Fine tuning, a new approach

[DogmaHunter]

Physicists are claiming that the universe came from nothing. That is why they are trying to explain how something could come from nothing.

And while trying to do that, they also define what exactly it is that they mean by "nothing", in context of their hypothesis.

Which is something that you seem to be purposely ignoring.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Yes, we do.

As I have JUST explained to you: no, we don't.

Our knowledge doesn't go further back then Planck time. Which is AFTER T = 0.
And we know for a fact that our knowledge model is either wrong or incomplete.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So that's your response to my post? A reïteration of your claim?

If your god exists, (s)he god exists somewhere, right?
"somewhere", not being necessarily in this universe.

But the "place" that god exists in, that "place" exists as well, right?
So this god, as well as that "place", is part of some fundamental reality, right?
A reality which includes all that exists: this universe, the "place" where god resides and god him/her/itself. Correct?


An interesting side question that just popped in my head... wouldn't the "place" be fine-tuned for this god, by the way? ;-P

Where God resides or other universes for that matter are of no concern to my claim. My claim is about OUR universe and the fine tuning of it and why it is better explained by theism than naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Indeed.



What solves it, is individual rights, freedom from religion and freedom of speech. Freedom in general, really. With a secular government that doesn't interfere with social groups (churches or whatever else), as long as what those groups do doesn't trample on the rights and freedoms of others.

And that is why secular democracies are currently the best countries to live in today.

It is Freedom OF Religion, that goes with individual rights. You have the right not to have a religion and we have a right to one...any one of our choice.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't even begin to attempt to such that such an "un-causes cause wich is not of the natural world" even exists in the first place.

I never claimed I would.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Who demonstrated that the universe isn't eternal, and how?

The evidence supports that OUR universe had a beginning. If it began, it wasn't eternal.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of which world is god then a part, then?

Doesn't matter. He is outside of ours.

How did you conclude that?

Christian theology makes that claim.

Why, exactly?

Did you miss it? Again: God is not part of the natural world He created, the laws of physic are what governs the natural world that He created because the laws of physics are laws that the law giver gave. The laws of physics make more sense in theism than they do by a purely naturalistic worldview. The laws would be part of the law giver, the fine tuner and the creator of the natural world and as such would be prior to the natural world existing as they existed in the mind of God prior to His creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And while trying to do that, they also define what exactly it is that they mean by "nothing", in context of their hypothesis.

Which is something that you seem to be purposely ignoring.

I am not ignoring anything. The explanation of nothing from something still leaves the laws of physics unaddressed. Although a universe, in Vilenkin’s scheme, can come from nothing in the sense of there being no space, time or matter, something is in place beforehand — namely the laws of physics. Those laws govern the something-from-nothing moment of creation that gives rise to our universe, and they also govern eternal inflation, which takes over in the first nanosecond of time. The point however that I was addressing was the nothing...no space, no matter, no time and no energy.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I have JUST explained to you: no, we don't.

Our knowledge doesn't go further back then Planck time. Which is AFTER T = 0.
And we know for a fact that our knowledge model is either wrong or incomplete.

It is after that "time" that we see space, matter, energy and time coming to be.

 

[46AND2]

Are you trying to tell me what I'm arguing as if you know and I don't. Rather arrogant don't you think? I've not claimed nor implied that God started "it all with our universe". This link provided the support for MY CLAIM that there was nothing and then there was our universe with space, matter, energy and time. His evidence said that going back there is nothing...nothing at all and then there is something...our universe. What comes prior if there is a prior to this nothing and then something be it trillions and trillions of universes or absolutely nothing whatsoever is not part of my claim.

*sigh*

For argument's sake, let's say I concede that it is exactly as you describe, nothing, and then our universe.

Now what?

 

[46AND2]

Then why does he say there was nothing, nothing at all and go on and say there were a multitude of universes.

I already answered this question for you....

He is saying the same thing I am. I don't care if there are a multitude of universes and it is not part of my claim.

...and then I asked you, if he is saying what you think he is saying, why does he go on to talk about other universes?

The answer, of course, is that he does not mean what you think he means.

 

[Oncedeceived]

*sigh*

For argument's sake, let's say I concede that it is exactly as you describe, nothing, and then our universe.

Now what?

Then we agree.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I already answered this question for you....



...and then I asked you, if he is saying what you think he is saying, why does he go on to talk about other universes?

The answer, of course, is that he does not mean what you think he means.

Yes he does. There was nothing. That is the evidence. What he is saying that the evidence shows nothing...nothing at all exists until the universe exists. He then goes on to present his theory of how this universe coming from nothing might have come into being. He doesn't believe that this universe from nothing can come from nothing so his theory takes that evidence of nothing and then the universe and hypothesizes how that universe could come from nothing and still be something to explain it.

 

[46AND2]

He doesn't believe that this universe from nothing can come from nothing...

And neither does any other scientist. Which is why we say scientists don't believe something came from nothing.

And why they don't accept that before our universe there was absolutely nothing. Even if they believe that our universe had a beginning (which, again, not all of them do), that doesn't mean that they think there was nothing prior to that.

In other words, the evidence is not evidence of nothing, it is evidence of a beginning of the universe. They are two very different things. Even in that partial quote you posted, he specifically says that the "good evidence," is that the universe has a beginning.

 

[46AND2]

Then we agree.

So where does that get us? Why is it so important to you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning? Which, btw, you haven't demonstrated. You keep saying that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning, but haven't discussed any of that evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

And neither does any other scientist. Which is why we say scientists don't believe something came from nothing.

And why they don't accept that before our universe there was absolutely nothing. Even if they believe that our universe had a beginning (which, again, not all of them do), that doesn't mean that they think there was nothing prior to that.

In other words, the evidence is not evidence of nothing, it is evidence of a beginning of the universe. They are two very different things. Even in that partial quote you posted, he specifically says that the "good evidence," is that the universe has a beginning.

Yes. Regardless, of what they believe (remember it doesn't matter what they believe but what evidence is there)the evidence shows the universe coming from nothing. The evidence we have show the universe had a beginning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So where does that get us? Why is it so important to you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning? Which, btw, you haven't demonstrated. You keep saying that there is evidence that the universe has a beginning, but haven't discussed any of that evidence.

Why is it so important to claim it didn't? Interesting question.

However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.

They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. “Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past,” they say.

They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. “A simple emergent universe model…cannot escape quantum collapse,” they say.

The conclusion is inescapable. “None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal,” say Mithani and Vilenkin.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/

 

[46AND2]

Why is it so important to claim it didn't? Interesting question.

I haven't claimed that it didn't. I've stated many times what my point is: that the universe having a beginning is not the same thing as it coming from nothing. They are two very different things.

Now, since I answered your counter question, would you mind answering my original question?

Why is it important for you to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why so hostile?

Thanks for asking.

 

[46AND2]

...the evidence shows the universe coming from nothing.

No, it doesn't.

The evidence we have show the universe had a beginning.

Most scientists feel this way, yes.

It is NOT the same thing as the universe came from nothing.