Need an Athiest's perspective

[Crossroads]

Ok so basically I'm sitting on the line between Atheism and Deism.  I can logically see how either one of them could be correct.  I was reading a Deist forum and found a very interesting argument for Deism involving quantum physics.  I was just wondering what someone who isn't a Deist (someone who isn't biased for it) thinks of it.

http://www.positivedeism.com/phpbb2/vie ... f=1&t=4222

"PLEASE CLICK ON ALL THE LINKS PROVIDED THEY ARE ESSENTIAL TO THE ARGUMENT

Science is the logical examination of what we perceive. As a Deist I believe science is compatible with a belief in God. Therefore that belief must itself be logical. So what is logic, how is it derived, and how does it lead to a belief in God that is compatible with science?

The phrase “I think therefore I am” is a self-referential observation that provides certain knowledge of our own conscious existence (in fact it is the only thing of which we may be absolutely certain). But that observation can also be put in the form of a syllogism which is the formal expression of a logical statement (I liken this to factoring an equation):

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

This is the basis of all philosophy and everything we know about logic is derived from it; proper distribution of terms to avoid non-sequiturs, the copula which establishes the relationship between those terms, either positive or negative, by using a form of the words "is" or "is not", and the fallacy of contradictions because how could I be aware of myself if I did not exist? In order to better understand it let’s look at it in generic form:

A is B major premise
B is C minor premise
A is C conclusion

Notice how the term "B" occurs in both the major and minor premises thus connecting the term "A" to the term "C" allowing for a conclusion. This connection must exist so if a statement does not conform to this or any other rule of logic it must be dismissed as illogical because the conclusion is a non sequitur that does not follow unbroken from the premises. So how does this apply to Deism?

Traditionally attempts to answer to the question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" have failed because, if we assume our common materialistic notion of "nothingness" as a void that is absolutely "without property" is correct, "something from nothing" is a non sequitur. But is this definition correct?

According to the rules of logic as revealed above there are only two ways we can legitimately derive definitions; induction (observation or experience guided by the scientific method), and deduction (the syllogism). Since we see "something" when we look around us we cannot experience "nothingness" so the only way we can define it is by deduction.

Utilizing the methods allowed by those rules then we should be able to strip away all the permutations of existence and reduce it to its essence simply by putting a form of the words "is not" (the negative form of the copula in the syllogism) in front of "being as a whole" (the terms "being" and "something" are defined here as simply as that which has property no matter what it is so the totality of existence is all possible properties). This ought to give us a definition of "no being" or "nothingness" as absolutely "without property".

But potential is a property and the world could not exist if it did not have the potential to. So how can "nothing" have potential?

First we must accept the "nothingness" is not absolute because the concept of absolute nothingness is not the same as the absence of something in the world. Absolute means just that. ABSOLUTE! No property. No potential. No exceptions. Therefore, since the world exists, logically "nothingness" is not absolute and thus must have at least one property. So perhaps the question should be rephrased as "what is it about nothingness that keeps it from being absolute?"

"Nothingness" is the only thing (and since it has property it is a thing) that can be thought of in completely negative terms except for the fact it is a concept that can be thought of. Nothingness is a concept. You're thinking about it right now!

So even when "being" is stripped of every other attribute we are still left with the idea of nothingness. It has no other property. But what does that mean?

Consider a scale with 1 ounce of gold in each pan. The scale would read 0 because the pans are balanced but there would still be 2 ounces of gold. So in this case 0 means "no difference" or "neutrality" not "empty".

Likewise what we call "nothingness" is not an empty void "without property" but is actually a neutral concept (which is something) permitting us to now define it as a concept in absolute equilibrium. All other definitions must, for the time being, be dismissed as unfounded and meaningless. So how can the world emerge from that?

Imagine a straight line that extends outward forever.

http://doc.spatial.com/images/thumb/a/a ... e_line.jpg

Such a one dimensional line is analogous to "nothingness" by this definition because "nothingness" has but one property- it is a concept in equilibrium (this technique is called the principle of equivalence and was used by Albert Einstein to equate gravity with acceleration when he formulated the theory of relativity).

Because it may bend in any number of ways there are an infinite number of waveforms that exist in potential in such a line.

http://plus.maths.org/issue38/interview/sine.gif

Now if things happen simply because they can happen and they can happen because they don't result in contradiction then as long as the probability of an event does not equal zero (which is what happens when two identical but opposite waves try to emerge at the same time and cancel out) they may occur for no reason other than the fact there is nothing to prevent them from occurring. Therefore any of these waveforms may emerge spontaneously by themselves or in combination by simple addition.

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug99/i ... g34big.gif

By themselves the most basic waveforms (sine waves) have no meaning but, utilizing a technique developed by the French mathematician Jean Baptiste Fourier, we can see that merged with others they can create radically different patterns which not only match the same patterns we see in our world they also permit the emergence of an infinite number of other universes each with different physics.

http://www.climate4you.com/images/JosephFourier.jpg

In other words in this model there is a spectrum of universes. And they don't just obey mathematical rules they are mathematics- manifest. Ours just happens to be one that is conducive to life explaining why it seems so finely tuned (this is why I doubt the design argument and purposeful creation and think the world is really nothing more than an epiphenomenon).

However all the evidence we have says that for a concept to exist there must be a mind to consider it. And if you claim to believe in science and reason you have to go with the evidence you have not the "evidence" you want to have. And there is just no evidence I am aware of that even suggests concepts can exist without being observed. If anyone knows of any please let me know.

For example you can have 9 coins in one hand http://i3.iofferphoto.com/img/item/397/ ... lver$s.jpg and 9 gem stones in the other http://www.awesomegems.com/gems/gs1700.jpg but where is the number 9 apart from what you hold? Aside from the fact they are “physical” we can sense no other property they have in common. But changing the quantity doesn’t seem to affect the physical characteristics of either group so that particular integer itself is not intrinsic to either group physically. 9 has attributes we can understand. It is the square of 3. It is an odd number. And we can distinguish those traits from; say, the number 8 which is even and not a square. So even though it is not tangible it is a thing in its own right as a concept but that is all. You can not point to anything in nature and say, “This is the number 9 by itself.” You can only think about it.

A materialist (someone who assumes the world has an objective existence and does not need to be observed) may reply that the number 9 must be expressed physically as stones or coins to exist but what is the "physical"? Albert Einstein proved that mass (matter) is just energy in particle form. Then the physicist Erwin Schrodinger discovered that energy could be manifested as a wave as well as a particle. And finally another scientist, Max Born, showed that waves are just the probability distribution of a possible event. Probability, in turn, is mathematical in nature and mathematics itself is nothing more than the rules that govern numbers which are concepts.

Others say the numbers themselves are merely the products of material processes in the brain we impose on the world. But it seems to me this is just substituting one unsubstantiated statement for another.

One can not assert the brain and its processes are material in order to prove the brain and its processes are material as that is a circular argument. The brain is made of tissue composed of cells built from molecules of atoms that are particles of matter which is energy...

Even the evidence of science itself seems to cast doubt on materialism.

One of the consequences of the wave/particle nature of physics touched on above is Werner Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle. Simply stated, this points out a fundamental mathematical law that says that an observer can never know both the position and the speed or frequency of a "particle/wave" at once. To know it's position energy must be at rest and in particle form and to know its speed it must be a wave. Since it can’t be both at rest and in motion at the same time, it creates uncertainty.

So depending on how it is observed energy can appear as either a particle or a wave. The experimenter (Alice) determines which form it will take by the way she decides to measure it. If she sets up an experiment to detect particles that is what she’ll find. Likewise, if she wants to find waves she will see them. Not both at once.

The uncertainty principle has created a great many problems for physicists and philosophers alike. The consequences that arise from it deeply troubled many scholars when it was first set forth, Einstein among them. He, along with the scientists Boris Podolsky and Nathan Rosen (tests based on their views are called EPR experiments after them) pointed out that if two particles are produced by the breakdown of another and one of them is then sent off into space while the one that remains is examined to determine it’s direction of spin, for example, it’s twin must instantly assume the opposite spin in order to keep from violating the law of conservation no matter how far apart they are!

Up until it is observed all the properties associated with a particle, including its direction of spin, exist only in potential so that trait is also bound by chance and it could just as easily have spun the other way. But, by what mechanism does the other particle “know” to assume the spin opposite it’s counterpart?

The fastest means of transmitting information available is light but even it can only go so fast and nothing can make it go faster. It travels at the incredible speed of 186,000 mile per second, but even that takes time and what if an observer (Bob) on another planet tests that particle for direction of spin before the information can reach it? Is there a chance it could assume the same spin as its partner and violate the conservation laws?

http://nondimensional.org/docs/images/epr.gif

If not and someone on Earth can “determine” the properties of a particle light years away she has never seen simply by measuring another one here, it would seem that the role of the observer in keeping the universe orderly is more important than previously thought. And the reported results of EPR experiments do seem to confirm that order is indeed maintained.

In an effort to do away with the need for an observer while avoiding the problem of super luminal information transference (and, I think, to avoid the obvious religious implications) some materialists have advanced what is known as the “many worlds theory by decoherence", a hypothesis which holds that in order to avoid uncertainty whenever there is an event with more than one possible outcome the entire cosmos actually splits like a wave in an interferometer to accommodate every single one. They reason that if all possible outcomes occur then it doesn't matter if they are seen or not. So according to the many worlds theory there is a place where Abraham Lincoln was not assassinated and the Titanic still sails.

However for it to work there must be a way by which a universe can tell what it's sister world is doing so it can do the opposite. The only mechanism I am aware of that has been put forth which can allow for the communication necessary for it to do that (possibly because there may be no alternative) is a shared history up to the point of differentiation where they "branch".

If true considering the rapidity of nuclear interactions as well as the sheer number of them and the fact that there is more than a handful of probable outcomes for any event and all must occur separately, parallel universes of this type must be being created continuously at a rate that boggles the mind. Imagine tossing just one coin ten times. The first flip would produce two coins (heads in one world tails in the other), the second would create four since each of those would have two possible outcomes.

The third throw makes eight, then sixteen, thirty two, sixty four and so on until by the tenth flip you have produced one thousand twenty four coins each in their own separate universe (ten more and you will create over a million)!

http://commons.bcit.ca/math/faculty/dav ... alcpr5.gif

This seems ludicrous on the surface, but so have many other theories in the past that have been confirmed by observation and if it follows from the premise and fits the facts it must be accepted no matter how outlandish it may seem. My own criticism of it must, therefore, be based on what I believe to be logical grounds and I do have reservations about it, the main one being it appears to violate the laws of conservation. If this materialistic explanation is correct how can an infinite number of universes be created out of a finite amount of energy?

When a wave of a finite amount of energy propagates the total power in it initially stays the same but it spreads out over a greater distance, thinning and thus getting weaker at any particular place. If the ocean is wide enough even a tsunami will eventually become nothing more than a ripple unless more energy is supplied to it to maintain its strength and there is no evidence I am aware of that is happening anywhere in the universe. In fact observation of the residual heat of the Big Bang known as the cosmic background radiation indicates the universe is getting cooler and fainter as it expands suggesting the amount of energy in the universe is, indeed, finite (there is other evidence as well, such as predicting and then finding new particles to account for so called missing energy, that supports the conservation laws of mass/energy and none that I know of that even hints that they might be wrong). Splitting a wave only accelerates the process suggesting that the cosmos would likewise become so dilute so fast there would never be enough energy in any specific universe long enough to form the matter we see around us and the world as we know it could not exist.

As we have seen that doesn't mean there are no other universes only that there is no reason to believe they can come into being in this way. So it may be there are an infinite number of types of universes but not every variation of a type may be realized. Nor does it suggest decoherence isn't a real phenomenon. It is. It fact it has reportedly been observed in the laborotory but all the constituent parts remained firmly ensconced in this world.

But if, as the evidence suggests, the world is basically concept and concepts must be observed what was observing it before intelligent life evolved? This "problem" is really no problem at all. Lines may curve in many ways. One is a circle. Bending a line in on itself makes it self referential or self observing. Bending the line representing the "concept of absolute equilibrium" in on itself makes it self referential or self observing. That also makes It conscious because structurally It is identical to the self referential observation "I am" which tells us just what "concept" it is in equilibrium and thus gives it meaning. It is awareness itself and it is a true tabula rasa.

http://www.barclaycardbusiness.co.uk/im ... _arrow.gif

Such a fundamental self-observing concept also stops infinite regressions similar to the "who created the creator" problem because looking at the world as concept seems to fit a general trend in the advancement of knowledge which is completely incompatible with the notion of infinite regress. That is generalizing and simplifying a field to a succinct school of thought. In biology, the entire spectrum of life on Earth has been reduced to one idea - DNA. Chemists have gone further by taking the very stuff of DNA (as well as what everything else in the world is made of) and explaining it with the atom. Again, one simple theory that unites an entire science. Reducing the universe to a concept, based on its common relationship with nothingness as an idea, is the ultimate expression of this, it cannot be reduced any further.

I call this foundational state the Prime Observer because It is literally observing Itself. The circle in this model is perfectly smooth and therefore in equilibrium but contains within It an infinite number of potential worlds which may emerge spontaneously as an epiphenomenon or side effect. In other words It is the simplest possible structure but contains within It all the complexities that can ever be.

As it is a concept we can say "nothingness" is not "nothing". That is a contradiction thus such a state cannot exist. Just saying "nonexistence exists" is absurd. But an unobserved concept is also paradoxical and therefore unstable. It must collapse into a state that is stable but in order to do that it must have something in common with that state. Since the only property that which we commonly call "nothingness" (but which is better defined as the "concept of absolute equilibrium") has is that of a concept it can only be reduced to something else that is also a concept to avoid a non sequitur. And all it has to do to accomplish that is bend back on itself. Nothing more.

But we must be careful here. All we have really done is show it seems to be possible to construct a mathematical model that not only can explain itself but the world also. It just happens it points to a Deistic God. But does it match what we see in the world? In my opinion yes as demonstrated in this short video (note- despite a remark by the narrator that about this being strange mathematically it really isn't. It is exactly what we would expect to see mathematically because all your doing is redistributing probabilities. It is only strange when looked at from a materialistic point of view):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Q4_nl0I ... re=related

Thus may we construct a model, derived from logic itself, providing us with a possible answer to our original question, "why is there something instead of nothing?" that not only explains itself but matches what we see in the world. That in itself does not make it true. But though it is not a proof when contrasted with the apparent contradictions (which must be dismissed) arising from the only alternative (atheistic materialism) I know of it seems, to me at least, the only reasonable conclusion.

So is this scientific? Yes, I believe it is because it meets all the requirements of the scientific method. From wikipedia:
1. Use your experience: Consider the problem and try to make sense of it. Look for previous explanations. If this is a new problem to you, then move to step 2.
2. Form a conjecture: When nothing else is yet known, try to state an explanation, to someone else, or to your notebook.
3. Deduce a prediction from that explanation: If you assume 2 is true, what consequences follow?
4. Test: Look for the opposite of each consequence in order to disprove 2. It is a logical error to seek 3 directly as proof of 2. This error is called affirming the consequent."

[Sophus]

Hi Crossroads. Welcome to the forum!

I've read some books on Physics by authors who have claimed it has led them to a spiritual awakening, similar to what you have posted here. I was convinced of their conclusions too for a while but have come to realise they depended upon simple mistakes for non-scientists to make due to the language used by Physicists. Victor Stenger has an article published online on the confusion behind The Observer Effect.

If there were a Creator would you suspect him to be a supernatural one or hold him to naturalistic reason as well?

Also, there is a link posted by a member on this forum somwhere around here of a video lecture on how Something could possibly come from essentially Nothing.

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

Personally, I think I probably exist too. However, I think Nietzsche out witted Descartes on this one:

436 (1885-1886)

To what extent dialectic and faith in reason still rest on moral prejudices. With Plato we are, as former inhabitants of an intelligible world of the good, still in possession of a heritage from that time: divine dialectic, as proceeding from the good, leads to all things good (â€"therefore, as it were, "backwards"â€"). Even Descartes had a notion of the fact that in a fundamentally Christian-moral mode of thought, which believes in a good God as the creator of things, only God's veracity guarantees to us the judgements of our senses. Apart from a religious sanction and guarantee of our senses and rationalityâ€"where should we derive a right to trust in existence! That thinking is a measure of actualityâ€"that what cannot be thought, is notâ€"is a rude non plus ultra of a moralistic trustfulness (in an essential truth-principle at the bottom of things), in itself a mad assumption, which experience contradicts every moment. We are altogether unable to think anything at all just as it isâ€"


484 (Spring-Fall 1887)

"There is thinking: therefore there is something that thinks": this is the upshot of all Descartes' argumentation. But that means positing as "true a priori" our belief in the concept of substanceâ€"that when there is thought there has to be something "that thinks" is simply a formulation of our grammatical custom that adds a doer to every deed. In short, this is not merely the substantiation of a fact but a logical-metaphysical postulateâ€" Along the lines followed by Descartes one does not come upon something absolutely certain but only upon the fact of a very strong belief.
If one reduces the proposition to "There is thinking, therefore there are thoughts," one has produced a mere tautology: and precisely that which is in question, the "reality of thought," is not touched uponâ€"that is, in this form the "apparent reality" of thought cannot be denied. But what Descartes desired was that thought should have, not an apparent reality, but a reality in itself.



533 (Spring-Fall 1887)

Logical certainty, transparency, as criterion of truth ("omne illud verum est, quod clare et distincte percipitur." [1]â€"Descartes): with that, the mechanical hypothesis concerning the world is desired and credible.
But this is a crude confusion: like simplex sigillum veri. [2] How does one know that the real nature of things stands in this relation to our intellect?â€" Could it not be otherwise? that it is the hypothesis that gives the intellect the greatest feeling of power and security, that is most preferred, valued and consequently characterized as true?â€" The intellect posits its freest and strongest capacity and capability as criterion of the most valuable, consequently of the trueâ€"
"True": from the standpoint of feelingâ€": that which excites the feeling most strongly ("ego");
from the standpoint of thoughtâ€": that which gives thought the greatest feeling of strength;
from the standpoint of touch, seeing, hearingâ€": that which calls for the greatest resistance.
Thus it is the highest degrees of performance that awaken belief in the "truth," that is to say reality, of the object. The feeling of strength, of struggle, of resistance convinces us that there is something that is here being resisted.


NOTESâ€"
[1]: Translated by Kaufmann, "All that is true which is perceived clearly and distinctly."

[2]: Translated by Kaufmann, "Simplicity is the seal of truth."


*Nietzsche, F. The Will to Power. Translated by Walter Kaufmann and R.J. Hollingdale. Edited by Walter Kaufmann. New York: Random House, Inc., Vintage Books Edition, 1968.

[Whitney]

Welcome to the forum Crossroads.

I think if I read through that whole post right now my brain might melt...but I'll say this for now:  Does it really matter if you are an atheist or a deist (aside from just wanting to know) since either way you'll live your life assuming no god is overseeing your actions and assuming no god has a heaven waiting for you in the end?

[AlP]

Excellent, philosophy has taken another victim! Welcome to the the club Crossroads!

 

[elliebean]

Hello and welcome. Crossroads!  :crazy:

I did get as far as the first few paragraphs and, I have to tell you, it looks like cracks are forming already. But I'm not that well versed in philosophy and it takes me a lot of effort just to follow along, given my attention deficit and memory impairment.

I took a stroll through deism on my way to atheism, but here's a rough summary of why I ended up rejecting it:

1. The existence of such a god would be imperceptible to us
2. A universe created by a god would be no different from one that wasn't
3. The existence of such a god would be identical to its nonexistence
4. Occam's razor

[dogsmycopilot]

Ok so basically I'm sitting on the line between Atheism and Deism.

I just have one question.
Why would you want/need to believe in a god that created the universe as it is (with all it's terrors and suffering) but who does not intervene on the behalf of humans?

[Crossroads]

Thank you all for the welcomes.  Its nice to be able to talk to intelligent, logical thinkers. I live in a town where the only non-Christians I know are my Dad (atheist) and my girlfriend (Deist), so its a welcome change.

Hi Crossroads. Welcome to the forum!

I've read some books on Physics by authors who have claimed it has led them to a spiritual awakening, similar to what you have posted here. I was convinced of their conclusions too for a while but have come to realise they depended upon simple mistakes for non-scientists to make due to the language used by Physicists. Victor Stenger has an article published online on the confusion behind The Observer Effect.

If there were a Creator would you suspect him to be a supernatural one or hold him to naturalistic reason as well?

Also, there is a link posted by a member on this forum somwhere around here of a video lecture on how Something could possibly come from essentially Nothing.

I am a thinking being.
In order to think a being must exist.
Therefore I must exist.

Personally, I think I probably exist too. However, I think Nietzsche out witted Descartes on this one:
 

[/quote]
I had a feeling that the argument was a little too good to be true.  To answer your question if there was a God I imagine it as being subject to naturalistic reasoning. I would see it as being imperfect (Perfection would require nothing else, no need for a perfect being to create anything -- Its already perfect) and not omnicient.  I guess a good comparison would be a scientist (I think I read the scientist comparison on a Deist website).  It would create things to observe what happens and learn.  I've occassionally entertained the thought that this god didn't create the universe, but emerged from some sort proto-universe (A cosmic primordial ooze :p) as a form of life we aren't familiar with. It then proceded to shape the universe in to what we see today.  I don't know if it makes any sense but I think its an interesting thought.

Welcome to the forum Crossroads.

I think if I read through that whole post right now my brain might melt...but I'll say this for now: Does it really matter if you are an atheist or a deist (aside from just wanting to know) since either way you'll live your life assuming no god is overseeing your actions and assuming no god has a heaven waiting for you in the end?

Honestly, no it wouldn't make any difference in my life and doesn't really matter.  However I guess its just hard for me to accept that some things don't have a definite answer.  For example, why are the forces of the universe exactly right for life (at least the kind of life we are familiar with) to exist.  M-Theory does provide an answer for that (An amazing answer I might add), but then where did the 11 dimensions come from?  Why did membranes form?  I know that I may be looking for the god of the gaps, but its hard for me to accept that things are the way they are 'just because' (or that we just don't know right now and maybe never will).  Plus I find having a god around to remember what happened (everything that anyone has ever experienced) even after all life is dead in the universe to be a nice thought. However, I've been leaning towards    for the last couple weeks (might be related to the fact I've been reading this forum a lot lately), it just seems simpler.

By the way if I'm wrong about M-Theory feel free to let me know. The majority of my understanding comes from the PBS program about it.

[pinkocommie]

Honestly, no it wouldn't make any difference in my life and doesn't really matter.  However I guess its just hard for me to accept that some things don't have a definite answer.

I think you might feel better accepting the fact that humans don't have definite answers for things yet.  Not knowing now doesn't mean we'll never know, it just means the collective human understanding of some things isn't complete.  Once we know how life began and how the universe is constructed, etc, there will be even more questions we don't know the answers to, but as it is we don't even know those questions yet.

[Sophus]

I had a feeling that the argument was a little too good to be true.  To answer your question if there was a God I imagine it as being subject to naturalistic reasoning. I would see it as being imperfect (Perfection would require nothing else, no need for a perfect being to create anything -- Its already perfect) and not omnicient.  I guess a good comparison would be a scientist (I think I read the scientist comparison on a Deist website).  It would create things to observe what happens and learn.  I've occassionally entertained the thought that this god didn't create the universe, but emerged from some sort proto-universe (A cosmic primordial ooze :p) as a form of life we aren't familiar with. It then proceded to shape the universe in to what we see today.  I don't know if it makes any sense but I think its an interesting thought.

That is an interesting concept. Although it further perpetuates the problem of our origins by begging the question, "where did that proto-universe came from?". Assuming he has limitations of his own, he would be a complex being composed of simpler things, like we are. Applying this concept (what Dawkins calls the "evolutionary awakening") to physics, it wouldn't rule such a theory out but it would mean we could still solve the puzzle of a true beginning by working on how a universe (or proto-universe) could come about in the first place. Hope that makes sense, I'm horrible at explanations.
I can't help but think, judging by the rate at which the Universe expands, it's hard for me to comprehend how such a God, with his own physical restrictions, would distance himself from his creation enough to actually create it. Unless if we're like a universe within a universe. I also don't know if he would be able to create the universe and observe/study it so much as he would be able to initiate the building blocks for it. Time isn't on scientist's side just in trying to recreate life alone. Which could be a process that took millions or billions of years on its own long before evolution could get started.

[Sophus]

Unless if we're like a universe within a universe.

This may not be such a big stretch afterall: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/100406172648.htm

[NeoHeathen]

Honestly, no it wouldn't make any difference in my life and doesn't really matter. However I guess its just hard for me to accept that some things don't have a definite answer. For example, why are the forces of the universe exactly right for life (at least the kind of life we are familiar with) to exist. M-Theory does provide an answer for that (An amazing answer I might add), but then where did the 11 dimensions come from? Why did membranes form? I know that I may be looking for the god of the gaps, but its hard for me to accept that things are the way they are 'just because' (or that we just don't know right now and maybe never will). Plus I find having a god around to remember what happened (everything that anyone has ever experienced) even after all life is dead in the universe to be a nice thought. However, I've been leaning towards for the last couple weeks (might be related to the fact I've been reading this forum a lot lately), it just seems simpler.

Ah, love the fine tuning argument but I ran across this: http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Fine-tuning_argument, which brings up several problems with the fine tuning argument.

For example:

Another flaw with this argument is that it assumes our universe is finely tuned for the sole purpose of supporting life. This is not the case at all. Given the laws of our universe, scientists theorize that our universe is composed of less than 2% baryonic matter, that is matter consisting of protons, neutrons, and electrons. Dark matter is by far the most common form of matter in our universe. Our universe, if anything, is far more suited for the creation of black holes than it is for supporting life. Life on our planet constitutes only an insignificant portion of our universe.

I understand that it may be hard to accept that it is possible that everything came to be via naturalistic processes but humanity has tried to use the god of the gaps arguments for various things they did not understand at that time. Simpler concepts like how the weather works but they still attributed it to the supernatural because they did not understand at the time. I believe time and scientific progression will eventually, if we are around long enough, fill the gaps and continue to point to a naturalistic reality.