Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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."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?
Well, I suppose in the same way that God has no explanation in a supernatural world view.To do science we have to take them as a given, they have no explanation in a naturalistic worldview.
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.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."
So God being an uncaused cause relates to the laws of physics in what way?Well, I suppose in the same way that God has no explanation in a supernatural world view.
God must be finely tuned for the same reasons the universe must be finely tuned.So God being an uncaused cause relates to the laws of physics in what way?
Yet another aspect that must be tuned!
You haven't provided any support for that assertion.God must be finely tuned for the same reasons the universe must be finely tuned.
Same justification for the fine tuning of the universe. We've been over this.You haven't provided any support for that assertion.
Other universe are not part of OUR universe are they? We are discussing OUR universe.
No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.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.
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.Same justification for the fine tuning of the universe. We've been over this.
What about all those other universes?No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.
You haven't shown that the natural laws can't be an uncaused cause.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.
No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.
Other universe are not part of OUR universe are they? We are discussing OUR universe.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?