Fine tuning, a new approach

[[serious]]

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?

Right, the laws exist outside of time. Look at the analogy, we can't say before the big bang (in our time line) because our time line began with the big bang. Just like you can't get north of the north pole. Instead, the laws exist apart from time, as that same quote says, "we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

 

[[serious]]

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

Well, I suppose in the same way that God has no explanation in a supernatural world view.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Right, the laws exist outside of time. Look at the analogy, we can't say before the big bang (in our time line) because our time line began with the big bang. Just like you can't get north of the north pole. Instead, the laws exist apart from time, as that same quote says, "we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character."

We have to assume they have an abstract, eternal character and a law giver is completely cohesive with that. I have no problem with that, but the evidence like I said supports my point.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Well, I suppose in the same way that God has no explanation in a supernatural world view.

So God being an uncaused cause relates to the laws of physics in what way?

 

[[serious]]

So God being an uncaused cause relates to the laws of physics in what way?

God must be finely tuned for the same reasons the universe must be finely tuned.

 

[bhsmte]

God must be finely tuned for the same reasons the universe must be finely tuned.

Nope, God is special, he can break all the rules.

 

[[serious]]

Nope, God is special, he can break all the rules.

Yet another aspect that must be tuned!

 

[bhsmte]

Yet another aspect that must be tuned!

Some religious folks tune all the time.

They tune the interpretation of the bible to fit their personal needs.

They tune well evidenced reality and or deny the same, to fit their personal religious beliefs.

They can self tune, with the best of them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God must be finely tuned for the same reasons the universe must be finely tuned.

You haven't provided any support for that assertion.

 

[[serious]]

You haven't provided any support for that assertion.

Same justification for the fine tuning of the universe. We've been over this.

 

[46AND2]

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

No we aren't. You are claiming that before our universe there was nothing. Period.

We are saying that just because the universe may have had a beginning (which is not yet conclusive, btw), doesn't mean that there was nothing else ever.

And you offered in support of your position a quote (misapplied) from a guy who was arguing the opposite of your position.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No we aren't. You are claiming that before our universe there was nothing. Period.

We are saying that just because the universe may have had a beginning (which is not yet conclusive, btw), doesn't mean that there was nothing else ever.

And you offered in support of your position a quote (misapplied) from a guy who was arguing the opposite of your position.

No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Same justification for the fine tuning of the universe. We've been over this.

You haven't shown how an un-caused cause needs fine tuning or how something which is not of the natural world would need fine tuning.

 

[[serious]]

No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.

What about all those other universes?

 

[[serious]]

You haven't shown how an un-caused cause needs fine tuning or how something which is not of the natural world would need fine tuning.

You haven't shown that the natural laws can't be an uncaused cause.

 

[46AND2]

No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.

Then you picked an odd article to support your argument, since the guy clearly doesn't agree with you if he believes there are other universes.

But let's be honest here, you really are arguing that there was nothing and then god started it all with our universe.

 

[JaneC]

You haven't shown how an un-caused cause needs fine tuning or how something which is not of the natural world would need fine tuning.

All based on your need to believe, why do need to believe all of this?
Get ready for a question.

 

[KCfromNC]

No.

To which question : is god nothing? Is your source wrong when he says that nothing existed before the universe? Is the nothing he was talking about not the kind of nothing you were? Come on, clear up this contradiction.

 

[KCfromNC]

Uh, try again?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_25

 

[KCfromNC]

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

You're bringing up this god character quite a bit. Is it part of OUR universe or not?