Fine tuning, a new approach

[KCfromNC]

We have to assume they have an abstract, eternal character and a law giver is completely cohesive with that. I have no problem with that, but the evidence like I said supports my point.

If "I can't guess there might be a contradiction" is your idea of good enough evidence to believe in something I've got a bridge to sell you.

 

[AdamSK]

No, I was arguing that OUR universe had a beginning and that space, matter, energy and time didn't exist until our universe did.

We don't know this to be true. The Big Bang model posits expansion from a singularity about 14 billion years ago. No idea what did or didn't exist before that.

 

[KCfromNC]

You haven't provided any support for that assertion.

Think of all the variables that must have come together for god to want to design our universe the way believers claim it did. If any of those were even slightly different it would have created a universe with slightly different constants, and we all know that all scientists accept that would mean a vastly different universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

What about all those other universes?

What about them?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You haven't shown that the natural laws can't be an uncaused cause.

Why would laws that govern OUR universe be eternal when the universe they govern didn't?

 

[[serious]]

What about them?

You know, then existing with matter and energy and what not.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Then you picked an odd article to support your argument, since the guy clearly doesn't agree with you if he believes there are other universes.

But let's be honest here, you really are arguing that there was nothing and then god started it all with our universe.

Are you trying to tell me what I'm arguing as if you know and I don't. Rather arrogant don't you think? I've not claimed nor implied that God started "it all with our universe". This link provided the support for MY CLAIM that there was nothing and then there was our universe with space, matter, energy and time. His evidence said that going back there is nothing...nothing at all and then there is something...our universe. What comes prior if there is a prior to this nothing and then something be it trillions and trillions of universes or absolutely nothing whatsoever is not part of my claim.

 

[[serious]]

Why would laws that govern OUR universe be eternal when the universe they govern didn't?

Why would the good that governs or universe be eternal?

Same reason.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You know, then existing with matter and energy and what not.

Yes? They exist with space, matter, energy and time. So what about them?

 

[[serious]]

Are you trying to tell me what I'm arguing as if you know and I don't. Rather arrogant don't you think? I've not claimed nor implied that God started "it all with our universe". This link provided the support for MY CLAIM that there was nothing and then there was our universe with space, matter, energy and time. His evidence said that going back there is nothing...nothing at all and then there is something...our universe. What comes prior if there is a prior to this nothing and then something be it trillions and trillions of universes or absolutely nothing whatsoever is not part of my claim.

Lots of other universes aren't nothing. They are lots of other universes. That's why your link disagrees with you.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why would the good that governs or universe be eternal?

Same reason.

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.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Lots of other universes aren't nothing. They are lots of other universes. That's why your link disagrees with you.

Then why does he say there was nothing, nothing at all and go on and say there were a multitude of universes. He is saying the same thing I am. I don't care if there are a multitude of universes and it is not part of my claim.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We don't know this to be true. The Big Bang model posits expansion from a singularity about 14 billion years ago. No idea what did or didn't exist before that.

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

 

[DogmaHunter]

So what are you claiming that I am saying is incorrect or unknown exactly?

The statement you posted 2 posts ago and which prompted my response:

What we know is that our universe didn't exist, no space, no energy, no matter, no time.

We do not know that.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The statement you posted 2 posts ago and which prompted my response:



We do not know that.

Yes, we do.

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, God would not be part of the natural world. He would have created the natural world.

So that's your response to my post? A reïteration of your claim?

If your god exists, (s)he god exists somewhere, right?
"somewhere", not being necessarily in this universe.

But the "place" that god exists in, that "place" exists as well, right?
So this god, as well as that "place", is part of some fundamental reality, right?
A reality which includes all that exists: this universe, the "place" where god resides and god him/her/itself. Correct?


An interesting side question that just popped in my head... wouldn't the "place" be fine-tuned for this god, by the way? ;-P

 

[DogmaHunter]

Now is that a fact?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Southeast_Asia/HC02Ae03.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...ds-most-Christian-nation-within-15-years.html

Communist governments are not exactly famous for promoting religion. More commonly they try to suppress it, because "The Party" doesn't like the competition.

Indeed.

A more correct statement is that those with such problems, are those countries / groups that enforce a dogmatic creed of some sort. This can be a traditional religion. It can also be a political system. I'm sure you've heared communism being refered to as a "state religion" before. That is what that is about.

So the only thing that religion-oppressing, communist states show, is that replacing one dogmatic creed with another solves nothing.

What solves it, is individual rights, freedom from religion and freedom of speech. Freedom in general, really. With a secular government that doesn't interfere with social groups (churches or whatever else), as long as what those groups do doesn't trample on the rights and freedoms of others.

And that is why secular democracies are currently the best countries to live in today.

 

[DogmaHunter]

You haven't shown how an un-caused cause needs fine tuning or how something which is not of the natural world would need fine tuning.

You haven't even begin to attempt to such that such an "un-causes cause wich is not of the natural world" even exists in the first place.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why would laws that govern OUR universe be eternal when the universe they govern didn't?

Who demonstrated that the universe isn't eternal, and how?

 

[DogmaHunter]

God is not part of the natural world He created,

Of which world is god then a part, then?

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.

How did you conclude that?

The laws of physics make more sense in theism than they do by a purely naturalistic worldview.

Why, exactly?