Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

Then your objections to anyone disagreeing with such claims is inappropriate.
Even more inappropriate is you demanding evidence for the position of those people, while you aren't even prepared or able to do the same for your own positions.

If you get to make unfounded claims without a need to support them, then so can others.

This thread was a spin-off from my thread which specifically stated I was not claiming fine tuning was proof of God's existence. I claimed that fine tuning is better explained by theism than naturalism.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Or did they at all?

I'll bite. Did they at all?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Space-time had a beginning.
There's no space-time in a singularity. But that singularity still qualifes as "the universe". It just exists in another "form" or "stage" or whatever you wish to call it. Since we can't go beyond Planck time, as has been explained numerous times now to you, we really can't call it a fact that the universe "had a beginning" or once didn't exist and then did.

We simply don't know that.
We know space-time expanded and we can trace back that expansion all the way to Planck time. At Planck time, both space and time exist.

We then assume that going back that extra fraction to reach T = 0, we end up with a singularity with no space and no time. And as we are at T = 0 there, there is no "before" that point either.

So for all we know, the universe has always existed.
And we assume that space-time didn't exist at T = 0, as the universe had the form of a singularity at that point. Again, we assume this, we don't know this. It's a pretty reasonable assumption perhaps given the things we DO know, sure, but it is not a FACT.

This is not true:

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.

In my experience, people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can’t explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mindset behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hardwired for us to think in terms of cause and effect. Because normal physical causation takes place within time, with effect following cause, there is a natural tendency to envisage a chain of causation stretching back in time, either without any beginning, or else terminating in a metaphysical First Cause, or Uncaused Cause, or Prime Mover. But cosmologists now invite us to contemplate the origin of the universe as having no prior cause in the normal sense, not because it has an abnormal or supernatural prior cause, but because there is simply no prior epoch in which a preceding causative agency -- natural or supernatural -- can operate. Paul Davies, What came before the Big Bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I say it does matter a lot.
But it's clear that you don't wish to go down that road, as it would expose the special pleading and arguments from ignorance.

Just as there MIGHT be other universes of which we can not observe, the same is true of the spiritual world of God. I wasn't trying to evade nor use special pleading. It really doesn't matter because we are discussing OUR universe.

Ha, so you don't know that, you just believe it.
Yet, you stated it as if it were a fact, in the form of a truth claim.

I believe Christian theology because I know God. I know He exists, and that He is the Biblical God. I don't "just" believe it, I have reason to believe it.

But.... you just said that that is merely what you believe because your religion dictates it....

See above.

And when I ask you questions about this world and that world where your god resides, all I get is an evasive "that doesn't matter"...

So, can you really blame me that, in response to statements like the above quote, I just shrug my shoulders and move on?

No you don't.

You keep saying this.... I asked you why and in response you, once again, just repeat the claim.

I did: 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.

What world does your god exist in?
Is that world part of reality?
How is it different from the "natural" world?
When you say "natural world", what exactly do you mean? Are you then talking about just our universe? If yes, then why not just call it "the universe"?

The natural world yes is our universe.

The fact that you don't just call it "the universe" leads me to conclude that there is a difference. What is that difference?

Yes.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As I have said to you so many times already, there currently exists no conclusive model about the origins of the universe.

Having said that, this doesn't address what I said at all.
I told you that when physicists talk about "nothing", they don't mean "absolute nothingness". So stop pretending that they do.

Paul Davies says that is simply not true.

There was no such epoch as “before the big bang,” because time began with the big bang. Unfortunately, the question is often answered with the bald statement “There was nothing before the big bang,”and this has caused yet more misunderstandings. Many people interpret “nothing” in this context to mean empty space, but as I have been at pains to point out, space simply did not exist prior to the big bang.

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.

In my experience, people get very upset when told this. They think they have been tricked, verbally or logically. They suspect that scientists can’t explain the ultimate origin of the universe and are resorting to obscure and dubious concepts like the origin of time merely to befuddle their detractors. The mindset behind such outraged objection is understandable: our brains are hardwired for us to think in terms of cause and effect.

 

[Oncedeceived]

It's rather easy though....

I can build sophisticated tools. My cat can't. I'm "fine tuned" to build such tools. My cat isn't.

God would have to be "fine tuned" to build universes.

Cats can purr, they must be fine tuned.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No. All of it exists at Planck time.

So?

 

[Oncedeceived]

First of all, "the universe having a beginning" and "before the universe, there was absolutely nothing" are two very different statements.

Secondly, what evidence, exactly, supports the idea that before the universe, there was "absolutely nothing"?

I have supplied a paper on the Big Bang by Paul Davies which completely refutes what you are saying but you continue to say it. Go figure.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Nobody here made such a claim.
Instead, we are merely pointing out the flaws in YOUR claim. Which does not include, imply or require a claim of the exact opposite of your claim.




How does this support that before the universe existed, there was "absolutely nothing"?

You totally ignore what he says: 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]

I'ld say that they just "are" and don't require any origination.

Because, in the end, what are they, REALLY?

It's not like they are like written rules that each atom must "obbey" or something.
Rather, what they are is really just descriptive of how matter, energy etc interact / behave.

The laws are fundamental elements of our reality, separate from all the material "stuff" out there, and that they dictate natural processes. Why do matter and energy behave the way they do, because there are laws of physics that govern how they behave.

Things that exist have properties and attributes. By necessity. Things that exist exist in a certain way. These properties and attributes will be the underlying cause of how things interact with eachother. Again, not by "command", but by necessity.

The necessity is the laws of physics.

Atoms aren't "meant" or "purposed" to come together and form stars or planets.
Rather, that's just what happens when you have a space-time with matter in it that has mass. The mass will curve space-time, causing gravitational pull. This gravitational pull will then cause matter to come together in ever increasing forces, relative to the amount of mass coming together. Which eventually forms stars and planets.

This is interesting how you have it all figured out about how it behaves but it is due to the laws of physics that mass or gravity do anything.

The way you talk about laws, you make it seem as if this "law giver" would be able to "rewrite" them at any time in however way he pleases.

No, that is not the way I talk about the laws.

That's complete nonsense. There is no "law giver" because there is no such thing as "laws". What we mean by "laws of physics" are rather the descriptive models we humans develop while describing how matter and energy interact in space time, based on the properties and attributes of things that exist.

That is nonsense. If we didn't describe these "laws" does that mean that they don't really exist? We have discovered the laws of physics, we didn't create them to describe what we observe, the laws of physics would still be governing the universe whether or not we were here to "describe" them.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So does every single other creation myth.

False again.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I've explained it a few times now. What specifically are you having trouble with?

Actually explaining why.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I thought there was God. (And a whole bunch of universes that don't count for some reason) Hope you aren't having a crisis of faith.

For OUR universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

They didnt, just as God didn't. They exist on a level outside our timeline.

Ok, so I can clearly see how God being an intelligent being with a rational mind and total creative power could provide explanation for laws that govern His creation. How do you explain the laws not having an origin?

 

[DogmaHunter]

I answered it.

I must have missed it. which post?

 

[Oncedeceived]

God did not begin at the big bang, therefore not everything began at the big bang. Thus the laws of physics need nor begin at the big bang.

God was known by individuals prior to anything being known about the Big Bang or the laws of physics but Christian theology claims that God originated the governing laws of the universe as well as creating the universe from nothing. Christian theology claims that God is the uncaused cause, or the eternal necessary Being for our universe to exist. So it is perfectly cohesive and explanatory to find that indeed OUR universe was created from nothing, and that there are laws that govern it all.

Now how in a naturalistic explanation do the laws of physic exist eternally and what predicted that prior to discovering them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I must have missed it. which post?

This doesn't tell me what this is from? I had 25 notifications to respond to today. Please provide the whole context of this and I will answer it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God is that finely tuned universe generator. We've been over this.

No, you have asserted that but have given nothing to support it.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Just as there MIGHT be other universes of which we can not observe, the same is true of the spiritual world of God.

But they aren't equally probable or likely though.

Because we know FOR SURE that AT LEAST one universe actually exists. For that reason alone, assuming other universes exist is a far more reasonable assumption then assuming the existence of an entity of which NO examples are present.

Occam's razor.

I wasn't trying to evade nor use special pleading. It really doesn't matter because we are discussing OUR universe.

That's not really true. Your claims are going beyond just our universe.

I believe Christian theology because I know God. I know He exists, and that He is the Biblical God. I don't "just" believe it, I have reason to believe it.

There you go again, confusing knowledge with beliefs.

Knowledge is demonstrable.
Please demonstrate this "knowledge" you supposedly have.

I did: 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.

Again.......... you keep claiming this........
And every time questions are asked about it, all you do is restate the claims.

The natural world yes is our universe.

So, if other universes exist, they wouldn't be part of the "natural world" either?

Can you please answer the rest of the questions:

What world does your god exist in?
Is that world part of reality?
How is it different from the "natural" world?

Yes.

I didn't ask a yes/no question, so I don't understand this answer.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Cats can purr, they must be fine tuned.

Care to actually address the point being made, or is this evasion mode permanent?