Fine tuning, a new approach

[Oncedeceived]

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.

I don't believe that is true. How did the laws of nature exist before "nature". How did the laws of physics exist before the physical universe?

 

[Oncedeceived]

if we can't know what was before (true), how are you making a difinitive statement that there was nothing?

We know that the universe came into existence and what those few milliseconds that there was no space, matter, energy or time.

If we can't know what was there, we by definition can't know that nothing was there.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.
Then what would we use to determine their nature if not physics?

We do know how it was before the laws of physics were in effect.

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.

Of course, this attempt to explain the origin of the universe is based on an application of the laws of physics. This is normal in science: one takes the underlying laws of the universe as given. But when tangling with ultimate questions, it is only natural that we should also ask about the status of these laws. One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it. However, this does not mean that the laws of physics came into existence with the universe. If they did -- if the entire package of physical universe plus laws just popped into being from nothing -- then we cannot appeal to the laws to explain the origin of the universe. So to have any chance of understanding scientifically how the universe came into existence, we have to assume that the laws have an abstract, eternal character. The alternative is to shroud the origin in mystery and give up.

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

 

[[serious]]

I don't believe that is true. How did the laws of nature exist before "nature". How did the laws of physics exist before the physical universe?

Same way God did.

 

[KCfromNC]

I don't believe that is true. How did the laws of nature exist before "nature". How did the laws of physics exist before the physical universe?

No one knows. That's why pretending to draw conclusions about the existence of gods based on definitive answers to them is a waste of time.

 

[bhsmte]

No one knows. That's why pretending to draw conclusions about the existence of gods based on definitive answers to them is a waste of time.

Can be comforting though.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can be comforting though.

If one is looking to make up reasons to believe stuff that makes them feel comfortable, better not to base that belief in stuff which can potentially be proven false.

 

[bhsmte]

If one is looking to make up reasons to believe stuff that makes them feel comfortable, better not to base that belief in stuff which can potentially be proven false.

Well, if that happens, the defense mechanisms kick in and they claim the evidence that contradicts their belief, is either simply denied or it is claimed to be from evil.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is rather obvious when you look at the chances of this occurring by chance.

The problem is that no one can ever show us how this probability can be calculated.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Same way God did.

God is not physical nor natural so how do you equate them?

 

[Hieronymus]

God is not physical nor natural so how do you equate them?

God is not physical?
It's probably us that's not spiritual.

 

[Oncedeceived]

God is not physical?
It's probably us that's not spiritual.

Are you saying that God the Father IS physical?

 

[Hieronymus]

Are you saying that God the Father IS physical?

I don't see why not.
Do you think you could put your arm through the Father?

 

[Loudmouth]

I don't see why not.
Do you think you could put your arm through the Father?

Do you think you could run faster than Hercules? Do you think you could throw a spear better than Achilles? Do you think you could run up a wall faster than Spider Man?

 

[lesliedellow]

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?

It fails because there is a mathematical model for the universe, but not for a deity, which means that probabilities can be calculated in the one case, but not the other.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I don't see why not.
Do you think you could put your arm through the Father?

We know that Jesus had a spiritual body that could be felt and was I assume solid but I don't know. I never really thought about it I guess.

 

[[serious]]

God is not physical nor natural so how do you equate them?

The natural laws need Not be some physical thing some where. In fact, it would be weird if they were. Of course, being what defines natural, they can't really be in conflict with themselves.

 

[[serious]]

It fails because there is a mathematical model for the universe, but not for a deity, which means that probabilities can be calculated in the one case, but not the other.

There is no mathematical model for the pre big bang universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

There is no mathematical model for the pre big bang universe.

Irrelevant. The huge I probabilities relate to the universe as it existed a tiny fraction of a second after the Big Bang.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The natural laws need Not be some physical thing some where. In fact, it would be weird if they were. Of course, being what defines natural, they can't really be in conflict with themselves.

How does one explain something that is not physical when physical is all there is? Do you believe that there is something more than the physical world then?

 

[AirPo]

How does one explain something that is not physical when physical is all there is? Do you believe that there is something more than the physical world then?

The voices in my head aren't physical.