The fine tuning of the universe.

[Oncedeceived]

That could be the case in general but that is not what he(? ) is saying in the most recent posts. He seems to me to be talking about the plank time after the big bang.

I guess he will have to clarify his claim then. But you agree that both scientists in the links are saying that going back there was nothing and then the universe came into being?

 

[tallbouy]

that

I guess we could if you think it might be relevant to the question of God's existence. I'll await your argument but my initial position is that it isn't relevant.
Your turn

It has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',
'In the beginning', 'In the olden days when...', 'Long long ago before......'.

 

[Oncedeceived]

thatIt has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',
'In the beginning', 'In the olden days when...', 'Long long ago before......'.

The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, it isn't you are off by 18 orders of magnitude.

Well that is probably likely.

 

[tallbouy]

The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.

That's what you would like to think, and yes it is a very childish story.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That's what you would like to think, and yes it is a very childish story.

Well of course you are free to think whatever you want.

 

[Athée]

thatIt has as much relevance as any other childish story, they all start with, 'Once upon a time', 'It has long be known.....',
'In the beginning', 'In the olden days when...', 'Long long ago before......'.

Great, we agree. How is this analogous to the discussion we are having in this thread?

 

[tallbouy]

Great, we agree. How is this analogous to the discussion we are having in this thread?

You are discussing fantasy so one fantasy is as good as any other, what shade of red was red riding hoods cape? what breed of pigs were the three little pigs?

 

[Athée]

You are discussing fantasy so one fantasy is as good as any other, what shade of red was red riding hoods cape? what breed of pigs were the three little pigs?

Not sure you are understanding the discussion we are having. Without begging the question Once is positing that the apparent (she would say actual) fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is some evidence that a god exists. She believes it is Yaweh but is not necessarily making that argument here. So I guess I still don't see how your fairy tale comment helps us in any way.

 

[tallbouy]

Not sure you are understanding the discussion we are having.

I understand exactly what you are doing, you are trying to discuss a fantasy with someone who has been raised to think that it's not fantasy, how do you think the discussion will end?

Without begging the question Once is positing that the apparent (she would say actual) fine tuning of the universe for intelligent life is some evidence that a god exists.

Unless she can back up what she is claiming both you and she are wasting your time discussing it.

She believes it is Yaweh but is not necessarily making that argument here. So I guess I still don't see how your fairy tale comment helps us in any way.

Because both Yaweh, 'Little Red Riding hood' and all the other tales told are figments of someone's imagination.

 

[[serious]]

Yes it does.

Please highlight where it says "the first second of the universe" or anything approximating that.

 

[[serious]]

Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.

No, you are confusing the concepts of before and after. You said natural laws did not exist in the first second of the universe. I replied saying you were wrong, specifically clarifying that the first second after the big bang would put us in the leptin era, which is well understood. I further clarified that the natural laws could take us all the way back to one Planck second, which I even told you was on the order of 1e-42, which you acknowledged. You've doubled down on your one second after the big bang claim, but now seem to be trying to conflate after the big bang with before the big bang, even though the two are opposite by definition.

 

[[serious]]

Serious is claiming we can't know that there was nothing prior to the Big Bang.

Right, because anything that existed prior to the big bang is outside our time line and has no causal relationship to us. We can make no meaningful statement about what came before because for our time line, there was no before. Please note the qualifier there, "for our timeline"

 

[[serious]]

I guess he will have to clarify his claim then. But you agree that both scientists in the links are saying that going back there was nothing and then the universe came into being?

No, hawking, for example, says there was no before, and quite possibly, no singularity, but rather an initial state unbounded in both space and time. The word "then" implies a before, which, at least for our timeline, did not exist. It's like saying, "there's nothing in the box" when everyone else is telling you there is no box.

 

[KCfromNC]

Because there is no space, matter, energy or time to govern.

During the first second of the universe? Of course there was e.g. http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html. Stop making things up.

 

[KCfromNC]

One must resist the temptation to imagine that the laws of physics, and the quantum state that represents the universe, somehow exist before the universe. They don’t -- any more than they exist north of the North Pole. In fact, the laws of physics don’t exist in space and time at all. They describe the world, they are not “in” it.

Again, this says nothing about the conditions during the first second of the universe. Keep trying - or maybe realize the first rule when you've found you've dug yourself into a hole.

 

[KCfromNC]

The greatest minds have concluded that there is an intelligence behind the universe, it is hardly a childish story.

And some others of the greatest minds have concluded that there isn't. And others still have concluded that there's many involved. That's a hint that the question isn't particularly well formed, or maybe the tools they're using to come to a conclusion are lacking.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Again, this says nothing about the conditions during the first second of the universe. Keep trying - or maybe realize the first rule when you've found you've dug yourself into a hole.

This refers to before the big bang. You continue to imagine what I am saying rather than reading it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Please highlight where it says "the first second of the universe" or anything approximating that.

Sorry I went back and read this and the mistake was mine. I thought you were arguing that we can't know there was nothing prior to the first moments of the universe.

 

[Oncedeceived]

No, you are confusing the concepts of before and after. You said natural laws did not exist in the first second of the universe. I replied saying you were wrong, specifically clarifying that the first second after the big bang would put us in the leptin era, which is well understood. I further clarified that the natural laws could take us all the way back to one Planck second, which I even told you was on the order of 1e-42, which you acknowledged. You've doubled down on your one second after the big bang claim, but now seem to be trying to conflate after the big bang with before the big bang, even though the two are opposite by definition.

I stand corrected.