Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
State exactly what you think scientists are claiming please. I think you have a very different idea of what they do of fine tuning and why it is to them unlikely.
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.
State exactly what you think scientists are claiming please. I think you have a very different idea of what they do of fine tuning and why it is to them unlikely.I don't know. What are the odds that scientists have calculated for our universe being the way it is? Last time I asked you couldn't answer, which leads me to believe that you're the one making the mistake.
You first say I don't allow the possibility of saying I don't know and then you claim I keep saying I don't know...maybe it is you that is having the problem with contradiction.So you say, and yet you keep coming back to "I don't know" when you're probed about these alleged scientific discoveries which you claim support it.
I am conversing with many posters, if you don't care enough to bring them forward I am sure not going to worry about what you seem to think is contradictory.The point about you contradicting yourself.
Click back through the quotes if you need to refresh your memory.
This seems to be a common fallacy among non-believers or former believers. It seems that they seem to think belief in God is a self contained self induced state of mind. The revelation of God is not just a nice little feeling.
Supreme Being is pretty much the standard.
There was nothing and then there was a universe. How? This is a logical question. Then we might want to ask why? IF you have no concern yourself that is something you hold to but for many many people the how and the why are important.
Do better explanations require them to be mathematical to come to some conclusion?
Yes.
The physical universe and everything within it is finite. It began to exist. God did not begin to exist but has existed forever.
I am not going into the revelation of God in this thread. Confirmation of what we would see in the world which aligns with what we should see confirms the personal aspects of revelation. If theism is true we should see design in the universe and in life forms. The fact that the universe has elements that confirm what we should see in the universe if that revelation is true, gives us something outside of ourselves to come to those conclusions.How do you differentiate a "personal revelation" from a "self induced state of mind"?
State exactly what you think scientists are claiming please. I think you have a very different idea of what they do of fine tuning and why it is to them unlikely.
You first say I don't allow the possibility of saying I don't know and then you claim I keep saying I don't know
How do you differentiate a "personal revelation" from a "self induced state of mind"?
And lacking any such "personal revelation" myself, how do I tell the difference when you claim to have had such a "personal revelation"? How do I differentiate your "personal revelations" from your "self induced states of mind"?
There was nothing and then there was a universe.
How? This is a logical question.
Then we might want to ask why?
When you call something "more likely" then something else, then you ARE talking about math. Probability.Do better explanations require them to be mathematical to come to some conclusion?
God did not begin to exist but has existed forever.
State exactly what you think scientists are claiming please. I think you have a very different idea of what they do of fine tuning and why it is to them unlikely.
I am conversing with many posters, if you don't care enough to bring them forward I am sure not going to worry about what you seem to think is contradictory.
Believe what you wish.Considering that polytheists make up a sizeable percentage of the world's population, I don't believe you.
Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.That's a nice non-answer. How about trying to actually address what you're responding to :
"How are you defining cause, given that this alleged cause happened before time as we know it existed?"
I've supported my claims.And again, you didn't answer the question. There seems to be a pattern here - make bold claims and then change the subject when asked to support them.
I've answered all questions addressed to me.At least this one wasn't an attempt at a dodge.
I gave a link that you must have missed that provided support to that conclusion.Did it now? How do you know?
I agree, the consensus of the physicists is that the origins of the universe are unknown.The current consensus among physicists is that the origins of the universe, are unknown.
There is big bang theory, but that doesn't deal with the origin. That theory doesn't state what "banged" or how it "banged" or where the stuff that "banged" came from, or if there even was any stuff that "banged" in the first place.
I think you have been told enough times that it is currently unknown what lies beyond Planck time, it would be energy wasting to repeat it - eventhough I just did, because I can't help myself.
And yes, you can quote a bunch of individual scientists, each with their own ideas, opinions and (sometimes unprovable) hypothesis, etc... And I could do the same, if I thought making arguments from authority were a good thing. But that doesn't change the fact that there is no consensus on any of these ideas at all. Hence, the concensus at this point is "we don't know, we're working on it".
I replied to his accusation of contradiction and pointed out why it wasn't.I didn't expect anything else...
I didn't expect you to care about potentially making contradicting arguments/
I didn't expect you to worry about it either.
KC is also discussing the very same contradiction I spotted as well. You're avoiding his point like the plague as well.
Cause: a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition.
I agree, the consensus of the physicists is that the origins of the universe are unknown.
The Big Bang theory has a wide range of evidence for it. They do know that there was a start to the universe and after that start or that beginning they have evidence for it expanding creating space, matter, energy and time.
Indeed, I don't know that god is not the answer, once....So if you don't know, you don't know that God is not the answer do you?
Christianity alone consists of 1/3 of the world population.
We could sort this out pretty easily if you'd just post the papers where they calculate a consensus number for exactly how unlikely they've determined our universe to be. For some reason, you seem to be trying to do everything but that. Why is that?
Vilenkin says it did.After planck time, yes. We don't know squad about before planck time.
So I could actually even nitpick about your use of the words "start" and "begin".
The important thing to remember here is that before planck time is unknown.
So stating that there was "nothing" there is not something that is in evidence. It's an idea and physicists exploring that idea certainly will have a few things to share about why they think it is an idea worth exploring.
Just like physicists also explore other ideas, like multi-verses etc.
But none of this is in evidence. All these ideas exist at the frontier of our current knowledge. And like Krauss always likes to point out: "most likely, all these ideas (including mine) will turn out to be wrong when we discover the actual answer".
It isn't a fall back, it is relevant to your point of view. You categorize God with a unicorn which shows that you are not willing to even consider such a possibility.Indeed, I don't know that god is not the answer, once....
I also don't know that a unicorn, or anything else my imagination can produce, is not the answer.
To see theists so frequently and consistently fall back on such statements after a while in these kinds of discussion, is very telling, really.
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?