How did the universe come into existence?

[Aman777]

I have given arguments: the Big Bang theory and scientific consensus. Now you can present your arguments for the existence of matter apart from the universe, and we can determine which thesis enjoys better support.

Sure. God tells us that He made Adam's "firmament" which He called Heaven on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8 He also made other HeavenS on the 3rd Day. Gen 2:4 The present Universe was made the 3rd Day some 13.8 billion years ago, in man's time. Adam's world was made BEFORE the big bang of our world.

God shows us He made a Multiverse consisting of the first Heaven which was totally destroyed in the flood. ll Peter 3:6. The present cosmos will be burned. ll Pet 3:10 The THIRD Heaven of ll Cor 12:2 and Rev 21:1 will be forever.

The problem with today's consensus is the willing ignorance of people who know nothing of God's Truth since they have rejected His Truth in Genesis. God calls them the "Scoffers of the last days". ll Peter 3:3

BTW, there is empirical physical evidence of life from before the big bang. It's Adam's firmament or solid boundary of his world which sank 11k years ago in the mountains of Ararat releasing the Ark into our world. It brought the superior intelligence of Adam, which was like God's Gen 3:22 to this planet of apes. Amen?

 

[Peter1000]

I don't know how the universe originated.
And my knowledge concerning cosmology, quantum physics, relativity, etc is far to limited to even be able to have any "good" ideas.

I'll leave the coming up with good ideas, to those people who specialise in exactly that.

Well that's the wise position to take, but it is fun to think about it. Stand by, you may want to contribute again.

 

[zippy2006]

You actually a few posts ago defined the universe as that which is empirically available to us, which is funny because the big bang theory models that earliest part big bang where we don't know if we can even model, would already have material qualities.

Again, this is just a semantic squabble or evidence that you do not understand the historical uses of the term "empirical." To say that something adheres to empirical science is not to say that each thesis is directly observable.

The "big bang theory" is a model for which NO living person claims an adequate understanding down to time 0, much less "before". We describe and model the universe after this point with theoretical physics, a modeling system for the universe as a material system.

The big bang is a model from theoretical physics, and thus a theory that can't rule out material from any proposed "cause" that you propose originates before the model breaks down.

The question has nothing to do with whether the Big Bang theory can exhaustively exclude matter outside of our universe and prior to the Big Bang. The question has to do with whether there is any evidence for such a thesis, and there is none.

(1) is unsupported.

(1) is supported and (2) is not. This is why Big Bang cosmologists universally agree that matter as we know it arose with the Big Bang. Good luck with your Teapot.

 

[variant]

Again, this is just a semantic squabble or evidence that you do not understand the historical uses of the term "empirical." To say that something adheres to empirical science is not to say that each thesis is directly observable.

You are arguing about a period that is both not directly observable nor indirectly observable with a theoretical model at this point.

The question has nothing to do with whether the Big Bang theory can exhaustively exclude matter outside of our universe and prior to the Big Bang. The question has to do with whether there is any evidence for such a thesis, and there is none.

(1) is supported and (2) is not. This is why Big Bang cosmologists universally agree that matter as we know it arose with the Big Bang. Good luck with your Teapot.

Again 1 is simply unsupported, the big bang theory can only go back to where physics can still explain things, where the material universe still exists. That is where your support ends.

This is where physicists universally agreeing on anything is moot. They don't know. They barely know what they don't know. They think they need a grand unified theory of physics to explain it in more detail. They think they need a theory of time that includes small measurements of time. They think they need a theory of quantum gravity.

You would like to argue that there is point where the "material" doesn't exist, (before) that time.

Your argument is incredibly misleading, and you'd like to assert some facts about the big bang I know, you don't know.

 

[devolved]

I am aware of only 2 possible answers to this question.

1) A random chance happening.
2) A Superior Being that had the knowledge to create.

The question is: Is there any other possible ways the universe could have come into existence besides the 2 ways that I have given above?

Thank you for your response.

Why do you think that it "came" into existence? Seems like a leading question. First you have to demonstrate that it actually "came" into existence, before you can pose false dilemmas about how it may have done so.

 

[Aman777]

Why do you think that it "came" into existence? Seems like a leading question. First you have to demonstrate that it actually "came" into existence, before you can pose false dilemmas about how it may have done so.

The present Cosmos began on the 3rd Day Gen 2:4 of God's creation or 13.8 Billion years ago in man's time. Genesis shows that God made another Heaven/Universe before the big bang of our world on the 2nd Day. Gen 1:8

God had changed some of the energy in His world into matter in Adam's first world, in the beginning. On this 3rd Day, which was some 9 Billion years AFTER the first Day began, the Lord exploded/expanded some of the matter into the big bang of our world. When it cooled, our Universe began and filled the cosmos with life. That's God's Literal Truth, Scripturally.

 

[Peter1000]

Thank you for your thoughts. We will add to the list: It is all not real, we really do not exist.
1) the universe does not exist, it is not real, we are not real.
2) a random chance happening
3) an inevitable happening
4) a Superior Being that has the knowledge and the ability to create.
5) we don't know or understand how it started
6) the multiverse theory (eternally existing universes)

We are getting a larger list than I would have expected. Thank you.

OK, here is the list. I have had nobody add to it for a while. So the second part of this OP is to come to a consensus as to what really started the universe.

1) The universe does not exist, it is not real, we are not real.
This is not a position that takes into account the real universe, so I can't take it seriously.

3) An inevitable happening.
If we knew that this was the case, or IOW what was the reason for the inevitable happening, we might have a chance to talk about it more. But we don't, so it pretty much gets wrapped up into 'we don't know enough to even talk about an inevitable happening. So we probably will not talk about it much.

2) A ramdom chance happening
5) We don't know or understand how it started
6) Multiverse theory (if you call Stephen Hawking's theories science)
Science and atheists are primarily involved in these 3 possibilities. A lot of a atheists throw up their hands and say the right thing and that is we just don't know. Which I believe is the number 1 answer for science and atheism.

However, there are those that believe that no matter how small the chances are, that 'a random chance happening' did indeed take place (we have a universe for pete's sakes), how else do you scientifically explain it without bringing a God into the equation? For those people I ask them to read:
Intelligent Design of the Cosmos (A Mathematical Proof)

A random chance happening is zero.

Because Stephen Hawking came to realize that a random chance happening was not scientifically possible, and he could not consider the idea that religion had won the day, he came up with the bright idea of the multi universes. And when we say muti universes we mean trillions and trillions of them. He needed trillions and trillions of them because he said that one of them was bound to have the fine-tuned, perfectly balanced qualities that produced life, and of course, without the help of God. So his multiverse theory is nothing more than a random chance happening anyway, with a playful scientific twist.

Finally, nobody has ever witnessed a 2nd universe. Nobody has come back from an alternative 2nd universe. Nobody has smelled a different smell from a 2nd universe. Nobody has touched a gooey mess from a 2nd universe. So is there a 2nd universe (let alone trillions and trillions)? Again we are back to our 'I don't know' answer.

So as brilliant as scientists are, they are truly having a hard time with how the universe started and why? Even their flagship event, the big bang theory is totally unfalsifiable by any scientific test, so what have they got? Nothing.

4) A Superior Being that has the knowledge to create a universe.
If there was no life anywhere in the universe, I would lean toward a random chance happening. But there is life. And that changes the whole ballgame.

In order for life to be, it takes a perfect set of conditions, in fact many sets of perfect conditions. As you read in: Intelligent Design of the Cosmos (A Mathematical Proof), the conditions need to be precise and the word to describe that preciseness is 'fine tuned'. And this is only a few of the conditions.

The conditions are so fine-tuned that it cannot be a condition of random chance happeing. There are too many perfectly fine-tuned conditions to consider that they all came about in a random chance happening.

Because of the existence of life and the fine-tuned conditions that exists, I cannot accept the prevailing scientific views that we don't know, random chance happening, or multiverse theory. The existence of life changes everthing.

A Superior Being that is perpetuating His species is the perfect scientific answer to why this earth was created and why this earth has been fitted perfectly for His species to thrive. It took thousands, if not millions of years to prepare this earth for the benefit of His species, that were created in His image and likeness. So if you want to know what this Superior Being looks like, just look at yourself and you will have the general idea, even though this Being is far superior in body and mind, know that you are a very special entity in and of yourself. You are of the same species as the Creator, and as such you have the potential to be like Him. His species has the right and power to progress into the same kind of being as He is, with the same kind of creative power and glory as He has.

Therefore, as to the list, there is only 1 idea that I vote for and it is #4. If anyone thinks differently, let us know.

 

[Moral Orel]

A lot of a atheists throw up their hands and say the right thing and that is we just don't know.

You didn't ask, "What is the way that the universe came into being". You asked, "What are the possible ways that the universe might have come into being". Of course we don't know, nobody does. Multiverse is a possibility, just like being a brain in a vat is a possibility. It's rather dubious of you to pull a bait and switch and pretend like you were asking people what they believed this whole time, and not just asking to compile a list of possibilities.

Multiverse theory (if you call Stephen Hawking's theories science)

Oh for Pete's sake... First of all, inflation theory is science. It's all real physics, and real math, and real observable evidence from the lab. I also know that Dunning-Kruger were real scientists, and their work in psychology is definitely relevant here. Second, Stephen Hawking didn't come up with the multiverse theory. His schtick for the longest time was the eternal singularity of matter, energy, space and time that suddenly exploded. He had to abandon his theory because inflation theory had so much more evidence behind it.

Because Stephen Hawking came to realize that a random chance happening was not scientifically possible, and he could not consider the idea that religion had won the day, he came up with the bright idea of the multi universes. And when we say muti universes we mean trillions and trillions of them. He needed trillions and trillions of them because he said that one of them was bound to have the fine-tuned, perfectly balanced qualities that produced life, and of course, without the help of God. So his multiverse theory is nothing more than a random chance happening anyway, with a playful scientific twist.

This is all 100% false. Do you really think scientists sit around writing theories just to refute theistic arguments for the existence of a god? Come on, man... You're giving theist arguments waaaaaay too much credit.

Finally, nobody has ever witnessed a 2nd universe. Nobody has come back from an alternative 2nd universe. Nobody has smelled a different smell from a 2nd universe. Nobody has touched a gooey mess from a 2nd universe. So is there a 2nd universe (let alone trillions and trillions)? Again we are back to our 'I don't know' answer.

Nobody's ever seen a god, nobody's come back from some divine domain, nobody's ever smelled a god, nobody's ever touched a god, so is there a god? I guess we just proved there isn't, eh? Some people have said that they've done some of these things, but some people have said that they've been to other universes too.

So as brilliant as scientists are, they are truly having a hard time with how the universe started and why? Even their flagship event, the big bang theory is totally unfalsifiable by any scientific test, so what have they got? Nothing.

God is totally unfalsifiable by any scientific test, so what have theists got? Nothing.

The conditions are so fine-tuned that it cannot be a condition of random chance happeing. There are too many perfectly fine-tuned conditions to consider that they all came about in a random chance happening.

I already explained why the word "random" is inappropriate here, and you said, essentially, "call it whatever you want, I'm just making a list". So now it seems that it was pertinent this whole time, but you've conveniently forgotten all about that... Also, the fine tuning argument doesn't ask if the universe coming into existence was by random chance, it asks how the math behind the laws of physics have their exact numbers. To which I ask, how do you know they could be anything else? Maybe the laws of physics are just what they are without explanation and without origin.

Because of the existence of life and the fine-tuned conditions that exists, I cannot accept the prevailing scientific views that we don't know, random chance happening, or multiverse theory. The existence of life changes everthing.

You could have just posted the fine-tuning argument instead of trying to sneak it in like this.
But here's the quickest way to refute the fine-tuning argument. If you change more than one value, you can still have a universe that works. Your calculations are based on the likelihood that we have these exact numbers, not on the likelihood that we have a working universe. Once you take into account the fact that you can have a working universe as long as you change multiple numbers at a time, you realize there are an infinite amount of permutations that the laws of physics can find themselves in, which makes the likelihood of a working universe infinite as well.

 

[Peter1000]

Nicholas Deka says:

It's rather dubious of you to pull a bait and switch and pretend like you were asking people what they believed this whole time, and not just asking to compile a list of possibilities.

You just need to grow up a bit. I wanted to create a list and see if there was anything that could be interesting besides 'a random chance happening' or 'a Superior Being'. The only answer that I got besides those 2 was 'we don't know'. I kept saying stay tuned for more information. Well that's it. Why don't you start a new thread and ask the question the way you wished I did. So continue to add to the conversation and stop crying. I feel like when I meet you, you will look like your picture.

Do you really think scientists sit around writing theories just to refute theistic arguments for the existence of a god? Come on, man... You're giving theist arguments waaaaaay too much credit.

Yes, I believe that many atheist scientists (especially Stephen Hawking) have a central objective to prove that the universe got started without a Superior Being. Yes, I believe that.

Nobody's ever seen a god, nobody's come back from some divine domain, nobody's ever smelled a god, nobody's ever touched a god, so is there a god? I guess we just proved there isn't, eh? Some people have said that they've done some of these things, but some people have said that they've been to other universes too.

Read your bible, or google encounters with God. I know to you this is just pure nonsense, but don't tell me that nobody has had an encounter with the Creator.

And give us a source for people coming back from a 2nd universe. That would be interesting to read.

God is totally unfalsifiable by any scientific test, so what have theists got? Nothing.

Something created the 4 crucial forces of the universe. If they varied just a few degrees, one way or the other, life would not have been able to thrive. Did you read what I presented? The probability that this was a 'random chance happening' is zero.

The reason I aske for a list of possibilities is to see if there could have been any other cause besides 'RCH', or 'God'. Since there is not, and the chance of a 'RCH' = zero, then we are left with a Superior Being that knows the 4 forces and the exact strength that each needs to have in order to form life.

Of course this is unfalsifiable, but by default, a reasonable person would come to this same conclusion, except a person that is hell-bent to destroy any possibility that a Superior Being existed. But the evidence for a fine-tuned universe is difficult to get over if you are a reasonable person.

I already explained why the word "random" is inappropriate here, and you said, essentially, "call it whatever you want, I'm just making a list". So now it seems that it was pertinent this whole time, but you've conveniently forgotten all about that...

You are crying again, this is my thread and I will word it the way I want, not the way you think is appropriate. Again, grow up.

Also, the fine tuning argument doesn't ask if the universe coming into existence was by random chance, it asks how the math behind the laws of physics have their exact numbers. To which I ask, how do you know they could be anything else? Maybe the laws of physics are just what they are without explanation and without origin.

You may ask what you wish. It is my position that the math behind the laws of physics are so exact that it eliminates any possibility of those laws just being what they are without explanation. The origin is unknown, but the idea that they are just because they are is not reasonable.

They are because they are because they are managed or continually fine-tuned. If they were not, they would eventually go out of sinc, go into a state of atrophy and finally into a chaotic state, like everything else in the universe that is not managed. Things don't naturally build up from nothing to uncomplex, to complex. It is just the opposite, they naturally break down and rot and rust. (this is a well known scientific fact)

So who or what does the managing?

You could have just posted the fine-tuning argument instead of trying to sneak it in like this.

Nobody has sneaked anything into this OP. When you saw that I was a Mormon, you know the direction I was going to end, or you should have known. Again, stop crying.

But here's the quickest way to refute the fine-tuning argument. If you change more than one value, you can still have a universe that works. Your calculations are based on the likelihood that we have these exact numbers, not on the likelihood that we have a working universe. Once you take into account the fact that you can have a working universe as long as you change multiple numbers at a time, you realize there are an infinite amount of permutations that the laws of physics can find themselves in, which makes the likelihood of a working universe infinite as well.

This is what I am talking about. If you change 1 value higher, you have a working universe, but it works too hard and the universe will be like a blazing star, hot and beautiful for about X, then burn out. If you change one value lower, it will only produce elemental gases and not have the strength to produce heavy metals, and so you end up with nothing but a working universe with helium for X and then it goes away. Either way, no life. It is life that we are after, not a working universe.

If you change more than 1 value you can still have a working universe.
That may be right, but that starts a chain reaction that can go out of control easily, unless you have some thing or someone who can manage the changes, or do you think these values can be managed by just a blind and dumb 'random chance happening'?

So again, I will ask, who is making the changes?

To me it basically boils down to 2 choices, as per our list.
1) random chance happenings
2) a Superior Being with the knowledge to create and manage, even a universe.

I vote, a Superior Being, it is the only possible vote and by far the more reasonable. It is the only way that values can be managed and maintained. Any other way is far less reasonable and is a non-answer.[/QUOTE]

 

[Moral Orel]

Nicholas Deka says:

Can you clean up your quote tags please?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Something created the 4 crucial forces of the universe.

What's your evidence that this is true? Can you show that the physical laws as they are are not immutable, making any discussion of changes to these laws nonsensical?

If they varied just a few degrees, one way or the other, life would not have been able to thrive. Did you read what I presented?

A universe that can support life isn't any more objectively "special" than one that can't.

The probability that this was a 'random chance happening' is zero.

Demonstrably false. That's not how probability works.

And I'm sure you've probably been told this before, but I don't think scientists you the phrase "random chance happening" when describing the origins of the universe. Theists use it, however, as a slur against the idea of a universe that didn't need a god.

 

[Moral Orel]

When you saw that I was a Mormon, you know the direction I was going to end, or you should have known.

I know this is out of order, but I have to start here. You aren't using your argument correctly. The question is not "how did the universe come into existence?" the question is "how did the '4 crucial forces' of the universe find their values to be what they are?". Asking the first question has absolutely nothing to do with the second question. Even if God exists, he could make the universe through one single big bang, or through the use of a multiverse, and then set those forces to equal whatever He wants. The question you asked in the OP has zero to do with the fine-tuning argument, and since you're the one making the argument, you should know that.

Yes, I believe that many atheist scientists (especially Stephen Hawking) have a central objective to prove that the universe got started without a Superior Being. Yes, I believe that.

Why are you still harping about Hawking? He didn't come up with your hated multiverse theory, as I stated. And why did you snip all the info out of my post that explained your misconceptions about inflation theory?

Read your bible, or google encounters with God. I know to you this is just pure nonsense, but don't tell me that nobody has had an encounter with the Creator.

Like I said, people have claimed to have had encounters with a god, but no one knows if those claims are true or not.

And give us a source for people coming back from a 2nd universe. That would be interesting to read.

Trish LeSage | http://www.beyond3dbooks.com | About The Book

Scroll down a bit for information on her book about traveling to parallel universes through the use of astral projection. She and others claim to have done it, so we must consider it as true, right?

Something created the 4 crucial forces of the universe.

Did they? What evidence do you have that they even have an origin? The Big Bang says all the matter and energy in the universe came out of it, maybe even space and time. What reason do you have to think the rules of how things work started at that point in time too?

If they varied just a few degrees, one way or the other, life would not have been able to thrive.

Not quite accurate enough. Here's an accurate statement: "If one force varied just a few degrees, and every other force stayed exactly the same, life would not have been able to thrive". An important distinction.

Did you read what I presented? The probability that this was a 'random chance happening' is zero.

I did read what you presented, and it disagrees with you. It said that the random chance of the forces being what they are was "1 in 10^125". Basic math tells us that: 10^125 =/= 0

this is my thread and I will word it the way I want, not the way you think is appropriate.

Personally, I like to use words in a way that reflects their definition, but you're right, you can use words incorrectly here in your thread, and frankly anywhere you want!

They are because they are because they are managed or continually fine-tuned. If they were not, they would eventually go out of sinc, go into a state of atrophy and finally into a chaotic state, like everything else in the universe that is not managed.

Oh? And what evidence is there that they can change? I believe it's possible for something to be eternal and unchanging, why do you think that it is impossible for anything to be eternal and unchanging?

Things don't naturally build up from nothing to uncomplex, to complex. It is just the opposite, they naturally break down and rot and rust. (this is a well known scientific fact)

Ahh, good 'ol Dunning-Kruger effect in action. You misunderstand the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics here. The system overall (not each individual part) is more likely (not assured) to move towards chaos.

This is what I am talking about. If you change 1 value higher, you have a working universe, but it works too hard and the universe will be like a blazing star, hot and beautiful for about X, then burn out. If you change one value lower, it will only produce elemental gases and not have the strength to produce heavy metals, and so you end up with nothing but a working universe with helium for X and then it goes away. Either way, no life. It is life that we are after, not a working universe.

Again, you aren't being accurate enough, and without the distinction I provided earlier, you're going to end up with contradictory statements. So again: "If you change 1 value higher and you don't change any other values at all blah blah blah bad stuff". But what if you change more than one value and create the same balance?

If you change more than 1 value you can still have a working universe.
That may be right, but that starts a chain reaction that can go out of control easily, unless you have some thing or someone who can manage the changes, or do you think these values can be managed by just a blind and dumb 'random chance happening'?

Even your source talks about the "balance" of the forces and the matter in the universe. If you change the value of multiple forces you still have a universe that looks exactly like this one and still has life as we know it. Your argument only works if we only change one value and we don't change anything else.

So, if you change multiple values, maintain the "balance" of the forces, you can do this an infinite number of ways, as long as you aren't restricted to change only one force at a time. If there are an infinite number of ways for there to be a universe with life, then your argument is garbage.

So again, I will ask, who is making the changes?

I see no reason to think anyone is changing anything or that the "4 crucial forces" could be something other than what they are, so this question is nonsense.

 

[Moral Orel]

And I'm sure you've probably been told this before, but I don't think scientists you the phrase "random chance happening" when describing the origins of the universe. Theists use it, however, as a slur against the idea of a universe that didn't need a god.

I pointed it out in this thread based on his definition of "random" and to no avail...

 

[Peter1000]

Can you clean up your quote tags please?

In what ways?

 

[Moral Orel]

In what ways?

You fixed em after I posted that, so we're all good.

 

[Peter1000]

What's your evidence that this is true? Can you show that the physical laws as they are are not immutable, making any discussion of changes to these laws nonsensical?



A universe that can support life isn't any more objectively "special" than one that can't.



Demonstrably false. That's not how probability works.

And I'm sure you've probably been told this before, but I don't think scientists you the phrase "random chance happening" when describing the origins of the universe. Theists use it, however, as a slur against the idea of a universe that didn't need a god.

I have no evidence that the laws are not immutable. I believe they are immutable. Changes to the laws was suggested by Deka, not me. I just said, if you change 1 value it would set off a colliding mess of uncontrollable chaos.

A universe that can support life is 'special'. Compare any dark and dreary planet to the 'goldie locks' planet earth. Life lives on a knives edge. A slight movement one way of the other and it is all over. Read about how finely-tuned our universe is. It is special, and life on earth is not the only life in the universe. It may only be the only life in our galaxy, but I doubt it. It would take 100,000 years traveling at 640,000,000 miles an hour to cross our galaxy. You think in that much space you would find another earth? How many trillions of galaxies are there in our universe.
Besides, how many universes do we know of that does not have any life?

I know how probability works. Take a 1,000,000 sided die and role it 1,000,000 times, and when you have rolled the number 15 1,000,000, times in a row, then call me and I will change my position from zero to something closer to 1.

I dont mean to slur anyone, so tell me what phrase scientists use?

 

[Moral Orel]

I have no evidence that the laws are not immutable. I believe they are immutable. Changes to the laws was suggested by Deka, not me. I just said, if you change 1 value it would set off a colliding mess of uncontrollable chaos.

I said no such thing. You said if we change one then bad stuff happens, I said if we change two then everything is okay. I see no reason to think that they could be anything else as well, and I've said as much. I merely played along with your hypothetical because even if they could change, your calculations are wrong.

 

[Peter1000]

I know this is out of order, but I have to start here. You aren't using your argument correctly. The question is not "how did the universe come into existence?" the question is "how did the '4 crucial forces' of the universe find their values to be what they are?".

OK Deka, to your knowledge, how did the '4 curcial forces' of the universe find their values to be what they are? There, now maybe we can get down to what we are trying to find.

BTW it is not an incredible stretch to merge the 2 questions. For instance, the universe came into existence when the 4 crucial forces were valued and began to work together to bring the whole universe into a going concern.

So how the universe started or how the 4 crucial forces started, same question.
And if they are not, give me a painstaking analysis as to why they are not.

Like I said, people have claimed to have had encounters with a god, but no one knows if those claims are true or not.

So I think this is interesting. Some people claimed to have had an encounter with a god. Do you believe them or not?

Some people believe that they have travelled to an alternative universe. Do you believe them or not?

Did they? What evidence do you have that they even have an origin? The Big Bang says all the matter and energy in the universe came out of it, maybe even space and time. What reason do you have to think the rules of how things work started at that point in time too?

I have no evidence that the 4 forces have an origin. I have no evidence that the big bang took place. I only know that the rules exist now and have for billions of years. To me someone or some event had to put them into motion.

Not quite accurate enough. Here's an accurate statement: "If one force varied just a few degrees, and every other force stayed exactly the same, life would not have been able to thrive". An important distinction.

That is what I mean by managing the forces. I believe that there is someone or something that is making sure that the forces stay in sinc. If one force's value moves, then all of them have to move to stay in sinc, but I believe more that the forces, once put into motion, are immutable.

I did read what you presented, and it disagrees with you. It said that the random chance of the forces being what they are was "1 in 10^125". Basic math tells us that: 10^125 =/= 0

Let's do a little probability problem. Take a 300 sided die, and roll it 300 times.
Do that until you have rolled the number 210, 300 times in a row. You can start over if the first does not come up with 210. The odds are so great or the probability is so low that it will never happen. So I challenge you to go and buy a 30 sided die. Roll it 30 times, and do that until you have rolled the number 22, 30 times in a row. When you have accomplished this task, then we will upgrade you to the 60 sided die, until we get to the 300 sided die.

So yes from a technical aspect 10^125 =/= 0, But the practical aspect of it says it = 0. Again, let me know when you have rolled the number 22, 30 times in a row with a 30 sided die? Technically, the probability is very small, but it does not = 0. Practically, the probability is = 0.

Personally, I like to use words in a way that reflects their definition, but you're right, you can use words incorrectly here in your thread, and frankly anywhere you want!

Thank you. In your thread you can be as prim and proper as you wish.

 

[Moral Orel]

OK Deka, to your knowledge, how did the '4 curcial forces' of the universe find their values to be what they are?

I have no reason to think the values could be anything other than what they are, and I have no reason to think they are not eternal.

So I think this is interesting. Some people claimed to have had an encounter with a god. Do you believe them or not?


Some people believe that they have travelled to an alternative universe. Do you believe them or not?

I believe it's possible, anything is, but no, I don't believe they did because there is no evidence I can view myself to convince me.

I have no evidence that the 4 forces have an origin.

Then there's nothing to argue about. You have no reason to think that the forces are anything but eternally what they are, so imagining "what if they were different" has no bearing on actual reality.

I have no evidence that the big bang took place.

There's lots of evidence for the Big Bang. There's no evidence that the laws of physics were ever different from what they are now or that they ever didn't exist exactly as they do now.

I only know that the rules exist now and have for billions of years.

For at least billions of years. No reason to think they are not eternal.

To me someone or some event had to put them into motion.

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you don't start an argument with a premise based solely on your opinion. And you especially don't start an argument with a premise that assumes the conclusion is true before you prove it.

That is what I mean by managing the forces. I believe that there is someone or something that is making sure that the forces stay in sinc. If one force's value moves, then all of them have to move to stay in sinc, but I believe more that the forces, once put into motion, are immutable.

I agree, there is no reason to think the values can change, and that isn't what I was getting at. Let's say we're just talking about when the numbers received their assigned values (although there's no evidence this ever happened, I'll go along with your hypothetical). There is an infinite number of combinations that those values can have that achieves balance and allows for a universe that produces life. Not just one.

Let's do a little probability problem. Take a 300 sided die, and roll it 300 times.

Do that until you have rolled the number 210, 300 times in a row. You can start over if the first does not come up with 210. The odds are so great or the probability is so low that it will never happen. So I challenge you to go and buy a 30 sided die. Roll it 30 times, and do that until you have rolled the number 22, 30 times in a row. When you have accomplished this task, then we will upgrade you to the 60 sided die, until we get to the 300 sided die.


So yes from a technical aspect 10^125 =/= 0, But the practical aspect of it says it = 0. Again, let me know when you have rolled the number 22, 30 times in a row with a 30 sided die? Technically, the probability is very small, but it does not = 0. Practically, the probability is = 0.

This has nothing to do with the actual problem. When you are describing odds, you say X : Y, like your article did. Where X is the number of ways you have a universe that works, and Y is the total number of combinations of those values. You are in error when you say X = 1, as there are an infinite number of ways that the numbers can be assigned and still result in a universe with life. So in reality, the odds of us having a universe that produces life is infinity : infinity which means it is incalculable.


So, in short, there's no reason to think the numbers could be anything other than what they are. There's no reason to think they were assigned at some point or caused to be what they are. And even if they were, the odds that they end up being the correct values to produce a universe with life is incalculable.

 

[Peter1000]

I have no reason to think the values could be anything other than what they are, and I have no reason to think they are not eternal.

So when you say, 'I have no reason..', is that the same as saying, 'to my knowledge...'. Well to your knowledge or since you have no reason to think otherwise, then it is rather your opinion that things are the way they are.

It is your opinion that the 4 forces of the universe are eternal and have always been what they are.

It is your opinion that there are an incalculable amount of values that would allow for life in the universe.

So if my opinion is not a good premise for starting an argument, I would think that your opinion is not a good premise for starting an argument. So where does that lead us?

I believe it's possible, anything is, but no, I don't believe they did because there is no evidence I can view myself to convince me.

Is this about people saying they saw God or people that went to another universe? Do you believe Trish LeSage? Tell me what evidences that she has presented that she visited a parallel universe, other than saying and describing that she did. Let me know, it is interesting.

Are you aware of the Thomas story in the bible? If you are, you are in the same situation as he was. If you have not, look up the story about the apostle Thomas after Jesus had died.

Then there's nothing to argue about. You have no reason to think that the forces are anything but eternally what they are, so imagining "what if they were different" has no bearing on actual reality.

There is no reason to think that the forces are anything but eternally what they are. OTOH there is no reason to think that the forces are anything but managed by a Superior Being. It is the same logic. If you have no reason why you think one way, there is not reason why you can't think another way.

There's lots of evidence for the Big Bang. There's no evidence that the laws of physics were ever different from what they are now or that they ever didn't exist exactly as they do now.

There are lots of theories about the big bang, but the reason it is not universally accepted and there is an endless continuation of theories, is because the evidence is so thin that you really can't nail it down. For instance:
A few years ago, a scientist picked up a noise, I believe over micro wave. He announced his theory, that this noise was an ancient echo from the big bang, and it became the front and center piece of evidence that the big bang had occurred. Over the years many scientists have come to a conclusion that that noise is nothing but background radiation from the different starts in the universe, and not a distant echo of the big bang. It still persists, but it has lost some of its excitement.

For at least billions of years. No reason to think they are not eternal.

No reason to think they are eternal. What is your evidence, or is this your opinion?

That's your opinion, and that's fine. But you don't start an argument with a premise based solely on your opinion. And you especially don't start an argument with a premise that assumes the conclusion is true before you prove it.

As far as I can tell everything you have told me is your opinion, so how does that work.[/QUOTE]

So, in short, there's no reason to think the numbers could be anything other than what they are. There's no reason to think they were assigned at some point or caused to be what they are.

So in short, there is no reason to think the numbers could have been brought forth and managed by a Superior Being. The logic goes both ways. Unless you are stuck on 1 side, then you have a hard time seeing or having anything to do with the other side.