Fine tuning, a new approach

[[serious]]

Now all you have to do is demonstrate that these parameters could have been different, and if so, that the range that allows for life is unlikely. Have fun.

Trouble is, the multiverse theory she just posted eliminates the tuning argument.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Because saying numerous earlier universes existed before the big bang directly contradicts your claim that nothing existed before the big bang.

My claim was that our universe didn't exist before the big bang. There was nothing prior to the Big Bang because there was no prior because time didn't exist.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Trouble is, the multiverse theory she just posted eliminates the tuning argument.

No, it doesn't. If there were the trillions and trillions of universes needed to eliminate our universe's fine tuning, we would still be faced with the fine tuning of the universe generator that permits a life permitting one.

 

[[serious]]

My claim was that our universe didn't exist before the big bang. There was nothing prior to the Big Bang because there was no prior because time didn't exist.

That is not what your link says

 

[[serious]]

No, it doesn't. If there were the trillions and trillions of universes needed to eliminate our universe's fine tuning, we would still be faced with the fine tuning of the universe generator that permits a life permitting one.

I agree, in fact, that's the point of this thread. God made the universe. He is the universe generator. God must then be fine tuned to generate a universe fine tuned for life!

 

[Oncedeceived]

That is not what your link says

From the link:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I agree, in fact, that's the point of this thread. God made the universe. He is the universe generator. God must then be fine tuned to generate a universe fine tuned for life!

God is not part of the physical world, a natural world generator would be.

 

[46AND2]

From the link:

But now Vilenkin says he has convincing evidence in hand: The universe had a distinct beginning — though he can’t pinpoint the time. After 35 years of looking backward, he says, he’s found that before our universe there was nothing, nothing at all, not even time itself.

In the context of his hypothesis, he means none of that existed IN OUR UNIVERSE, because our universe didn't exist. If he posits multiple universes, how can he possibly know if time existed in THOSE universes?

 

[Oncedeceived]

In the context of his hypothesis, he means none of that existed IN OUR UNIVERSE, because our universe didn't exist. If he posits multiple universes, how can he possibly know if time existed in THOSE universes?

And that matters why?

 

[JaneC]

You cannot simply write off the fact we live in a universe where chemistry is possible, when the chances against that being the case are many orders of magnitude greater than the analogous improbability mentioned above.

What are the odds that there is a brainless mind organising it all? I say brainless because to have a brain something would need to be physical and not supernatural.
If you are trying to stay within the realms of reality and not the realms of fantasy what are the odds that something non physical could be outside of space and time with the ability to make something that was physical? work the odds out on that one.

If all you want to do is believe in a God why not just believe and leave it at that? why do you need to try and make your imaginary God a real physical thing?

 

[[serious]]

God is not part of the physical world, a natural world generator would be.

Any universe generator by definition must be outside our universe.

 

[[serious]]

And that matters why?

Either way, he posits that something existed before our universe, and that the natural laws in that earlier universe, expansion in this case, created our universe. If you've actually come around to accepting this possibility, great. Otherwise, I don't follow how earlier universes can exist with expansion happening, yet somehow still allow for nothing existing and no laws, like expansion, existing.

 

[lesliedellow]

What are the odds that there is a brainless mind organising it all?

Who said anything about an organism? Whatever else God is, he is not a multicellular organism based upon The nitrogenous compounds of carbon.

If you are trying to stay within the realms of reality and not the realms of fantasy what are the odds that something non physical could be outside of space and time with the ability to make something that was physical? work the odds out on that one.

There is no basis for that calculation, unless you look at the universe itself, and then you can do a calculation based upon what happens when the values of the fundamental constants are varied even a little bit in a theoretical model.

If all you want to do is believe in a God why not just believe and leave it at that? why do you need to try and make your imaginary God a real physical thing?

I wouldn't even dream of saying that God was a physical being. In fact, it is a logical impossibility for the creator of the universe to be himself a being within that universe. That, however, has got zilch to do with whether or not the universe is full of huge I probabilities that call out for explanation.

 

[46AND2]

And that matters why?

Because clearly, according to that scientist, our universe did not just pop out of "nothing." It was spawned by another universe. If statements like his is what causes you to think that "most scientists" believe the universe started from nothing, then you are misapplying the statement and coming to an incorrect conclusion. I would agree that most scientists think the universe had a beginning (though certainly not all. There are infinite universe models). That is not the same thing as saying that they believe there was nothing else. Usually, they are careful with how they word it, including the scientist you linked: “We have very good evidence that there was a Big Bang, so the universe as we know it almost certainly started some 14 billion years ago. " The reason they use that 4 word caveat is because we know far to little about quantum physics, and we just don't know what else there could have been (or what else there IS).

 

[DogmaHunter]

What we know is that our universe didn't exist, no space, no energy, no matter, no time.

That is not a "known". That is an assumption.

 

[DogmaHunter]

It most certainly does mean that the space, energy, matter and time of this universe did not exist. Which is what I have said. What evidence have you for any matter, energy, space or time other than what we have in our universe?

It's good that you demand evidence for claims about unkowns like "before" the universe.
Now if only you would apply such standards to your own claims....

 

[DogmaHunter]

I wrote the OP. So? Do we have to be fine tuned to design a factory or to design computer programs?

The obvious answer seems "yes", considering what it is that you mean by "fine tuned".

You'ld have to comply to a whole bunch of criteria to even only be able to conceptualize what a factory or computer is, let alone design and build one.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Because this is what we read in the Bible.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why then does Krauss write a book about nothing being something. Because most physicists do believe that the singularity whatever it is came out of nothing.

It's called a "hypothesis".

Also, to make clear that when a physicist like him speaks about "nothing", he doesn't mean the same thing as when lay-people, like you, use that word (in the sense of "complete nothingness").

"Nothing" has very different meanings when applied to different contexts / levels.

For example, in day to day life, I can take an empty box and say "there is nothing in the box". And for everyday conversation, that's fine.

But is there really "nothing" in the box? Off course not... There's ALL KINDS OF THINGS in that box. There're molecules, atoms, bacteria, etc in that box.

Then we can also say "there is nothing in the vacuum of deep space".
Sure. Correct again in day-to-day conversation.

Not so much when you get technical... There's space in there and I'm sure quite some quantum freakiness as well.

What people like Krauss try to say with statements like "nothing is something", is that we might not have reached the end level of what constitutes "nothing".
The question asked is that if we remove everything we "know" of: matter, energy, space itself, etc.... is what we are left with REALLY "nothing", as in: complete nothingness?

Is "absolute nothingness" even a state of affairs that is überhaupt even possible to begin with?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Fine tuning has evidence that is the point. I disagree, I think theism explains why there is something rather than nothing, I think it explains why there is intelligent life, I think it explains why there are laws that govern the universe.

You should replace the word "explain" in that statement by the word "claim".