Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Qualities of a created universe

Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 6:29:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

Would you expect a world full of suffering, natural disaster, fuel and food shortages? GTFO.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 6:57:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
It's a good question that I've thought about before. I'll come back with an answer.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 8:21:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A created universe wouldn't be so barren. You would expect to look out into space and see more than a dark void filled with galaxies.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 8:25:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.
Can you say "loaded question?"

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?
I guess it wouldn't be so loaded if by your questions you mean what would the Universe look like if you were God. Is that an acceptable interpretation?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 8:28:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 8:21:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A created universe wouldn't be so barren. You would expect to look out into space and see more than a dark void filled with galaxies.

but if god made it too obvious that he existed, then free will would be negated. also why would god populate the universe to be more crowded than it is now?
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 8:44:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 8:28:36 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:21:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A created universe wouldn't be so barren. You would expect to look out into space and see more than a dark void filled with galaxies.

but if god made it too obvious that he existed, then free will would be negated.

That's an absurd statement if I ever seen one. I don't see how a more colorful, populated universe would negate my free will.

Also, Theists already think that the Universe is obviously designed, yet they don't think it negates free will.

also why would god populate the universe to be more crowded than it is now?

Well, I'm sure he would want a creation that is pleasing to him, so I'd expect a more colorful Universe. If I were designing a video game, it would have lush and detailed environments, not big dark voids.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 8:51:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 8:44:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:28:36 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:21:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A created universe wouldn't be so barren. You would expect to look out into space and see more than a dark void filled with galaxies.

but if god made it too obvious that he existed, then free will would be negated.

That's an absurd statement if I ever seen one. I don't see how a more colorful, populated universe would negate my free will.

Also, Theists already think that the Universe is obviously designed, yet they don't think it negates free will.

also why would god populate the universe to be more crowded than it is now?

Well, I'm sure he would want a creation that is pleasing to him, so I'd expect a more colorful Universe. If I were designing a video game, it would have lush and detailed environments, not big dark voids.

the idea being if god made the universe like somehting humans would expect him to make it like it would be too easy to believe in him and the "leap of faith" wouldn't be required. we wouldn't have to choose to believe because it would be the reasonable choice :P
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 9:01:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 8:44:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Well, I'm sure he would want a creation that is pleasing to him, so I'd expect a more colorful Universe. If I were designing a video game, it would have lush and detailed environments, not big dark voids.

http://s.ngm.com...
http://www.artsnova.com...
http://www.spacetelescope.org...
http://manufacturedenvironments.com...
http://www.photopumpkin.com...
http://images.astronet.ru...
http://www.fileflash.com...

Whoa, this just gave me a great idea!
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 9:34:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:29:35 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

Would you expect a world full of suffering, natural disaster, fuel and food shortages? GTFO.

Why GTFO? :\
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:10:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.


I agree and I'm sick of that dumb argument. (I don't mind if they have something smart to say, I love hearing both sides, but I cannot see how that proves anything)

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being?

No hate, no starvation, freedom, if one person infringes on another's rights hey die, or cease to exist. The only other way to die or cease to exist is lose will to live.

What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc.

Everybody at war, influincing of people's minds, spreading hate disease, cruelty to the world, but no one would see it. All they would see is their evil veiws are correct and they must stand for them. All they would see is they must be correct. killing innocent people. The evil live longer than those that do good.

What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

One like this one.
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:44:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Created and controlled are important distinctions, as the entity that created need not necessarily be the entity that is in control. In fact, given the obvious intentions of this thread, a cursory look at Christian theology would foil this mode of argument.
lovelife
Posts: 14,629
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 10:52:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 10:44:17 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
Created and controlled are important distinctions, as the entity that created need not necessarily be the entity that is in control. In fact, given the obvious intentions of this thread, a cursory look at Christian theology would foil this mode of argument.

What do you mean?
Without Royal there is a hole inside of me, I have no choice but to leave
InquireTruth
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:03:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
What do you mean?

Christian Theology does not teach that God is currently the prince of this world. In fact, according to Christian theology, the world as it is, suffering, evil and all malevolence, is exactly as one would imagine it be - given who is currently in charge.
Alex
Posts: 2,058
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2010 11:28:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 11:03:07 PM, InquireTruth wrote:
What do you mean?

Christian Theology does not teach that God is currently the prince of this world. In fact, according to Christian theology, the world as it is, suffering, evil and all malevolence, is exactly as one would imagine it be - given who is currently in charge.

From what I understand, Satan basically has free reign here until the Rapture, in which we will wreck him.
Why kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 2:36:31 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 9:01:25 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:44:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Well, I'm sure he would want a creation that is pleasing to him, so I'd expect a more colorful Universe. If I were designing a video game, it would have lush and detailed environments, not big dark voids.

http://s.ngm.com...
http://www.artsnova.com...
http://www.spacetelescope.org...
http://manufacturedenvironments.com...
http://www.photopumpkin.com...
http://images.astronet.ru...
http://www.fileflash.com...

Whoa, this just gave me a great idea!

Hey, there's no convincing me. :P I'm already convinced of the beauty of the Universe, including voids! But, from a Theists perspective, this world isn't enough for them.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 8:01:47 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being?

umm... I wouldn't expect such a being to 'create'...

but if he did... I'd expect all his creations to be utterly perfect...

b/c if they weren't than he just corrupted an utterly perfect existence

What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

I suppose weak pitiful beings full of psychological doubt, temptations... and subject to pain.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2010 2:18:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 8:51:54 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:44:57 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:28:36 PM, belle wrote:
At 8/20/2010 8:21:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
A created universe wouldn't be so barren. You would expect to look out into space and see more than a dark void filled with galaxies.

but if god made it too obvious that he existed, then free will would be negated.

That's an absurd statement if I ever seen one. I don't see how a more colorful, populated universe would negate my free will.

Also, Theists already think that the Universe is obviously designed, yet they don't think it negates free will.

also why would god populate the universe to be more crowded than it is now?

Well, I'm sure he would want a creation that is pleasing to him, so I'd expect a more colorful Universe. If I were designing a video game, it would have lush and detailed environments, not big dark voids.

the idea being if god made the universe like somehting humans would expect him to make it like it would be too easy to believe in him and the "leap of faith" wouldn't be required. we wouldn't have to choose to believe because it would be the reasonable choice :P

Evidence doesn't force me to do anything.

That's like saying that looking at a shoe and recognizing that its a shoe is negating my free will because I was forced to believe it was a shoe.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 3:33:50 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

One in which everything is utterly perfect and beneficial; in which we are both naturally and spiritually substained for all eternity without fear, disease or death.

But there would have to be at least ONE choice to reject God and His perfect universe or else it would simply be a puppet show.

For more information, please read the first few chapters of Genesis.
The Cross.. the Cross.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2010 8:37:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Actually, I'd say that a benevolent God would likely allot free will while a malicious god would not.

I know that sounds subjective, but if there's one thing that appears to separate malice from benevolence, it's some degree of control or affect.

That said, I think that creation is rather poetic and artistic. Thus, I do believe that there must be some cognition behind it. Consider the senses--that is one glorious provision indeed. Existence, sustenance, just simply surviving does not have to feel as good as it does. Just basic living with no bells or whistles whatsoever can still include dessert, alcohol, and orgasms.
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 2:43:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/20/2010 6:18:21 PM, Yvette wrote:
inb4 theists: No, "a universe exactly like this" is not a good answer. It's a cop-out. It can be the same qualities, but name them.

What sort of qualities might you expect to find in a universe created by an omniscient, benevolent, etc being? What qualities would you expect in a universe created by an all-powerful but cruel being? Etc, etc. What about one that wasn't created but exists due to some reason we do not yet know?

First, lets look at the arguments for why this isn't the universe you would expect. Not before I note just how fallacious and presumptuous that is. What kind of person insists they know something of this nature. You don't. God operates beyond physics, not logic.

So, onto the arguments.

1. "The universe is wasteful and void, both in time and space."

Well, this certainly isn't a logical argument. It amounts to nothing more than personal incredulity. Resources and time are not even relevant to an omnitemporal being.

2. "Too much suffering!"

Yes, and perhaps somewhere in the tapestry of the universe we find that it is necessary. Perhaps this is actually the best universe. Chaos theory anyone? The people I call Epicurian skeptics are thusly just being presumptuous when they try to tuck at our heartstrings.

That about covers it.

So, how am I not being presumptuous when I argue for a designer?

Well, for starters, I can actually use straightforward deductive reasoning. Ergo, I have been saved by the graces of the rules of logic.

So, what should I expect in a designed world, logically speaking of course?

Well, for starters, the same thing I expect when a dealer has cheated his hand in poker. Seriously, would anyone here not look at a dealer begrudgingly after he has dealt himself, say, 50 royal flushes?

This is actually a matter of logic, and, believe it or not, specified complexity. It's what we see when there is a teleological agent involved, such as a card dealer.

Well then, where is the specified complexity?

How about the fine tuning of the initial constants and quantities of the universe necessary for the existence of life?

The thing about specified complexity, it requires a teleological agent.

A teleological agent, that has control over the initial conditions of the universe, and the knowledge that these particular conditions will enable life. Sounds like God to me.

Are there any other qualities we'd expect in a created universe?

Well, perhaps that, being created, it began. This is what generic Big Bang cosmology tells us, and since when is siding with this intellectually dishonest?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 3:06:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 2:43:55 PM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
First, lets look at the arguments for why this isn't the universe you would expect. Not before I note just how fallacious and presumptuous that is. What kind of person insists they know something of this nature. You don't.
Very interesting...I think I agree...so far.

God operates beyond physics, not logic.
Let's see: physics = math; logic = math; hmm. I dunno about that one. I guess you meant maybe "known physics."

1. "The universe is wasteful and void, both in time and space."
Well, this certainly isn't a logical argument. It amounts to nothing more than personal incredulity. Resources and time are not even relevant to an omnitemporal being.
Agree. Someone's opinion of wasteful is arbitrary.

2. "Too much suffering!"
Yes, and perhaps somewhere in the tapestry of the universe we find that it is necessary. Perhaps this is actually the best universe. Chaos theory anyone? The people I call Epicurian skeptics are thusly just being presumptuous when they try to tuck at our heartstrings.
Aka, bad things happen so there can't be a God/Creator. Agree it's a fail.

So, how am I not being presumptuous when I argue for a designer?
Ah...but the pendulum swings both ways!

So, what should I expect in a designed world, logically speaking of course?
Well, for starters, the same thing I expect when a dealer has cheated his hand in poker. Seriously, would anyone here not look at a dealer begrudgingly after he has dealt himself, say, 50 royal flushes?
Hmm. The probability of abiogenisis is well beyond 0.

This is actually a matter of logic, and, believe it or not, specified complexity. It's what we see when there is a teleological agent involved, such as a card dealer.
Well then, where is the specified complexity?
How about the fine tuning of the initial constants and quantities of the universe necessary for the existence of life?
All these things have a non-zero probability: given enough time, they WILL happen, regardless of specified complexity.

The thing about specified complexity, it requires a teleological agent.
Not true. Given time, anything that's possible will eventually occur.

A teleological agent, that has control over the initial conditions of the universe, and the knowledge that these particular conditions will enable life. Sounds like God to me.
Yes, but not required.

Are there any other qualities we'd expect in a created universe?
Well, perhaps that, being created, it began. This is what generic Big Bang cosmology tells us, and since when is siding with this intellectually dishonest?
Yes, but the MWI of QM tells us that a Multiverse is possible where in there could by many universes. So who knows how many failed and not-quite-right universes were/are/will happen?

Food for thought.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 4:23:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
///Let's see: physics = math; logic = math; hmm. I dunno about that one. I guess you meant maybe "known physics."//

I should clarify. What I meant by that is beyond the physical world, as in, transcending nature.

Also, you noted that given enough time, anything is possible. Well, I should clarify again. The fine-tuning I refer to is what is a established condition.

An example would help. Suppose we have the expansion rate of the universe not being just right. Well, either the universe collapses or galaxies don't condense out of the expanding matter. Regardless of time, no life.

The strong nuclear force: Too strong or weak, and there are not covalent bonds, and so matter never goes beyond the atomic level.

With regard to multiverse, these models are, inductively, very speculative. Moreover, to use it as a way out seems to leave us with the inverse gamblers fallacy. Moreover, it has been noted that the mechanisms behind multiverse models also requires fine-tuning, in which case, the multiverse counterargument only kicks the problem upstairs.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/26/2010 5:11:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/26/2010 4:23:12 PM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
///Let's see: physics = math; logic = math; hmm. I dunno about that one. I guess you meant maybe "known physics."//

I should clarify. What I meant by that is beyond the physical world, as in, transcending nature.
I see. So you believe in an incorporeal world?

Also, you noted that given enough time, anything is possible. Well, I should clarify again. The fine-tuning I refer to is what is a established condition.
Given enough time, any possible fine tuning can happen.

An example would help. Suppose we have the expansion rate of the universe not being just right. Well, either the universe collapses or galaxies don't condense out of the expanding matter. Regardless of time, no life.
Oh con traire, not regardless of time. How do we know that just that (i.e. the universe collapses and/or galaxies don't condense out of the expanding matter..) hasn't already happened in order to get us here?

The strong nuclear force: Too strong or weak, and there are not covalent bonds, and so matter never goes beyond the atomic level.
Yes. The Multiverse might try out all avenues, and eventually we get...

With regard to multiverse, these models are, inductively, very speculative.
Yup. I agree, just playing devil's advocate. They are built on speculation on top of conjecture on top of...way too fantastical.

Moreover, to use it as a way out seems to leave us with the inverse gamblers fallacy. Moreover, it has been noted that the mechanisms behind multiverse models also requires fine-tuning, in which case, the multiverse counterargument only kicks the problem upstairs.
Yup. Like the fact that it needs 10 dimensions (11 with time); or 30-something in other flavors. What's stopping it from being 15 or 50 or infinite? The theory is!

It is a "sexy" theory & I guess that's why it's so popular. But there are still plenty of holdouts out there.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 12:39:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Well, the thing about the initial conditions are that they are established. If the strong nuclear force is too strong or weak for life to exist, the strength of the force isn't going to change.

And so, you're right in saying that multiverse is the skeptic's only way to avoid the fine-tuning, lest he suggest that chance is the answer. The only problem is that multiverse is speculative at best, and the evidence that we do have is in favor single-universe Big Bang cosmology. The models that consist of a multiverse that have been proposed are all very problematic, and cannot be introduced as the new paradigm in cosmology.

So, I'm perfectly within my bounds to go as far, inductively anyway, as generic Big Bang cosmology takes me.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2010 12:48:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/27/2010 12:39:18 PM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
Well, the thing about the initial conditions are that they are established. If the strong nuclear force is too strong or weak for life to exist, the strength of the force isn't going to change.
At t = 0, there is no strong nuclear force, or weak, or gravity, em, etc. Heck, at that point there is no physics!

And so, you're right in saying that multiverse is the skeptic's only way to avoid the fine-tuning, lest he suggest that chance is the answer. The only problem is that multiverse is speculative at best, and the evidence that we do have is in favor single-universe Big Bang cosmology. The models that consist of a multiverse that have been proposed are all very problematic, and cannot be introduced as the new paradigm in cosmology.
...And they lack the tons of empirical evidence that BB & single Universe has.

So, I'm perfectly within my bounds to go as far, inductively anyway, as generic Big Bang cosmology takes me.
It takes you about t = Planck time, I believe.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Mattsterpiece1993
Posts: 25
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 9:03:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I never said that t = 0 is relevant though. In fact, physicists don't count that as being a part of the universe's history.

With regard to your statement on single universe Big Bang cosmology, I happily agree with you. In short, you agree that the universe began a finite time ago, and that we're more justified in positing a single universe. I hope that is fair for me to say.

Back to the fine-tuning, I don't think it matters if the fundmental forces of nature were there at t = 0. My point was that these forces of nature, once present, have to be just right once they arise (or, diverge from the superforce that many physicists speak of) for life to be permitted.

It's no like the strong nuclear force is different in another galaxy. Atoms bond the same way all over the universe. Covalent bonds have the same determining factors here as they do in Andromeda.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2010 9:40:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/28/2010 9:03:37 PM, Mattsterpiece1993 wrote:
I never said that t = 0 is relevant though. In fact, physicists don't count that as being a part of the universe's history.
This is true, but that's because they are incapable of effectively dealing with it...for now. I mentioned t = 0 (or for argument sake, 0 < t < Planck time) because one can't really show that there are any preconditions or "tuning" for the future establishment of the fundamental forces.

With regard to your statement on single universe Big Bang cosmology, I happily agree with you. In short, you agree that the universe began a finite time ago, and that we're more justified in positing a single universe. I hope that is fair for me to say.
I couldn't have said it better myself!

Back to the fine-tuning, I don't think it matters if the fundmental forces of nature were there at t = 0. My point was that these forces of nature, once present, have to be just right once they arise (or, diverge from the superforce that many physicists speak of) for life to be permitted.
This is true.

It's not like the strong nuclear force is different in another galaxy. Atoms bond the same way all over the universe. Covalent bonds have the same determining factors here as they do in Andromeda.
Yes.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.