrangement for this to operate at this degree of structural of complexity is absurd therefore it is very likely to be (almost certainly) intentional. An intentional agent can be some form of conscious sentient being. So in conclusion God must exist even if it is possible in theory for God to not exist, it would be an unlikely possibility.

... the extra-dimensional brane that is usually hypothesised is external to the universe. I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but by it's very definition (and continuing with the assumption that time is a local property) it is eternal and therefore doesn't have to "come" from anywhere. You've either misunderstood me, or you've just created the mother of all straw-men.

And God is external to the universe and eternal that's fine. If it's not God themn what is it and how did it create the kind of universe of the complexity that would allow us to exist in the first place? If it's coincidental it's just staggeringly unlikely. It's the tornado through a junkyard creating a jumbo jet scenario. You don't arrange something of that complexity by chance only deliberate design and construction can account for something like that, we simply understand complex design when we see it. Yes we can of course describe cosmological and organic natural formation (to some extent) but but it's only the universe as a whole that has to be intentionally created to produce that overall effect not the individual plants and animals and planets. You'll see in Genesis doesn't describe God creating anything himself he commanded the Earth to bring forth life within itself and life went through a sequence of different stages before humanity was eventually arrived this is aa natural cycle of some kind. It happened on Earth I'm almost certain it will happen on other planets where conditions are suitable it will be a universe wide creative event, we happen to be a part of that. You can start with what we know as fact before you arrive at the conclusion that God exists.

Why does anything need to have created it? We don't know what it takes for a universe to come into existence. We don't know what causes a universe to take the properties that it does. You haven't given a reason. You've just drawn a vague analogy with no evidence to back it up. It might be that universes can only exist in a given form, because they can only come into existence in a given manner. It might be that an infinite multiverse exists, in which case all possibilities can occur. We just don't know. You're painting God into a gap that we don't understand with no real justification for doing so.

We can't know God exists for 100% certain but just go with whatever happens to be the most likely outcome based on what we do know actually. That's how faith works ultimately. It certainly doesn't matter if you can't know anything for certain or can possibly be wrong because that would apply equally to a non-belief in God. It isn't necessarily even based on a greater scientific understanding of the universe even if atheists on average tend to be better educated than theists. There will still be a greater number of theists in the world who have equally as good a scientific education, they will fully accept evolution an old Earth and so on.

That's nice. It has nothing whatsoever to do with anything, but it's nice, nonetheless.

Either it has these properties because it was created and designed with the deliberate intention of forming life or it wasn't at all and it just because there was a remote chance that it somehow could happen by chance.

Nice false dichotomy. Those are not the only two options.

Because God made the universe intentionally with those properties that allowed for the formation of intelligent organic life to form within it.

That's not an explanation. That's just a rearranging of the question.

Me: Why is this house here?
You: ... because someone wanted to build a house here.

I didn't say they were an infinite regress I said they must all originate from one source which sets them the way they are. It's called God, some people will call it Allah or whatever but it's the same thing. If the point of origin isn't God then what the heck is it? You will have to explain what the alternative is, you must have something in mind, I know I do.

Why must they? Physical laws are just descriptions of the universe. Effectively what you are asking is why the universe has the properties that it does. There are many possible answers to that. For example, perhaps the universe can only come into existence in a given manner and it's properties are directly linked to that, in which case only one set of universal properties is available. On the other hand, perhaps the universe is part of an infinite multiverse, in which case all properties are possible. There are many alternatives.

[Scruff Dog]

... the extra-dimensional brane that is usually hypothesised is external to the universe.

If the extra-dimensional brane has what would be in effect the exact same properties of God then that's what it is. You could say it's not intelligent or purposeful in it's actions but then you have a universe of complex unlikely coincidence again, I don't think that's right. It's technically possible I suppose seeing as I don't anything for certain much the same as yourself. I see the complexity in the universe, the physicals laws and everything and say "Ok then that was intentionally done on purpose". It's the natural human response perhaps but that doesn't mean it isn't valid one.

... I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, but by it's very definition (and continuing with the assumption that time is a local property) it is eternal and therefore doesn't have to "come" from anywhere. You've either misunderstood me, or you've just created the mother of all straw-men.

So it has the properties of God minus intelligence then. But clearly the universe has some capacity for the formation of intelligence if we exist so that must come from somewhere, and this intelligent awareness seems to depend on complex physical structures developed over time through interacting physical laws. I'm not sure if you can simply replace God with this alternate natural non-intelligent eternal dimensional brane. At least it's an attempt I suppose but you're still falling back on random coincidence of magnitude.

... Why does anything need to have created it?

Because it's finite and it exists therefore something else must be responsible for it's existence. It's also very seriously complicated and has intelligent beings existing within it, on at least one planet we know about. So what would explain is an intelligent non-physical power that brought the universe into existence for the purpose of bringing into effect the processes involved in the generation of sentient life with which it will have a relationship with. Can you explain how this particular hypothesis is flawed? Certainly evolution isn't a problem if the universe itself was created with the balance of physical laws to initiate the process on appropriately placed planets, that would be part of the intentional design. The more complex the physical process gets the more it begs the question. Is it all just random coincidence again? I'd want to be absolutely bloody certain it was a coincidence if I were in your shoes.

We don't know what it takes for a universe to come into existence.

I didn't say we did but it would appear to involve staggeringly vast amounts of energy and incredible amounts of balanced physical precision to get the elements required for formation of life just perfectly right, unless that was chance coincidence. Time seems to have begun with the universe itself so whatever was resonsible for the formation of our universe exists outside of time, outside of space as well. Now if you take the classical depiction of the monothestistic creator God that we're familiar that would seem to fit this picture very well indeed. I'm talking about the things we know from actual science here, the physical evidence of what we can see.

We don't know what causes a universe to take the properties that it does.

Either there was some form of purposeful intentionality behind these properties as we as humans would understand them, implying intelligence of some form it or there wasn't anything like that at all. If there wasn't such a thing it was an unlikely coincidence again, we didn't have to exist at all. You can believe it was an unlikely coincidence if you personally feel really bloody certain about it but I think you achieved some kind of impressive anti-faith. More than I could manage as I would tend to ask questions.

You haven't given a reason. You've just drawn a vague analogy with no evidence to back it up. .

I have been talking about the evidence we know from real science the whole time and what would be ultimately responsible for all of this. It's either God or what you have in mind, which is some kind of extra dimensional brane plus an element of directionless random chance that doesn't care about us particularly. It's not like you have evidence either, if you do lets see it else don't bother bringing it up. I know about the argument of proof burden but I'm prepared to admit we don't have evidence of that kind but you couldn't have evidence of that kind even if God exists because you can't physically observe God. You could physically observe what we may call a miracle but that would just be evidence of something strange that happened you can't explain, much like the existence of the universe in general. It's not something that would be explained without God it would just exist because it does and it's suitable for life because it is, it didn't have to exist or be suitable for anything.

It might be that universes can only exist in a given form, because they can only come into existence in a given manner.

And the given manner seems to involve collosially massively huge levels of precise physical complexity required for the evolution of intelligent forms of life and civilisation. So the given manner would strongly seem imply some form of supreme intelligence. Once you have something like that and it exists and it has the potential to interact with our universe then you know what that could mean.

It might be that an infinite multiverse exists, in which case all possibilities can occur.

It's possible but where did all these universes come from? How do we know they even exist? What if they're all suitable for life? How is this more likely than God if there isn't any evidence for them? Is this something to have faith in?

We just don't know.

I know we don't know, I'm more than happy to admit to the possibility that God may not exist. I think he does but there is a chance being wrong. So it's a case of looking at what we do know and deciding on what will be more likely. Either way I think you're going to need some degree of faith to believe in what you don't know. You don't know that your dimensional branes and multiple universes exist either, there's no evidence there for those. What you do is have faith in God and join in with that business and if you're wrong then you don't worry about it. I'm under the impression you wouldn't be able to worry about it ultimately if when this life is done you'll vanish into the non-existence of nothing for an eternal non-existent amount of time you won't experience. Or you just go to heaven or hell based on Gods judgement upon you, or Gods saving grace, karma level, it depends on exactly how that's meant to work depending on the religion. In Christianity we're meant to be judged but let off the hook if we fall short but repent and accept Gods grace. You may get to do that after you die perhaps that would seem to be a better idea to me than just getting a red hot trident shoved up your arse the moment you're there. You would be like "Where the hell am I?" and then bang it's in there. Catholics have the concept purgatory for instance, that could work, I don't mind the idea of that at all. You're probably better to do it before you die I guess but you may prefer to feel that you have some kind of general idea of the situation at hand. As long as you don't confuse it for certain knowledge it's basically faith of course, an entirely different thing I wouldn't confuse the two.

You're painting God into a gap that we don't understand with no real justification for doing so.

It's not a gap science would or could ever explain it's more the underlying context of why the universe exists and why it has to be the way it is. Science doesn't deal with whys it deals with it deals with physical stuff and it works and that's it. The traditional Richard Dawkins kind of answer for this is that not all questions deserve an answer, such as asking why you have a green beard when you don't have a green beard. But again it comes down to whether we have a universe of intentionality or a coincidence. Perhaps it's a little both all God really has to do is set the process running it appears to be a system self generating complexity. But if the universe is like say a complex computer program someone had to write that program to begin with, that someone in this case would be God, Yahweh, Allah whatever you want to call it it doesn't particularly matter. Or it's non-intentional coincidence right the way through to the core, you can believe that sure. I don't think so myself of course, that's not a horse I'd put money on.

Nice false dichotomy. Those are not the only two options.

A universe with an intentional point of origin, i.e there's some intelligence involved or a universe that doesn't have this ultimate intentionality to it all. You could have some kind of pantheism or monoism like the eastern religions, but that's like saying the universe itself is the intentional intelligent agent or is in itself something from the supernatural, the two merge together as one. But you probably prefer a rationally explainable universe of fixed natural scientificaly understandable physical laws, well you do clearly. I know I do, what you have is the creation, this universe here, and the creator who is God. You're saying there is just the creation by itself which is a bit ummmm.... yes. I'm not sure that's right.

That's not an explanation. That's just a rearranging of the question.

Me: Why is this house here?
You: ... because someone wanted to build a house here.

Why is the universe here? Because God wanted to create it. Why did God want to create the universe? Because he wanted to have relationship with us. You can ask why would a loving God create a universe that involves massive levels of suffering within it but it will be for a really seriously good reason. I don't really know what that reason is but you seem to like saying how you simply don't know everything, well neither do I. The Bible does attempt to tackle the question with the Garden of Eden story and the notion of sin and freedom of choice, the capability to rebel against God and his moral law. Other religions have different ideas of course but the Biblical explanation is decent one, in this arena we're free to be Florence Nightingale or an SS officer. We probably don't have that freedom in heaven or hell.

Effectively what you are asking is why the universe has the properties that it does.

Well yes of course. These are really seriously finely balanced and complex properties in what appear to be a functional system of some kind. It could be a coincidence but I don't think it is. If I'm wrong then ok then, that's slightly surprising for me. You seem confident about this though, if you don't believe in God. I think to believe either prospect is a big deal and not something you can casually believe, you have to be really damn sure. Atheists at least unlike agnostics seem to understand that, you're not being poncing about about it. You haven't gone up to the knuckles you plunged right in up to elbow, if we're using a horses arse or something as an analogy for unbelief. It does take some balls to do that I think, there's some real conviction there. I'm not quite sure where you're getting it from but it's conviction.

There are many possible answers to that. For example, perhaps the universe can only come into existence in a given manner and it's properties are directly linked to that

That would suggest intentionality if the only way it could ever form was to form to produce complex intelligent life. I'm not saying absolutely 100% guarantee it was but suggest it was. That would seem likely.

in which case only one set of universal properties is available.

And that would also be the case if God intentionally created the universe to form life, through various physical processes that we know about of course.

On the other hand, perhaps the universe is part of an infinite multiverse, in which case all properties are possible. There are many alternatives.

An infinite multiverse would seem to be your last refuge but you could have an infinite multiverse and an infinite God who produced this infinite multiverse the two things don't have to contradict each other at all. God may well be as good an explanation for that multiverse as he would be for our one universe. It somewhat depends on what these universes are like. If they all had life that would suggest intentionality. So yes it's certainly possible for God to not exist but I don't think its a simple case of that being the default position if you really go into it. When it comes to the ultimate questions of existence that we can ask as humans I don't think there is a default setting.There are various different beliefs with different rationals, and a question of which one of those will be the most likely.

[Jack04]

If the extra-dimensional brane has what would be in effect the exact same properties of God then that's what it is.

Sorry, you're equating God to a dimension? Seriously?

So it has the properties of God minus intelligence then. But clearly the universe has some capacity for the formation of intelligence if we exist so that must come from somewhere, and this intelligent awareness seems to depend on complex physical structures developed over time through interacting physical laws. I'm not sure if you can simply replace God with this alternate natural non-intelligent eternal dimensional brane. At least it's an attempt I suppose but you're still falling back on random coincidence of magnitude.

A dimension has no properties beyond spatial existence. Again, you're going to honestly equate a deity to a dimension?

Because it's finite and it exists therefore something else must be responsible for it's existence.

Prove it.

It's also very seriously complicated and has intelligent beings existing within it, on at least one planet we know about. So what would explain is an intelligent non-physical power that brought the universe into existence for the purpose of bringing into effect the processes involved in the generation of sentient life with which it will have a relationship with. Can you explain how this particular hypothesis is flawed? Certainly evolution isn't a problem if the universe itself was created with the balance of physical laws to initiate the process on appropriately placed planets, that would be part of the intentional design. The more complex the physical process gets the more it begs the question. Is it all just random coincidence again? I'd want to be absolutely bloody certain it was a coincidence if I were in your shoes.

"Very seriously complicated"? Compared to what? Seriously vague language you're throwing around here. The universe isn't necessarily massively complicated either. It doesn't have to be much more complicated than energy and space-time.

Also, the capacity for it to hold intelligent life is not a measure of it's complexity.

I didn't say we did but it would appear to involve staggeringly vast amounts of energy and incredible amounts of balanced physical precision to get the elements required for formation of life just perfectly right, unless that was chance coincidence. Time seems to have begun with the universe itself so whatever was resonsible for the formation of our universe exists outside of time, outside of space as well. Now if you take the classical depiction of the monothestistic creator God that we're familiar that would seem to fit this picture very well indeed. I'm talking about the things we know from actual science here, the physical evidence of what we can see.

Staggeringly vast amounts of energy: False. http://astrosociety.org/pubs/mercury/31_02/nothing.html

Incredible amounts of balanced physical precision: Based on what? You're throwing around wild assertions with literally no basis. We know nothing about how the universe can be "set up". Nothing. To make your claim requires knowledge that you cannot possibly have (in fact, if you do, you should probably get in touch with your local physics department, they'll be thrilled to hear from you).

So basically, no.

Either there was some form of purposeful intentionality behind these properties as we as humans would understand them, implying intelligence of some form it or there wasn't anything like that at all. If there wasn't such a thing it was an unlikely coincidence again, we didn't have to exist at all. You can believe it was an unlikely coincidence if you personally feel really bloody certain about it but I think you achieved some kind of impressive anti-faith. More than I could manage as I would tend to ask questions.

Again, calling it a coincidence is to create a false dichotomy. We. Don't. Know.

I have been talking about the evidence we know from real science the whole time and what would be ultimately responsible for all of this. It's either God or what you have in mind, which is some kind of extra dimensional brane plus an element of directionless random chance that doesn't care about us particularly. It's not like you have evidence either, if you do lets see it else don't bother bringing it up. I know about the argument of proof burden but I'm prepared to admit we don't have evidence of that kind but you couldn't have evidence of that kind even if God exists because you can't physically observe God. You could physically observe what we may call a miracle but that would just be evidence of something strange that happened you can't explain, much like the existence of the universe in general. It's not something that would be explained without God it would just exist because it does and it's suitable for life because it is, it didn't have to exist or be suitable for anything.

So basically, God is the better explanation because it would imply that we are intentional? Well, that argument is such utter rubbish that I wouldn't even know where to begin.

... also, it's not "random chance". In an infinite brane, it's an absolute certainty. Welcome to probability.

And the given manner seems to involve collosially massively huge levels of precise physical complexity required for the evolution of intelligent forms of life and civilisation. So the given manner would strongly seem imply some form of supreme intelligence. Once you have something like that and it exists and it has the potential to interact with our universe then you know what that could mean.

"collosially massively huge levels of precise physical complexity"? Okay, put away your hyperbole machine...

For the last time regarding fine tuning (which is what you're arguing for, if not in so many words): WE DON'T KNOW. We don't know the values physical constants can take. We don't know how they can be affected. We don't know anything about how they can vary. You're just slipping God into a knowledge gap here.

It's possible but where did all these universes come from? How do we know they even exist? What if they're all suitable for life? How is this more likely than God if there isn't any evidence for them? Is this something to have faith in?

It matters not whether it's something to have faith in. If it's the nature of reality it's true regardless of whether it inspires faith or not.

It's not a gap science would or could ever explain it's more the underlying context of why the universe exists and why it has to be the way it is. Science doesn't deal with whys it deals with it deals with physical stuff and it works and that's it. The traditional Richard Dawkins kind of answer for this is that not all questions deserve an answer, such as asking why you have a green beard when you don't have a green beard. But again it comes down to whether we have a universe of intentionality or a coincidence. Perhaps it's a little both all God really has to do is set the process running it appears to be a system self generating complexity. But if the universe is like say a complex computer program someone had to write that program to begin with, that someone in this case would be God, Yahweh, Allah whatever you want to call it it doesn't particularly matter. Or it's non-intentional coincidence right the way through to the core, you can believe that sure. I don't think so myself of course, that's not a horse I'd put money on.

Just because I can: Richard Feynman on "why": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36GT2zI8lVA

Anyway, "why" is soooo question beggy it's untrue.

An infinite multiverse would seem to be your last refuge...

Actually an infinite multiverse is probably the first likelihood, not the last. If something happens, it will happen more than once. If it happens in an effectively infinite dimension, it will happen an infinite amount of times.