Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

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?

I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it doesn't.



Most scientists feel this way, yes.

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

Scientists are the ones claiming this you know.

 

[46AND2]

I'm sorry, the reason it is important to demonstrate that the universe had a beginning is that theism (Christianity) predicts that this universe had a beginning.

I see. So why get all huffy when I suggested that this is what you were after, earlier?

 

[46AND2]

Scientists are the ones claiming this you know.

Show me a couple scientists who claim something came from nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I see. So why get all huffy when I suggested that this is what you were after, earlier?

I don't remember being huffy?

 

[46AND2]

I don't remember being huffy?

here:

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Show me a couple scientists who claim something came from nothing.

MY links provided those. You are referring to the universe coming from nothing right?

http://boingboing.net/2014/05/20/what-came-before-the-big-bang.html

Translated into statements about the real universe, I am describing an origin in which space itself comes into existence at the big bang and expands from nothing to form a larger and larger volume. The matter and energy content of the universe likewise originates at or near the beginning, and populates the universe everywhere at all times. Again, I must stress that the speck from which space emerges is not located in anything. It is not an object surrounded by emptiness. It is the origin of space itself, infinitely compressed. Note that the speck does not sit there for an infinite duration. It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. This is why the question of why it does not collapse to a black hole is irrelevant. Indeed, according to the theory of relativity, there is no possibility of the speck existing through time because time itself begins at this point.

http://discovermagazine.com/2013/september/13-starting-point

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]

here:

Oh, well I guess you are right. I suppose you would feel the same if someone was claiming that they know better what you are arguing than you do.

The point to that remark was made was in regard to God starting it all WITH OUR UNIVERSE. I didn't make that claim.

 

[46AND2]

MY links provided those. You are referring to the universe coming from nothing right?

One of them claims the universe came as a result of the expansion of other universes, not nothing.

The other claims the universe came from quantum interactions, not nothing. (interestingly, he (Davies) does give a little credence to the idea of multiple universes, too. )

 

[Oncedeceived]

One of them claims the universe came as a result of the expansion of other universes, not nothing.

The other claims the universe came from quantum interactions, not nothing. (interestingly, he (Davies) does give a little credence to the idea of multiple universes, too. )

I pointed out where they said it was from nothing.

It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. Paul Davies

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.

 

[46AND2]

I pointed out where they said it was from nothing.

It appears instantaneously from nothing and immediately expands. Paul Davies

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.

Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?

Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?

Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?

It doesn't matter. The evidence is that there was nothing...nothing at all prior to the Big Bang and then there was our universe.

Edited to add:

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

 

[46AND2]

It doesn't matter. The evidence is that there was nothing...nothing at all prior to the Big Bang and then there was our universe.

Of course it matters. I asked you to provide a couple examples of scientists who argue that something came from nothing, since that is what you claimed scientists do.

Neither of those scientists claim that something comes from nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course it matters. I asked you to provide a couple examples of scientists who argue that something came from nothing, since that is what you claimed scientists do.

Neither of those scientists claim that something comes from nothing.

They both do. Again:

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

 

[46AND2]

They both do. Again:

Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?

Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?

If it doesn't matter, why evade the answers?

 

[46AND2]

There was nothing on top of a table, then there was a cup. There were absolutely no cups on the table previously. Nothing occupied that space until the cup was there. Is that something from nothing?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Does Vilenkin state that the universe is a result of the expansion of other another universe, or not?

Does Davies state that the universe came from quantum fluctuation, or not?

If it doesn't matter, why evade the answers?

I'm not evading, it simply doesn't matter.

Davies claims that the universe from Quantum physics is on shaky ground and is far from satisfactory as an explanation for the universe coming from nothing.

Vilenkin thinks it is from the expansion of other universes, it is a theory for which he has no evidence.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There was nothing on top of a table, then there was a cup. There were absolutely no cups on the table previously. Nothing occupied that space until the cup was there. Is that something from nothing?

Nope.

Did Paul Davies say that nothing was nothing... no pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges?

 

[46AND2]

Nope.

Did Paul Davies say that nothing was nothing... no pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges?

Why not? Since it doesn't matter where the cup came from, as you say, all that matters is that once there was no cup, now a cup. Ergo, something from nothing.

 

[[serious]]

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.

Ok, so now you are fine with the natural laws existing before our universe? Great!

And if the laws are part of the law giver, that further embodies my point that fine tuned laws also indicate a fine tuned God. We're finally finding some common ground!