Theological Fine Tuning

[Keith&Co.]

"physical things" ... the existence is not eternal.

Really?

Aren't the molecules that make up physical things about as old as the Universe? Their configurations change, but the physical existence extends back, back, back, WAY back.
The skin on my finger used to be a cheeseburger, which used to be a cow, before that a grassy field, which is made up of former dirt, which was... Ad Infinitum.

 

[Learner]

"physical things" ... the existence is not eternal.

Really?

Aren't the molecules that make up physical things about as old as the Universe? Their configurations change, but the physical existence extends back, back, back, WAY back.
The skin on my finger used to be a cheeseburger, which used to be a cow, before that a grassy field, which is made up of former dirt, which was... Ad Infinitum.

Molecules is a configuration too .. sub-sub particles down to the smallest level, fathomable so far . Where molecules really always this way in their particular structured forms?
( QM may be able to answer that someday as mentioned by Bomb#20).

 

[Keith&Co.]

Molecules is a configuration too ...

Quite. And...?

 

[Learner]

And if you break them down to more levels then is it really physical ? e.g. like the phrase borrowed: is it a wave or particle ? Or vibrating string?

 

[Keith&Co.]

And if you break them down to more levels then is it really physical? e.g. like the phrase :is it a wave or particle ?

At some point they seem to become energy. Which is also eternal, no? I think I saw it on a t-shirt, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And matter is energy that's gelled.

So everything we have experience with in the universe is eternal. Near as we can tell. Why do you want to give special status to some of it?

 

[Jobar]

"God exists 'cause I don't understand some stuff."

Just so.

All forms of the Cosmological Argument, and that includes fine tuning, are attempts to explain a mystery with an even bigger (and entirely unevidenced) mystery.

 

[Learner]

And if you break them down to more levels then is it really physical? e.g. like the phrase :is it a wave or particle ?

At some point they seem to become energy. Which is also eternal, no? I think I saw it on a t-shirt, Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. And matter is energy that's gelled.

So everything we have experience with in the universe is eternal. Near as we can tell. Why do you want to give special status to some of it?

Energy yes I agree and the point I'm alluding to is: There IS an area outside of the physical aspects of the cosmos ..biological and non-biological where God would exist ...in the argument/debate. Who would not be constrained by the influencing forces on configurated, formed physical matter.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Energy yes I agree and the point I'm alluding to is: There IS an area outside of the physical aspects of the cosmos ..biological and non-biological where God would exist ...in the argument/debate. Who would not be constrained by the influencing forces on configurated, formed physical matter.

You're trying to justify a hiding place for God, and pretending that our observation of the laws of the universe create this hiding place.

Seems a bit shady to me. How do you define 'outside of the cosmos?'

 

[LordKiran]

There is no single 'biological definition' of life.

Biologists use a variety of definitions, none of which produce a clear distinction between life and non-life that places all the things we want to call 'life' into the 'life' category, while simultaneously excluding all of the things we want to call non-life.

The idea that we have a single, universal, and categorical biological definition of life is widespread, but false.

For example, some of the various definitions of life include the ability to reproduce. But those definitions exclude huge numbers of animals and plants from the 'life' category. A definition in which my 90 year old aunt is not an example of 'life' because she never had children, is a poor definition. You might fudge things, and say that she had the potential to reproduce - but then you still exclude from 'life' any person born without functioning reproductive organs. A definition of 'life' that excludes some living, breathing human beings is not a very good definition.

Sadly though, if we exclude the ability to reproduce from our definition, we end up with things that fit our other criteria for 'life', but which we do not want to categorise as alive - things like hurricanes, landslides, or lava flows, for example.

'Alive' is one of those categories that we all seem to agree on, but are not able to easily define. That's probably because it's not a distinction that has an actual analog in reality - 'alive' isn't as meaningful as we are prone to assume, and reality doesn't fit neatly into the boxes we want to make for it.

Is a virus alive? What about a crystal? What about a crystal made up of viruses?

I don't think broad categorizations are necessarily meant to apply to your aunt as an individual but as a human being in the general sense so I wouldn't say those old definitions are invalidated by her exception to the rule.

A definition either correctly categorizes whatever entities you are attempting to categorize; Or it doesn't.

If it doesn't, it's not a good definition.

How do you tell whether my 90 year old aunt is alive or not alive? That question is bound to arise (with a very powerful need for a definitive and correct answer) some time before her funeral...

Obviously, when determining if a person is ready for their funeral, we use a different definition of 'alive' than the one we use when deciding if a virus is alive, or deciding if a prion is alive. But then that tells me that 'alive' doesn't mean the same thing in each of those cases - yet we persist in pretending that they are the same concept. I suspect that's a hangover from vitalism.

Personally I prefer a very broad definition: I would say that Life is defined by the continuation and/or multiplication of chemical reaction cycles, where each cycle can lead to more molecules of the same type being involved in the next cycle than took part in the last, given suitable conditions. By that definition, prions and viruses are alive; It also allows for the possibility of novel forms (eg hypothetical silicon based extraterrestrials) to be recognized as 'alive'.

That definition is useless to physicians or morticians who may be deciding whether to cremate my Aunt; But then, I am not entirely convinced that 'alive' is a particularly useful category for ANY purpose. Humans think it's a special quality, likely because they can't bring themselves to abandon unhelpful ideas, once those ideas have been around for a long time. People are natural vitalists and animists - I will happily say 'The spark of life has gone', or 'My car doesn't want to start', despite not believing that there is any such thing as a spark of life, nor that my car has desires of any kind.

Tbf "Alive" was probably never meant to apply to phenomenon experienced outside of earth. If what we need is different words to express these different ideas then what would you suggest? In a certain sense consciousness can be considered alive.

 

[remez]

from post 71

The Big Bang theory only describes the expansion of the universe as far back as the Planck epoch, where the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics cease to apply. It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe.

It’s a common misperception to think that I claim that science has proven that the universe began to exist. I’m not asserting that science has definitely proved the universe began. As you will see in a moment, I reason that it is actually impossible for science to ever be certain on that. Thus with the science in NOW in hand which of these two outcomes is far MORE PLAUSIBLE:

The universe began to existence?
Or
The universe is past eternal?

I’m just listening to Uncle Karl and following the overwhelming evidence where it leads...... to the most plausible outcome. No doubt you’ll disagree and have chosen the less plausible option.

Consider that even the great physicists are writing books about their theories of how the universe began.

I don’t necessarily agree with their theories but it certainly seems that the paradigm of a past eternal universe is on its last Planck of life support.

Further……………..regarding certainty……….

It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe. Physicists aren't even certain what happens to time--which is a property of the physical universe--during the Planck epoch.

You are claiming that I have a misconception. Fair enough. Let’s seriously discuss that for a min. Do you actually see my conception here to label it missed? Or possibly are you just assuming that I base it on a blind faith theology thing? So please give me a chance to explain…………….

First, I understand your position here completely with regards to the Planck epic, I really do. I just perceive The Planck epic differently than you. I see it as evidence (not a gap) that the laws of nature began to exist. Hold on. You see it as a breakdown of the laws of nature producing a gap that science needs to fill in order for you accept.

I invite you for a min to really examine this issue from my POV. I’m certainly not asking you to agree with me or to be theological. Leave God out of it. Simply reason this through from my perspective just for a min.

Understand this …..we’re using the physical laws of nature to look back, the operative word “back”. Thus our present vocabulary reflects our backwards perception. You are claiming with your words of description that the laws of nature breakdown (gap). From the same evidence, by the same laws, I’m reasoning that’s where they actually began to exist (no gap). Here is what I mean…………..

Please really consider this scenario a min. Nature began to exist. Now picture what the laws of nature would look like if nature began to exist. What would that picture look like if we were look back to their actual beginning? Keep in mind this key perspective……we’re actually using the laws of nature as our tool to look at their own beginning. What would it look like?

I seriously contend it would look exactly like what we have right now. I’m completely impressed with the power of our science to get that close for the picture.

So from my point Planck view, looking at the same evidence, and I conclude nature began to exist

AND very importantly…………

That science can never definitively determine that, because the only tool we have to look back with is the very same thing we're trying to determine began to exist. So of course our tool will come up short of total determination. It’s not REASONABLY possible to use the laws of nature to determine the cause of the laws of nature. They can REASONABLY only get Planck close. Therefore I don’t see a gap. Reasoning properly closes that Planck gap that science will not ever be able to close.

And nothing I asserted there has anything to do with theology.

Your thoughts.

 

[ruby sparks]

Consider that even the great physicists are writing books about their theories of how the universe began.

There's a flaw in your 'surgical reasoning'. Consider that only a tiny minority of these people, especially the best ones, think a gawd had anything to do with it.

 

[remez]

Granted I was being light hearted with Ruby there, and since you came into that moment, my response to you was light hearted as well. I was simply trying to get out of her way, because she was making a fool of herself. Now she is even yelling at me for stuff you said in post 69, check it out………

I felt it best to let her go. There are actually several proverbs that provide counsel to that situation. But I was very serious about the Irish music.
But....
With regards to your comment about my seriousness I was rather surprised. I thought you would have reached the opposite conclusion (after witnessing my recent battle with abaddon that you were lightly involved with) that I was way too serious and surgical with the reasoning.

So I am truly curious of your judgment regarding this ……………………..so where in my posts of 42, 43, 44, and 46 did you consider me not serious? For I assure you, I was dead serious.

Yes. I dont doubt you are serious. But that wasnt what I wrote.
I wanted you to show a case where you seriously CONSIDERS other posters arguments.
But that was obviously to hard...

But that is what you wrote………….

I have (for years) completely ignored your bad English and tried to address your concerns.
But……
Now you’re insulting me for what you wrote……so let’s take a SERIOUS look……

Starting with post 60…in context with my light hearted response to Ruby….. you said this………….

Sorry to say I cant you give any credit for trying though.
I have yet to you take any of the arguments posted to you here seriously.

That is a mess of a statement. I did my best to decipher that second sentence as…….
You (juma) have yet to take any of my (remez) arguments seriously. To which I awarded you half a credit for honesty in post 62. Your response came in post 68………….

Can you show me any post where you actually, seriously, takes in what other posts you.

Again that is a complete mess. I did my best and got this…………….Can I (remez) show you (juma) any posts where I was serious with others. Even Ruby interpreted your meaning the way I did. Because hilariously in post 69 she quoted your words as mine and ripped them apart with the same interpretation I had. Anyway I responded to you in post 75. I directed you to the posts of 42, 43, 44, and 46.

Your response was insulting …………….post 80

Yes. I dont doubt you are serious. But that wasnt what I wrote.
I wanted you to show a case where you seriously CONSIDERS other posters arguments.
But that was obviously to hard...

But that was what you wrote. Even Ruby thought so.

Again you have a mess there. But this is what I get this time from that mess…….. Now you consider me serious which is what I thought you were after. But no. that’s not what you were after. You now insult me for not taking others like you seriously.

One have I not seriously, in this post, just demonstrated my attempts to get your poor English in order and to seriously address your concerns?
And two………….
I still managed, as I see it, to meet your request in my last post………..

All of those posts I provided were serious responses to their stated arguments. I seriously CONSIDERD CC's argument and directly addressed it in post 42. Are you possibly inferring that I have to agree with his argument to be serious?

I seriously CONSIDERD B20's concerns over the use of the words “universe” and “reality” and addressed them directly in post 44. How did I not take his CONCERNS seriously?

A now just added post 90. I clearly took bigfield's concerns seriously. I just have a a different perspective on the issue.

 

[remez]

Consider that even the great physicists are writing books about their theories of how the universe began.

There's a flaw in your 'surgical reasoning'. Consider that the majority of these people, especially the best ones, don't think a gawd had anything to do with it.

I didn't say they did. The issue was.......did the universe begin?
There was no theology anywhere in that post.

 

[ruby sparks]

I didn't say they did.

Sure. I was just highlighting the dangers of citing the cleverness of brainy people's understanding of the universe. Such things can also bite you in the arse.

The issue was.......did the universe begin?

Which one are you talking about?

There was no theology anywhere in that post.

Yeah but you were just trying to lay the groundwork. Creating a little slot to drop gord into later on. That's what all this is about for you. You're not really interested in the physics as such, except you hope it gets you to a gawdy-thingy, probably one that you read about in a bibble-book when you were little, written by under-informed and overly-superstitious people who couldn't even sit on a toilet properly.

 

[Lion IRC]

If remez's premise about God being eternal is special pleading then so too is the contrary negation of that premise which is equally self-asserting.

Sorry, I'm not responding to gibberish today, but if you personally are happy with that confused word salad, then I'll leave it to you to explain to remez why his premise would be no better a self-assertion that its negation.

I love it when people preface their response by saying "I'm not going to respond".
OK then, I'll explain it to remez as if he didn't understand what a syllogism premise is.

You see remez, if you say;
P1. God is eternal
P2. Blah blah blah
Conclusion. Therefore blah blah blah
...P1 is a stand alone, self-asserting premise. People don't have to accept the premise is true. They can claim the argument is unsound because either the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premisses OR they can reject one of the premisses as implausible or false.

Are you following this remez? Is this all gibberish to you?
Im sure you get it

BUT in order to reject P1 you would need to assert a negating premise - preferably one that is more plausible/justifiable.

So when folks accuse you of special pleading the nature of God in a syllogism that is trite and banal. And it's hypocrisy because the claim that God is not past-eternal is itself special pleading to the contrary.

 

[bilby]

If remez's premise about God being eternal is special pleading then so too is the contrary negation of that premise which is equally self-asserting.

Sorry, I'm not responding to gibberish today, but if you personally are happy with that confused word salad, then I'll leave it to you to explain to remez why his premise would be no better a self-assertion that its negation.

I love it when people preface their response by saying "I'm not going to respond".
OK then, I'll explain it to remez as if he didn't understand what a syllogism premise is.

You see remez, if you say;
P1. God is eternal
P2. Blah blah blah
Conclusion. Therefore blah blah blah
...P1 is a stand alone, self-asserting premise. People don't have to accept the premise is true. They can claim the argument is unsound because either the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premisses OR they can reject one of the premisses as implausible or false.

Are you following this remez? Is this all gibberish to you?
No I didn't think so

BUT in order to reject P1 you would need to assert a negating premise - preferably one that is more plausible/justifiable.

So when folks who accuse you of special pleading the nature of God in a syllogism that is trite and banal. And it's hypocrisy because the claim that God is not past-eternal is itself special pleading to the contrary.

P1 depends upon the implied premise:

P0 There is a God

Leaving aside the fact that you haven't got agreement as to the meaning of the word 'God', you still have to find a way around the more plausible and justifiable negating premise:

P0' There is no God

Which renders P1 incoherent.

Until and unless you can show a need for a God (without circular reasoning, special pleading, or other fallacy), the assumption that no such needless entity exists is more parsimonious than the bald assumption of its existence.

 

[Lion IRC]

There is no need for a preceding premise P0
The negation of P1 would be that God is not eternal - the reason why you think He isn't eternal is beside the point.

 

[bilby]

There is no need for a preceding premise P0
The negation of P1 would be that God is not eternal - the reason why you think He isn't eternal is beside the point.

You cannot just assume the existence of an unevidenced entity.

P1. Unicorns are eternal
P2. Blah blah blah
Conclusion. Therefore blah blah blah

P1 is a stand alone, self-asserting premise. People don't have to accept the premise is true. They can claim the argument is unsound because either the conclusion doesn't logically follow the premises OR they can reject one of the premises as implausible or false.

See how that works? I reject P1 as false, because it requires the existence of a needless and unevidenced entity. It assumes an unstated premise. To argue against this nonsense, one does not assert that unicorns are not eternal; one requires that the person asserting their eternality demonstrate that they even exist at all before one can even consider the truth value of P1.

 

[bigfield]

The Big Bang theory only describes the expansion of the universe as far back as the Planck epoch, where the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics cease to apply. It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe.

It’s a common misperception to think that I claim that science has proven that the universe began to exist. I’m not asserting that science has definitely proved the universe began. As you will see in a moment, I reason that it is actually impossible for science to ever be certain on that. Thus with the science in NOW in hand which of these two outcomes is far MORE PLAUSIBLE:

The universe began to existence?
Or
The universe is past eternal?

I’m just listening to Uncle Karl and following the overwhelming evidence where it leads...... to the most plausible outcome. No doubt you’ll disagree and have chosen the less plausible option.

Consider that even the great physicists are writing books about their theories of how the universe began.

I don’t necessarily agree with their theories but it certainly seems that the paradigm of a past eternal universe is on its last Planck of life support.

Relativity describes time as a property of Minkowski spacetime, which is a property of the physical universe. Without spacetime, there is no time, and it isn't even certain that time existed throughout the Planck epoch, owing to the fact that the universe was infinitesimally small and dense.

Our current understanding of time and causality suggests that the question of the universe's beginning might be invalid, somewhat like asking what's north of the North Pole. We're not in a position to make anything but guesses.

Further……………..regarding certainty……….

It's a common misconception that the Big Bang theory describes the beginning of the universe. Physicists aren't even certain what happens to time--which is a property of the physical universe--during the Planck epoch.

You are claiming that I have a misconception. Fair enough. Let’s seriously discuss that for a min. Do you actually see my conception here to label it missed? Or possibly are you just assuming that I base it on a blind faith theology thing? So please give me a chance to explain…………….

First, I understand your position here completely with regards to the Planck epic, I really do. I just perceive The Planck epic differently than you. I see it as evidence (not a gap) that the laws of nature began to exist. Hold on. You see it as a breakdown of the laws of nature producing a gap that science needs to fill in order for you accept.

I invite you for a min to really examine this issue from my POV. I’m certainly not asking you to agree with me or to be theological. Leave God out of it. Simply reason this through from my perspective just for a min.

Understand this …..we’re using the physical laws of nature to look back, the operative word “back”. Thus our present vocabulary reflects our backwards perception. You are claiming with your words of description that the laws of nature breakdown (gap). From the same evidence, by the same laws, I’m reasoning that’s where they actually began to exist (no gap). Here is what I mean…………..

Please really consider this scenario a min. Nature began to exist. Now picture what the laws of nature would look like if nature began to exist. What would that picture look like if we were look back to their actual beginning? Keep in mind this key perspective……we’re actually using the laws of nature as our tool to look at their own beginning. What would it look like?

I seriously contend it would look exactly like what we have right now. I’m completely impressed with the power of our science to get that close for the picture.

So from my point Planck view, looking at the same evidence, and I conclude nature began to exist

I said "...where the laws of relativity and quantum mechanics cease to apply." Those models break down, but that does not mean that the laws of nature itself break down. It's possible that physicists will establish a more complete theory that doesn't break down at such high energies. One cannot interpret the limitations of our physical models as meaning that "the laws of nature began to exist". It's even more incorrect tho suggest that nature itself began to exist; despite the limitation of our physical models, the physical universe still existed during the Planck epoch.

AND very importantly…………

That science can never definitively determine that, because the only tool we have to look back with is the very same thing we're trying to determine began to exist. So of course our tool will come up short of total determination. It’s not REASONABLY possible to use the laws of nature to determine the cause of the laws of nature. They can REASONABLY only get Planck close. Therefore I don’t see a gap. Reasoning properly closes that Planck gap that science will not ever be able to close.

And nothing I asserted there has anything to do with theology.

Your thoughts.

The KCA rests on the premise that the universe began to exist. It's an unsupported premise which makes the KCA an unsound argument.

(This is a flaw in the KCA that is distinct from the fact that it, like other variants of the Cosmological argument, relies on special pleading to claim the existence of a first cause.)

 

[remez]

Relativity describes time as a property of Minkowski spacetime, which is a property of the physical universe. Without spacetime, there is no time,

Yes, that’s one model.

……. there is no time, and it isn't even certain that time existed throughout the Planck epoch, owing to the fact that the universe was infinitesimally small and dense.

As I explained last time, none of that creates a gap where you need one to assert that the universe is eternal. You are trying to deny the obvious with a gap that does not address the issue. I’ll give you a shot though. Turn your gap there into an argument that would give us good reason to deny the obvious and to conclude that is more plausible that the universe is eternal. I’m not looking for a simply stated possibility, but a good reason to switch from the obvious.

Beware before you reply…….. Simply suggesting that “we don’t know approach” is better, provides no reason to reject what is now the most plausible, almost certain outcome.

Our current understanding of time and causality suggests that the question of the universe's beginning might be invalid, somewhat like asking what's north of the North Pole. We're not in a position to make anything but guesses.

Again…..“Our current understanding….suggests”, “might be invalid”, “anything but guesses” are desperate attempts to cling to a gap that is REASONABLY not there with this issue. The evidence we have now overwhelmingly infers a beginning. Are you this skeptical of evolutionary theory? With the real relevant gaps present there shouldn’t we just chuck the whole theory? Your pursuit here seems disparate and inconsistent.

Vilenkin, I’m sure you know who he is……………………….

It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.

So it seems pretty clear that it is far more plausible to conclude that the universe began to exist, even though we don’t know everything.

Again there is no theology in there at all.

It's possible that physicists will establish a more complete theory that doesn't break down at such high energies.

Again I can concede without any hesitation that we don’t know everything of the epoch. So by all means let’s continue to investigate. But that gap will have no bearing on the overwhelming rational outcome that nature began to exist. To that issue there is no gap. The evidence we now have in hand overwhelmingly concludes the universe began to exist.

One cannot interpret the limitations of our physical models as meaning that "the laws of nature began to exist".

I’m not interpreting from the limitations (your gap) of our physical models. I’m reasonably concluding from all that we do know. Hence no gap. You see…... this gap….. you keep saying that theists fill with God..... is actually a gap of your own creation….. that you actually fill with….. a blind faith science. We can keep playing with our models, but that will not change the overwhelming plausibly of a past finite universe.

As I explained before. All you are saying there is “give science more time and we will find that the universe is eternal.” It is a complete science of the gaps fallacy. As unreasonable as saying “Give me more time and I will scientifically find a way to give birth to my mother. After all we don’t know (gap) all there is to know about DNA.”

However it is the perfect fallacy for you, who cling to the self-refuting notion that science answers everything …..because it is a fallacy that will never go away because science will never be able to answer it with the complete certainty. It is the unrelated gap that just keeps on giving and giving..........

And in that gap.......there be models.
And
I almost forgot…....…We can always berate the theists for playing…..God of the gaps……with our gap.

It's even more incorrect tho suggest that nature itself began to exist; despite the limitation of our physical models, the physical universe still existed during the Planck epoch.

How does the existence of the universe during the Planck epoch alter the plausibility that it began to exist?

Related issue and very serious question…….. It is an undeniable fact that throughout most of the history of science……. the universe was reasoned to be eternal.

Exactly how was that reasoned?