Oncedeceived
Senior Veteran
Ok. How?Eternal would mean they didn't originate. They could exist outside of time like God does.
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.
Ok. How?Eternal would mean they didn't originate. They could exist outside of time like God does.
Right, the numbers were for two different things.Nope, you quoted a few sources with wildly conflicting numbers.
He isn't intelligent, He is intelligence.Are you saying God isnt intelligent?
God's eternal nature is not ad hoc. God's characteristics were given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered.Same questions for your god(s).
And weren't you arguing previously that we're OK assuming the constants could be different because there's no real evidence one way or the other? Why not apply the same standard here?
I don't follow. Saying there could be things outside of our light cone is hardly a radical idea. I think you may be misinterpreting my point.There is no need to postulate anything about the universe, unless, Dad style, you want to postulate that the laws of nature were different in the past. If that were the case, cosmologists would just need to pack their bags and go home, because they wouldn't be able to infer anything from what they observe.
Ok, no idea where you are going with this one. An intelligence is something that is intelligent. I don't see how you seperate the word from it's meaning.He isn't intelligent, He is intelligence.
God's eternal nature is not ad hoc. God's characteristics were given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered.
So the question stands.
I don't follow. Saying there could be things outside of our light cone is hardly a radical idea. I think you may be misinterpreting my point.
Let's back up a bit. To calculate what a different universe would look like, what are we holding constant. Are we looking at just the cosmological constant and playing with that? Well, that can be "tuned" by the inflationary epoch. Are we going a step further and saying the constant of gravitation is different? I suppose we could do that, but I can't think of anyone who has done any math to that effect. Are we going a step further and considering a different equation for gravity? That seems kinda mad. What if we go further and ask if 1+1=2 in this alternate universe. We can't very well do math on it is math doesn't work anymore.
Thus, in order to even calculate such other universes, we must assume constants.
G isn't known to 1 part in 10^15, so it' can't very well be shown to be tuned to 1 part in 10^15. Furthermore, G is not a calculated value, but an empirically determined one.Although I am not a physicist, I know that that type of calculation has been done for gravity, and the answer is that, 1 second after the big bang, the value of G had to be fie tuned by one part in 10^15. That becomes one part in 10^60 10^-44 seconds after the big bang.
G isn't known to 1 part in 10^15, so it' can't very well be shown to be tuned to 1 part in 10^15. Furthermore, G is not a calculated value, but an empirically determined one.
You are probably conflating it with the cosmological constant which, as I mentioned earlier, can be "tuned" by the inflationary epoch.
Which, if any of them, was an actual answer to my question?Right, the numbers were for two different things.
What need for an explanation for and eternal cause is that again? I mean, I get that certain apologetic approaches assume this is necessary. But what does that have to do with actual reality?God's eternal nature is not ad hoc. God's characteristics were given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered.
Intelligence is magical disembodied stuff you can't see. It is way different from intelligent beings we actually have a reason to believe in.Ok, no idea where you are going with this one. An intelligence is something that is intelligent. I don't see how you seperate the word from it's meaning.
Both.Which, if any of them, was an actual answer to my question?
There is no evidence that the Laws of Physics are eternal, nothing was known of the Laws of Physics's characteristics until we discovered them. They were not given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered either.The eternal nature of physics is not ad hoc. Its characteristics were given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered.
So the question stands.
The problem faced in reality is how did the Laws of Physics originate, nothing creates itself.What need for an explanation for and eternal cause is that again? I mean, I get that certain apologetic approaches assume this is necessary. But what does that have to do with actual reality?
Really, what do you think intelligence is and how did it arise?Intelligence is magical disembodied stuff you can't see. It is way different from intelligent beings we actually have a reason to believe in.
oh, in that case:There is no evidence that the Laws of Physics are eternal, nothing was known of the Laws of Physics's characteristics until we discovered them. They were not given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered either.
There is no evidence that God is eternal, nothing was known of God's characteristics until we discovered Him. They were not given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered either.God's eternal nature is not ad hoc. God's characteristics were given long before the need for an explanation for an eternal cause was discovered.
So the question stands.