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.
Physicists are claiming that the universe came from nothing. That is why they are trying to explain how something could come from nothing.
Yes, we do.
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.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
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.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.
I never claimed I would.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.
The evidence supports that OUR universe had a beginning. If it began, it wasn't eternal.Who demonstrated that the universe isn't eternal, and how?
Doesn't matter. He is outside of ours.Of which world is god then a part, then?
Christian theology makes that claim.How did you conclude that?
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.Why, exactly?
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.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.
It is after that "time" that we see space, matter, energy and time coming to be.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.
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.
Then why does he say there was nothing, nothing at all and go on and say there were a multitude of universes.
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.
Then we agree.*sigh*
For argument's sake, let's say I concede that it is exactly as you describe, nothing, and then our universe.
Now what?
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.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.
He doesn't believe that this universe from nothing can come from nothing...
Then we agree.
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.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.
Why is it so important to claim it didn't? Interesting question.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.
...the evidence shows the universe coming from nothing.
The evidence we have show the universe had a beginning.
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?