Why the Universe Cannot Have Arisen by Chance

[Robert Arvay]

The universe either had a beginning, or it did not.

If it did not have a beginning, then it has always existed.
If it did have a beginning, then it arose from nothing.

Neither of these possibilities is comprehensible, yet one of them must be true.
Therefore, the question of how the universe began is unanswerable. It is futile to ask.
In any case, there is “something” instead of “nothing.”

Given that the universe does exist, then the next question is, why does it have the properties that we observe it to have? Why not some other way?

Here, the binary alternatives are, that its properties are determined by chance, or if not by chance, then by intentional design. Which is it?

The argument for chance must rely on a huge number of universes, so many that we may consider that number to be virtually infinite, as far as our comprehension is concerned.

Even here, however, the argument for chance falls apart, because of this: in order for chance to operate, it must do so only within designed parameters. Let us demonstrate this fact.

Trick question: if one rolls a single die (singular of dice), what is the chance that the die will land a six? If you answer, “one chance in six,” then you are assuming the die to be designed to have six sides, but in fact, it could have any number of sides, four or more. Therefore, the operation of chance governing the die roll depends on the designed parameters.

There is no other form of chance. One cannot meaningfully say, the chance is three, or five, or X. It has to be three out of ten, or five out of X. Before chance can operate, its parameters must be specified, and those parameters cannot themselves be pure chance, unless constrained by other parameters. In the end, all parameters are designed.

The parameters of the universe include its constants, such as gravitation, light speed, nuclear forces and so on. Even if we say that those are determined by chance, we must specify the parameters in which that chance operates. There is no getting away from it. Chance requires design.

The universe has twenty-seven constants (more or less depending on the physicist, but in any case, a set number), and so the question is, why twenty-seven? Why not five? Why not a billion? The number of the constants is not random, it is designed. Even among billions of universes, or however many there may be, each universe has a number of parameters, and even if that is by chance, one must still operate within design—one chance in how many?

No matter how hard we may try to avoid design, we cannot. We cannot substitute chance for design. Design just will not go away. The universe is (or the universes are) designed.

Designed for what? Since our universe seems to be precisely designed to support life, technology and civilization, it is most likely that that is what it is designed to do.

[Jim Cross]

People have played these logic games to fool themselves into believing in God for thousands of years. Logic and language don't extrapolate to existence as a whole.

[AshvinP]

People have played these logic games to fool themselves into believing in God for thousands of years. Logic and language don't extrapolate to existence as a whole.

They may not extrapolate to existence as a whole, but they are likely the only means for humans to think about and communicate essential aspects of existence at this time, taking both words in their broadest senses. For ex., a rock is a language sign - any informed scientist should agree regardless of philosophical presuppositions. Logic (from Greek Logos) has lost much of its meaning in the modern era, but in ancient times encompassed much more than discursive analysis. I wouldn't phrase Robert's argument as he did or make it about some "God" who designs the world from 'outside' the world (I am not sure that is what he was doing), but humans certainly participate in the "designing" of the phenomenal world.

[Robert Arvay]

People have played these logic games to fool themselves into believing in God for thousands of years. Logic and language don't extrapolate to existence as a whole.

Actually, I agree. That is why my OP refers to "design," not God. I did not even say "Intelligent" design. I did, however, specify "intentional" design. Intended by what? Indeed, the question must arise, but can we ever find an answer?

There is no proof of God. There cannot be. Just as there is no proof of consciousness. The experience of it, is its own proof, but one cannot logically extrapolate this to other people. I believe you are conscious, but I cannot prove it. I believe in God, based on ineffable experience, but I cannot extend this to others.

My OP actually concerns itself with randomness. It responds to the common assertion that the universe arose at random, and/or, that its properties are determined at random. I condensed the argument (against that assertion) from a more detailed version, but as a discussion starter, I think it is adequate for this forum.

Many people assume that if one rejects the randomness hypothesis, that they must be arguing for the existence of God, but first things first. Once we dispose of the randomness question, pro or con, then we can expand to conclusions from that--if we can even agree on that much.

Otherwise, we can try to formulate our thoughts better.
.

[Jim Cross]

People have played these logic games to fool themselves into believing in God for thousands of years. Logic and language don't extrapolate to existence as a whole.

Actually, I agree. That is why my OP refers to "design," not God. I did not even say "Intelligent" design. I did, however, specify "intentional" design. Intended by what? Indeed, the question must arise, but can we ever find an answer?

There is no proof of God. There cannot be. Just as there is no proof of consciousness. The experience of it, is its own proof, but one cannot logically extrapolate this to other people. I believe you are conscious, but I cannot prove it. I believe in God, based on ineffable experience, but I cannot extend this to others.

My OP actually concerns itself with randomness. It responds to the common assertion that the universe arose at random, and/or, that its properties are determined at random. I condensed the argument (against that assertion) from a more detailed version, but as a discussion starter, I think it is adequate for this forum.

Many people assume that if one rejects the randomness hypothesis, that they must be arguing for the existence of God, but first things first. Once we dispose of the randomness question, pro or con, then we can expand to conclusions from that--if we can even agree on that much.

Otherwise, we can try to formulate our thoughts better.
.

So you have fooled yourself into believing in design.

[Eugene I]

I agree with Jim regarding logic. But even if we try to apply logic, we seem to have two possibilities:

- No constraints multiverse. In such scenario an infinite number of universes exists, each randomly having a specific set of constraints, and we just happen to live in the one which constraints allow for the development of life. This possibility does not require any assumption of design, but it does require the assumption of the infinite number of universes (which may not be worse compared to the assumption of the infinite nature of God or infinite number of ideas existing in God's mind in theism).

- Constrained multiverse or constrained single universe. In this case the number of universes if finite, even though may still be large, or may be just one. This possibility requires an explanation of the origin of the constrains. Design is one of such possible explanations, but there might be other hypotheses. For example, in the modern string theory the number of universes is extremely high (10^500) but still finite, and it seems to be able to offer a solution to the cosmological constant problem and account for the anthropic principle. But the problem of the origin of the string theory constraints still remains unsolved.

[AshvinP]

It is my sense you guys are completely missing what Robert is pointing to. We are speaking of what we can know as humans experiencing the world. We cannot know about "existence as a whole" as some third-party spectator viewing from above, neither can we know about infinite multiverses which exist parallel to our Universe, or in any case cannot be perceived. Those demands for explanation lack any practical significance for any meaningful question we may ask. Robert is asking whether our experience of the world can be characterized as "random" in any meaningful way, and his conclusion, as mine would be too, is that it cannot be characterized in that way.

[Eugene I]

Our experience of the world is definitely not random, it is highly patterned and structured, this is experimental fact. But that this does not necessarily mean that the the world was "designed". The design hypothesis is already a metaphysical assumption that does not directly/logically follow from the fact of the non-randomness of the world, because there is a variety of other metaphysical schemes and hypotheses that also account for the non-randomness of the world. The design hypothesis is only one of them.

I'm actually in favor of the design hypothesis (as it is a natural assumption under idealism), but this is only my personal preference, and I want to be fair and do not want to claim anything as truth just because I like it. Our personal preferences should not compromise our logic.

[AshvinP]

Our experience of the world is definitely not random, it is highly patterned and structured, this is experimental fact. But that this does not necessarily mean that the the world was "designed". The design hypothesis is already a metaphysical assumption that does not directly/logically follow from the fact of the non-randomness of the world, because there is a variety of other metaphysical schemes and hypotheses that also account for the non-randomness of the world. The design hypothesis is only one of them.

I'm actually in favor of the design hypothesis (as it is a natural assumption under idealism), but this is only my personal preference, and I want to be fair and do not want to claim anything as truth just because I like it. Our personal preferences should not compromise our logic.

What other schemes and hypotheses account for non-randomness of the world that we can know? Anything we cannot possibly know should be considered non-existent to the consistently logical mind.

[Eugene I]

What other schemes and hypotheses account for non-randomness of the world that we can know?

I gave some variants in my first post.

Anything we cannot possibly know should be considered non-existent to the consistently logical mind.

No it should not, but it may be considered non-existent if we apply the parsimony principle. The parsimony principle can not be used as a means to prove nonexistence of anything. It is only an argument, not a proof. And be careful with it, because, in the human form, we cannot possibly know anything beyond our individual field of human mind conscious experience, and we can not even possibly know if other human minds exist, we can only assume that they exist. So if we would directly and non-compromisingly apply your statement, we would immediately end up in solipsism.

IMO, the "hard problem of consciousness" is the only really strong argument against materialism. There have always been other arguments over 2.5 millennia of materialism-idealism opposition, including the parsimony, but none of them were strong or convincing enough to debunk materialism. It is only after Chalmers discovery of the "hard problem" that materialism started loosing its strong positions in philosophy.

The "lack of meaning of life" argument also cannot be used as a proof against materialism. There is of course a meaning crisis in modern humanity, no question about that, and materialism has been the major catalyst for it. But if we assume for a moment that materialism is actually true, but still leaves people with no meaning in life, the latter fact cannot be used as a proof or argument against it. The lack of meaning is a psychological problem, not a metaphysical/ontological argument. It is the same as to say "I claim that the Maxwell equations are wrong because they leave me with no meaning in life".