Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

If we are going with a hawking interpretatiom, than the universe has no point of beginning. Read up on the harte-hawking state, there's no initial boundary in time or space.

I think that is dated but not sure since I haven't seen anything of this since the 80's or 90's. This is something from 2013:

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

In this he is claiming that all the universes are created out of nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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

You made an assertion without any support and I answered back to the point being made. No evasion whatsoever.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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.

Right, trillions of universes without explanation is far simpler than God.

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

No, they are about this universe.

There you go again, confusing knowledge with beliefs.

There you go confusing knowledge with beliefs.

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

Demonstrate that knowledge can be demonstrated.

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

What are you asking....you asked me why and I told you.

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

Exactly.

Can you please answer the rest of the questions:

I did but again:

What world does your god exist in?

I don't know, just like we don't know what our universe exists "in".

Is that world part of reality?

Yes, but in a different part of reality.

How is it different from the "natural" world?

There is the natural world that we exist in and then there is the spiritual world. If other universes exist, they are natural...God is supernatural.

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

I don't know I am not going back through the responses to find out. I asked that if you are referring to something that is not in the quote you are responding to to please put that in the response too.

 

[46AND2]

We made them up to describe general macroscopic trends in how things behave. Don't look at the exceptions to them too closely. That way lies madness ... and modern semiconductor fabrication, but I repeat myself.

That's what I do for a living.

 

[AdamSK]

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

No, certain physicists have particular models in which the universe came from a zero or near-zero energy state. Those models are not part of the Big Bang theory and there is not a consensus in cosmology that they are correct. Other physicists are working on models where the Big Bang occurs as one interaction in a larger reality of which what we recognize as our universe is only a small part.

We can't know right now whether any of these models are correct. Our knowledge is limited to the aftermath of the Big Bang expansion; the stuff before is still in the hypothetical stage.

 

[AdamSK]

Right, trillions of universes without explanation is far simpler than God.

Yes, for the same reason that if I hand you a box tomorrow, there are far more likely to be millions of bacteria in the box than one pixie.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, certain physicists have particular models in which the universe came from a zero or near-zero energy state. Those models are not part of the Big Bang theory and there is not a consensus in cosmology that they are correct. Other physicists are working on models where the Big Bang occurs as one interaction in a larger reality of which what we recognize as our universe is only a small part.

We can't know right now whether any of these models are correct. Our knowledge is limited to the aftermath of the Big Bang expansion; the stuff before is still in the hypothetical stage.

That is not what Paul Davies, Vilenkin, Barnes or Hawkings say.

 

[[serious]]

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?

How do you explain God not having an origin?

Same answer.

 

[Oncedeceived]

How do you explain God not having an origin?

Same answer.

Nice dodge.

 

[[serious]]

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?

Why can't the laws of physics be the uncaused cause, or the eternal necessary thing for our universe to exist?

 

[[serious]]

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

As the fine tuning of the universe has been asserted. Good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[AdamSK]

That is not what Paul Davies, Vilenkin, Barnes or Hawkings say.

Incorrect again - it is exactly what they say. Please read them more carefully.

Also, "Stephen Hawking" does not have an "s" at the end of it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Incorrect again - it is exactly what they say. Please read them more carefully.

Also, "Stephen Hawking" does not have an "s" at the end of it.

It is what they say. I've even provided their exact words.
Correction noted. I always do that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

As the fine tuning of the universe has been asserted. Good for the goose is good for the gander.

Fine tuning is not asserted, it is well documented.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why can't the laws of physics be the uncaused cause, or the eternal necessary thing for our universe to exist?

Its your story, you tell me.

 

[AdamSK]

Equating God to a pixie is a dead give away.

I didn't equate them; it's an analogy.

One you apparently have no answer for.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't equate them; it's an analogy.

One you apparently have no answer for.

There was no question.

 

[[serious]]

I think that is dated but not sure since I haven't seen anything of this since the 80's or 90's. This is something from 2013:

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence.

http://www.space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

In this he is claiming that all the universes are created out of nothing.

From hawking's own website:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

 

[[serious]]

Nice dodge.

How is that a dodge? The whole subject of this thread is taking the logic that leads you to say the universe is fine tuned and applying it to a creator deity.

 

[Oncedeceived]

From hawking's own website:

"Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theory, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simply not defined, because there's no way one could measure what happened at them. This kind of beginning to the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginnings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a beginning that is required by the dynamical laws that govern the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside."

Your point?