Fine tuning, a new approach

[46AND2]

No, I provided the whole article and I posted what supported what I had said.

That is the very epitome of quote mining.

It supported my claim that OUR universe did have a beginning and at that beginning there was no space, no matter, no energy and not time.

You took one statement that appears to support your argument, when his argument, in its entirety, disputes your point.

What part of other-universes-does-not-equal-nothing are you having trouble with?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Wow. Upping your game, now it isn't just "most" but "all."

Since you couldn't support your claim of "most" I'm guessing you'll not try to support your "all" claim, either.

Good point, I suppose there might be a few that might not but I would be interested in any you know of.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I was thinking more about the US, people there are kept down by religion {atheism and evolution were sent by the devil} and they are kept afraid by the media telling them that everything is going to pot and people are being killed every ten minutes, God is the only thing that can save the country from total destruction, the US is the most religious country outside of the Muslim world.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Looks like you're agreeing that the word nothing in your quote-mine doesn't really mean nothing then. Or maybe you're saying your source is wrong when he said that nothing existed before the big bang. You find quotes which seem to help a particular point but end up undermining your entire worldview. It is hard to put together a consistent view which matches up with reality, no?

No.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By 3+ billion years of evolution.

Uh, try again?

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is the very epitome of quote mining.

I claimed EXACTLY what he said and I didn't misrepresent him in the least.

You took one statement that appears to support your argument, when his argument, in its entirety, disputes your point.

What part of other-universes-does-not-equal-nothing are you having trouble with?

What did it dispute of my point?

 

[[serious]]

How is a person fine tuned in your estimation?

Genetically. 40 million points of tuning between chimpanzees and humans.

 

[[serious]]

If you will note from the link I shared written by Paul Davies:

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

It might be objected that we haven’t finished the job by baldly taking the laws of physics as given. Where did those laws come from? And why those laws rather than some other set? This is a valid objection. I have argued that we must eschew the traditional causal chain and focus instead on an explanatory chain, but inevitably we now confront the logical equivalent of the First Cause -- the beginning of the chain of explanation.

I also note that he says, "we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

 

[46AND2]

I claimed EXACTLY what he said and I didn't misrepresent him in the least.

Yes, you did. And I have explained to you repeatedly HOW you did. If the statement you quoted meant what you think it does, then why would his argument go on to talk about other universes?

What did it dispute of my point?

Other universes are not nothing.

 

[[serious]]

I'm not disagreeing that God is outside of the universe. I am saying that God is not a part of the natural world at all.

Ok, same answer for the laws of physics.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Genetically. 40 million points of tuning between chimpanzees and humans.

Ah, so you understand then that we are physically part of the universe, God is not. What fine tuning was required that could have been different in the evolution of chimpanzees and humans?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, same answer for the laws of physics.

Yet, you yourself said that the laws of physics are not present prior to planck time did you not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, you did. And I have explained to you repeatedly HOW you did. If the statement you quoted meant what you think it does, then why would his argument go on to talk about other universes?





Other universes are not nothing.

Other universe are not part of OUR universe are they? We are discussing OUR universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I also note that he says, "we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

Which makes sense in Theism, how does it make sense in naturalism?

 

[[serious]]

I claimed EXACTLY what he said and I didn't misrepresent him in the least.



What did it dispute of my point?

Well, exempt where he said that the laws of physics, specifically inflation, predated the big bang.

Oh, and that other part that says ours is only a bubble universe in a much larger multiverse that is infinite.

And that other link that says we must assume that the laws of physics are eternal into the past.

 

[[serious]]

Ah, so you understand then that we are physically part of the universe, God is not.

Same answer for the laws of physics

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, exempt where he said that the laws of physics, specifically inflation, predated the big bang.

Yes, that is what he is claiming but there is no evidence for that part of his theory. As far as evidence, he gives the evidence of why there was a beginning of the universe and that there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time. So his evidence is what supports my claim. His theories of what came before that are not in evidence.

Oh, and that other part that says ours is only a bubble universe in a much larger multiverse that is infinite.

Yes, he did. But again, I am looking at only the evidence that is there. The evidence that the universe had to have a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time did not exist until our universe did.

And that other link that says we must assume that the laws of physics are eternal into the past.

No, that is not what he said and now you are misrepresenting what he said.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Same answer for the laws of physics

From the Link I gave:

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

So I ask again, how do you explain the laws of physics when the laws of physics didn't exist before the universe in a naturalistic way?

 

[[serious]]

No, that is not what he said and now you are misrepresenting what he said.

"we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

 

[Oncedeceived]

"we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

To do science we have to take them as a given, they have no explanation in a naturalistic worldview.