Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
No, it is not just a feeling. I totally understand that you have not experienced God and so you have nothing to go on.
Upvote
0
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.
No, it is not just a feeling. I totally understand that you have not experienced God and so you have nothing to go on.You say that but you never ever say how they could even begin to know such a thing, be honest, it's just a feeling you and they have, sadly feelings prove only one thing, you are alive, we all have feelings so it's no big deal.
Science is a great tool. We have the technology to look back to the very first seconds of the universe's beginning.How do we know that?
So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:
A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.
Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)
Instead, let me ask this:
Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity? To rephrase the argument above:
A very specific set of traits cannot be much different than what they are for a deity to create life as we know it. Thus, some intelligent being must have created such a deity.
Consider, what are the odds that, given one and only one deity:
That deity values life
That deity chose physical entities
That deity wishes to be discoverable by statistical methods
That deity does not wish to visibly maintain the underlying systems of the universe
... and so on.
Now, it seems to me if the second argument fails, so does the first. If neither fails, we are left with an infinite regression of singular, ever more powerful deities.
So, what is the failure of the fine tuned deity argument, and why does the analogous argument for a fine tuned universe fail?
And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?Science is a great tool. We have the technology to look back to the very first seconds of the universe's beginning.
Are you very familiar with the Big Bang theory? Space, Matter, energy and time didn't exist. How would the laws of nature exist when space, matter, energy and time didn't?And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?
They are measured in our finite universe much as God may be experienced in our finite universe.
2. Those who argue fine-tuning most of the time also argue against abiogenesis and for the special creation of life itself, which completely undermines the fine-tuning argument because even if fine-tuning were the case life still wouldn't exist without intervention so the fine-tuning doesn't matter.
You forget that the Fine Tuner wants the objective reality to be orderly and reasonable. The fine tuner also wants to allow a choice. One can choose to believe that the natural world is all there is and dismiss the evidence that points to the fine tuner or you can recognize that the design is that of a designer.The fine-tuning arguments, for me, seems to have some implications that believers always seem to ignore.
1. it means that life as we know it and the Universe require those constants in order to exist making them objective reality above the fine-tuner. Otherwise the constants could be anything and life would still exist in spite of what those constants were.
The universe and life itself wouldn't exist without intervention in terms of the fine tuning of the universe. It is all the same.2. Those who argue fine-tuning most of the time also argue against abiogenesis and for the special creation of life itself, which completely undermines the fine-tuning argument because even if fine-tuning were the case life still wouldn't exist without intervention so the fine-tuning doesn't matter.
Certain aspects of physics break down at certain energy levels. This can happen at either extreme. For example, for very low temperatures you get bose Einstein condensates. This doesn't mean that all laws of physics break down there, just that some specific things become unknowable. In fact, it's because of the laws of physics that such condensates form.Are you very familiar with the Big Bang theory? Space, Matter, energy and time didn't exist. How would the laws of nature exist when space, matter, energy and time didn't?
Which is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.Certain aspects of physics break down at certain energy levels. This can happen at either extreme. For example, for very low temperatures you get bose Einstein condensates. This doesn't mean that all laws of physics break down there, just that some specific things become unknowable. In fact, it's because of the laws of physics that such condensates form.
Now, with the big bang, you have several decouplings that occurred as we look further and further back. One again, physics describes all of these. This goes back all the way to the the separation of gravitation from the unified force. We have about a Planck time before that which we think quantum gravitational forces dominated, and before that the state of the universe is theoretically unknowable according to the laws of physics as we understand them.
It isn't so much that nothing could have existed prior to that, but that anything prior to that is casually unrelated to our universe.
No, you are misunderstanding. You are making two hard statements for which you have no supporting evidence. In addition, one of those points conflicts with one of your earlier claims:Which is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.
Let me back up on this and approach it according to the op. Can God exist apart from any universe? Same answer for physicsWhich is what I said. Space, matter, energy and time didn't exist. If space, matter, energy, and time didn't exist the laws of physics could not exist.
If God can create a universe where all of these other needs are met through natural processes, why not abiogenesis. Why stop just short?
They don't see past a certain point, which is the point.And how could science look back that far unless some law of nature was constant that far back?
God is eternal, we know that the laws of physics came into existence.Let me back up on this and approach it according to the op. Can God exist apart from any universe? Same answer for physics
Which is rather obvious when you look at the chances of this occurring by chance.So, numerous fine tuning threads have popped up recently, and all of them follow the same general pattern:
A very specific set of values for a number of constants cannot be much different than what they are for life as we know it to exist. Thus, some intelligent being must have set them to such values.
As in "Who created God"?Now, the traditional approach is to dissect each link in the chain pointing out that different values do not rule out other forms of intelligence which we may or may not be able to conceive of, the possibility that further theoretical work may indicate that the values are deterministic much like inflation did for the cosmological constant. They may also point out that most such values are only "tuned" to an order of magnitude. These arguments often fail to convince as they tend to touch on levels of math and science that are not always the most intuitive (conflating very small numbers with very precise numbers comes up frequently)
Instead, let me ask this:
Assuming some intelligence set the numbers such as they are, does that require a finely tuned deity?
I didn't say anything about "before" the big bang as there is nothing before the big bang that we can know. What we do know is that there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.No, you are misunderstanding. You are making two hard statements for which you have no supporting evidence. In addition, one of those points conflicts with one of your earlier claims:
1. You claim there was no mass or energy before the big bang. We have no way of assessing this. Nothing before the big bang has any causal relationship to our universe. We have no way of determining what was before the big bang because it has no impact on our universe.
No I didn't say that "the laws of Physics" cannot exist without matter and energy but for this universe we do know they didn't and then they did.2. You state that physics cannot exist without matter and energy. We again have no reason to believe this. In fact, every indication we have is that physics continues working even in absolute vacuum with no mass or energy, quantum fluctuations still occur.
I didn't say they would have laws of physics prior to them existing.Lastly, you previously said that we could model what alternate universes with different constants would look like. Now you are saying that physics can't exist without the universe existing. It's got to be one or the other.
How do we know that? The laws of nature go back as far as we can see, and it's the laws of nayure that keep us from seeing any further.God is eternal, we know that the laws of physics came into existence.
if we can't know what was before (true), how are you making a difinitive statement that there was nothing? If we can't know what was there, we by definition can't know that nothing was there.I didn't say anything about "before" the big bang as there is nothing before the big bang that we can know. What we do know is that there was no space, no matter, no energy and no time.
as far back as we can theoretically know the laws of nature existed. It is the laws of nature that keep us from knowing anymore.No I didn't say that "the laws of Physics" cannot exist without matter and energy but for this universe we do know they didn't and then they did.
Then what would we use to determine their nature if not physics?I didn't say they would have laws of physics prior to them existing.
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?