Fine tuning, a new approach

[[serious]]

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.

If you are actually fine with other universes, natural laws, etc existing before the big bang, and are just saying our universe didn't exist before it exists, then I'm fine with that too, but it's a tautology to say, "things don't exist until they exist" so while true, it doesn't really help anything.

So, before our universe, there were some number of prior universes, universe creation will go on infinitely, the natural laws transcend our universe and caused our universe, and, of course, each one of those infinite universes doesn't predate it's own existence. All good so far?

Given infinite universes, what are the odds that a universe with a small, but nonzero odds of existence will eventually occur? taking a simple limit says that probability is 1.

You've just broken your own fine tuning argument.

 

[[serious]]

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

Energy of the vacuum. We observe the creation of such particles even in the present universe. In fact, on unimaginably long time scales such random fluctuations will create another big bang.

 

[[serious]]

Yes, we do.

Except for all those other universes that could have existed per your link.

 

[[serious]]

Nope.

Did Paul Davies say that nothing was nothing... no pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges?

What about God?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not? Since it doesn't matter where the cup came from, as you say, all that matters is that once there was no cup, now a cup. Ergo, something from nothing.

There was no table, no cup...no nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except for all those other universes that could have existed per your link.

Your point?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ok, so now you are fine with the natural laws existing before our universe? Great!

And if the laws are part of the law giver, that further embodies my point that fine tuned laws also indicate a fine tuned God. We're finally finding some common ground!

I don't see why God must be fine tuned. You haven't really expounded on the necessity of that part.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Energy of the vacuum. We observe the creation of such particles even in the present universe. In fact, on unimaginably long time scales such random fluctuations will create another big bang.

There is no space for a vacuum. There are no particles. There is nothing.

 

[Oncedeceived]

If you are actually fine with other universes, natural laws, etc existing before the big bang, and are just saying our universe didn't exist before it exists, then I'm fine with that too, but it's a tautology to say, "things don't exist until they exist" so while true, it doesn't really help anything.

So, before our universe, there were some number of prior universes, universe creation will go on infinitely, the natural laws transcend our universe and caused our universe, and, of course, each one of those infinite universes doesn't predate it's own existence. All good so far?

Given infinite universes, what are the odds that a universe with a small, but nonzero odds of existence will eventually occur? taking a simple limit says that probability is 1.

You've just broken your own fine tuning argument.

Where did those laws of physics originate?

 

[Oncedeceived]

What about God?

What about Him?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Except for all those other universes that could have existed per your link.

That doesn't give OUR universe no space, no matter, no energy, and no time and nothing prior to the Big Bang. Other universe MIGHT exist but that doesn't provide an explanation for whatever law generator/universe generator that originated the fine tuned parameters.

 

[46AND2]

There was no table, no cup...no nothing.

But that is not what your sources are saying. One of them says there were other universes, and the other explicitly said he was not saying the universe formed ex nihilo.

 

[Oncedeceived]

But that is not what your sources are saying. One of them says there were other universes, and the other explicitly said he was not saying the universe formed ex nihilo.

You are ignoring the part where he says there was nothing...nothing at all. Why?

 

[46AND2]

You are ignoring the part where he says there was nothing...nothing at all. Why?

Not ignoring it. I've addressed it many times. He's saying there was nothing which defines the cup, no cup mass, no cup volume, no cupness whatsoever. But since he posits other universes, he's obviously not saying there was nothing to place the cup.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Not ignoring it. I've addressed it many times. He's saying there was nothing which defines the cup, no cup mass, no cup volume, no cupness whatsoever. But since he posits other universes, he's obviously not saying there was nothing to place the cup.

No, he is not. Paul Davies strongly claims that is not the case: Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

 

[46AND2]

No, he is not. Paul Davies strongly claims that is not the case: Perhaps “nothing” here means something more subtle, like pre-space, or some abstract state from which space emerges? But again, this is not what is intended by the word. As Stephen Hawking has remarked, the question “What lies north of the North Pole?” can also be answered by “nothing,” not because there is some mysterious Land of Nothing there, but because the region referred to simply does not exist. It is not merely physically, but also logically, non-existent. So too with the epoch before the big bang.

You should get your quotes straight. It was the other guy who said "nothing, nothing at all," and that was what I was responding to.

At any rate, battery is low, the response to the Davies quote will have to wait til after work.

 

[quatona]

With there being all these questions where the laws of nature originated, I am wondering where the laws of causality originated.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Where God resides or other universes for that matter are of no concern to my claim. My claim is about OUR universe and the fine tuning of it and why it is better explained by theism than naturalism.

So, when you talk about the "natural world", what you really mean is just this particular universe?

Can you please answer the questions in the post you are replying to, instead of moving the goalposts...

 

[DogmaHunter]

It is Freedom OF Religion

That doesn't sound right in my head. I think it's freedom "from" religion.
Freedom OF religion, sounds to me like you have the freedom of choosing one religion over the other, while freedom "from" religion means that you can simply ignore the entire religious thing and not care about it, nore be influenced by it in any way.

Perhaps it's my limited understanding of english though.

In any case, freedom of/from religion also implies that you are free to be not religious at all AND are under no obligation at all to care one bit about any particular religious rules or customs or whatever. Just like I am free to not play soccer and ignore everything that has anything, even only remotely, to do with it.

You have the right not to have a religion and we have a right to one...any one of our choice.

Yep.

Everyone is free to believe whatever nonsense they wish.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I never claimed I would.

Then your objections to anyone disagreeing with such claims is inappropriate.
Even more inappropriate is you demanding evidence for the position of those people, while you aren't even prepared or able to do the same for your own positions.

If you get to make unfounded claims without a need to support them, then so can others.