The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

No where in that does he discuss the first second of the universe.

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

In my experience, people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can’t explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mindset behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hardwired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place within time, with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to envisage a chain of causation stretching back in time, either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Cause, or Prime Mover. But cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency -- natural or supernatural -- can operate.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yup. We can calculate back to one Planck time or ~1e-42 seconds. Going the other way, 1e+42 seconds would be enough time for all star formation to stop

You realize that is like a trillionth of a trillionth of a second right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does any of that support your claim that "when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics"?

Because there is no space, matter, energy or time to govern. The laws of physics in theism originate with God and go into effect with the creation of the universe/or universes if there is more than ours.

 

[Athée]

So it seems like Once wants to camp put in that space before the universe began. That space where we don't know really anything about what happened or how. Into that space Once asserts that her god is the best explanation for what we do observe in the plank time that we can investigate.
It seems to me that at the core of this discussion is this idea that, out of nothing, nothing comes. Once wants to say (via special pleading) that her god is the only possible actor in that space of nothingness. The only possible uncaused cause that could lead to a life permitting universe.
Am I reading this correctly?

 

[Oncedeceived]

So it seems like Once wants to camp put in that space before the universe began. That space where we don't know really anything about what happened or how. Into that space Once asserts that her god is the best explanation for what we do observe in the plank time that we can investigate.
It seems to me that at the core of this discussion is this idea that, out of nothing, nothing comes. Once wants to say (via special pleading) that her god is the only possible actor in that space of nothingness. The only possible uncaused cause that could lead to a life permitting universe.
Am I reading this correctly?

Nope.

 

[Athée]

Nope.

Short and to the point at least
Where did I go wrong?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Short and to the point at least
Where did I go wrong?

Oh, ok. This is addressed to me then?

 

[Athée]

Oh, ok. This is addressed to me then?

Sure It is your thread after all! We have been away at a family bible camp and I am finally back in civilization so I can post again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Sure It is your thread after all! We have been away at a family bible camp and I am finally back in civilization so I can post again.

Just wanted to be sure since you were speaking to the group before.

Did Paul Davies and Vilenkin say that the universe came from nothing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

How does any of that support your claim that "when we look back into the earliest second of our universe there are no laws of physics"?

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.

 

[[serious]]

You realize that is like a trillionth of a trillionth of a second right?

No, it isn't you are off by 18 orders of magnitude.

 

[[serious]]

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

In my experience, people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can’t explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mindset behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hardwired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place within time, with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to envisage a chain of causation stretching back in time, either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Cause, or Prime Mover. But cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency -- natural or supernatural -- can operate.

Nothing in that post discusses the first second of the universe either

 

[tallbouy]

Did Paul Davies and Vilenkin say that the universe came from nothing?

What does it matter where it came from we're only here for 70 odd years? it's been here for a long time and it will be here for a long time to come, it really makes no difference to us where it came from or where it's going.

 

[Athée]

What does it matter where it came from we're only here for 70 odd years? it's been here for a long time and it will be here for a long time to come, it really makes no difference to us where it came from or where it's going.

To the extent which it can be considered evidence for or against the proposition, does yaweh exist, then it is a relevant topic of discussion.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nothing in that post discusses the first second of the universe either

Yes it does.

 

[Athée]

Yes it does.

Davies seems to be talking about the nothingnbefore the universe existed. Serious is talking about the instant after the big bang. Are you arguing that there is time between when the universe pops into existence as a singularity and when the big bang happens?

 

[tallbouy]

To the extent which it can be considered evidence for or against the proposition, does yaweh exist, then it is a relevant topic of discussion.

What will you be discussing next Jack and the beanstalk?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Davies seems to be talking about the nothingnbefore the universe existed. Serious is talking about the instant after the big bang. Are you arguing that there is time between when the universe pops into existence as a singularity and when the big bang happens?

Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.

 

[Athée]

What will you be discussing next Jack and the beanstalk?

I guess we could if you think it might be relevant to the question of God's existence. I'll await your argument but my initial position is that it isn't relevant.
Your turn

 

[Athée]

Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.

That could be the case in general but that is not what he(? ) is saying in the most recent posts. He seems to me to be talking about the plank time after the big bang.