The world just is finetuned, just like you say God is just intelligent. Why is God intelligent. You have.to stop somewhere. — Gregory

Exactly, the buck has to stop somewhere. And logic suggests it stops at an intelligent, timeless, fine-tuner.

There is simply the first motion, and time starts. Nothing before. — Gregory

Things don't start by themselves.

You have to really think about it for awhile with an open mind — Gregory

I have an open mind. I calculate the probability of a creator or creator(s) of the universe at approximately 95%, so I am still open minded. I hope to hone that estimate via debate.

Nothing is starting itself. You dont get it. Over your head. Bye

Nothing is starting itself. You dont get it. Over your head. Bye — Gregory

It is not over my head; you simply hold an illogical/indefensible viewpoint. I'm sure if you had any valid counter arguments, you would have given them.

There is a God

The uncaused cause must be able to cause an effect without itself being effected. Therefore it must be self-driven. Therefore it must be intelligent. An intelligent creator of the universe fits my personal definition for God.

Universe is uncaused cause, it existed before time. And although there are reasons to call the universe intelligent and equate it with god, to take that metaphor to biblical proportions and personificate universe as a stupid, angry, jelaous and psychopathic magical being is unnecessary and far more complicated postulate, bringing in more questions than answers, and is thus childishly unreasonable idea.

Universe is uncaused cause, it existed before time. — Zelebg

The universe is fine-tuned for life. Saying the universe existed before time means there is no room for a fine tuner so that leaves a billions to one shot that the universe is fine tuned by accident. So the odds are firmly against your explanation.

And although there are reasons to call the universe intelligent and equate it with god, to take that metaphor to biblical proportions and personificate universe as a stupid, angry, jelaous and psychopathic magical being is unnecessary and far more complicated postulate, bringing in more questions than answers, and is thus childishly unreasonable idea. — Zelebg

I am a deist so I do not associate my hypothesised God with the God of ancient scripture.

Deists don't usually try to convince others that it is rational to believe in God. They can't even communicate with their God, so what motive could they have? I think you just want to prove a point. I've expressed my position clearly, but it doesn't compute with ye. Maybe it will someday. See you

The universe is fine-tuned for life. Saying the universe existed before time means there is no room for a fine tuner so that leaves a billions to one shot that the universe is fine tuned by accident.

In every your argument I can substitute the word “god” with “universe”, and vice versa. And neither god nor universe as the first axiom explain anything, but god will always be more complicated and thus less reasonable assumption.

With god the question about fine tuning is not answered but exaggerated as we can ask not only why is god fine tuned to create life, but also why is “nothing” fine tuned for god to exist in the first place.

In every your argument I can substitute the word “god” with “universe”, and vice versa. And neither god nor universe as the first axiom explain anything, but god will always be more complicated and thus less reasonable assumption. — Zelebg

The fine tuning argument says there must be something external to spacetime to do the fine-tuning. If you remove God, you are left with something completely inexplicable / unexplained, so that is not a more reasonable explanation, it is a less reasonable explanation.

The universe is fundamentally in-time. Nothing can exist in time forever, so time must have a start. It must of been started by something beyond time.

With god the question about fine tuning is not answered but exaggerated as we can ask not only why is god fine tuned to create life, but also why is “nothing” fine tuned for god to exist in the first place. — Zelebg

Good point. I think that it must be that God does not require a fine-tuned environment to exist. God must be something quite different from our everyday experience I think. The very fact that there is something rather than nothing (we are not living in null universe), points to some sort of miracle. We posit that the universe is fine tuned. That requires a fine tuner. Then something must have fine tuned the fine tuner's environment. So we are in an infinite regress of fine tuners. The only way out is to posit a fine-tuner that does not need a fine-tuned environment. So I think God must be a creature that does not require a fine-tuned environment. Indeed, the start of everything must be timeless and there is clearly nothing 'before' a timeless entity, so it cannot in itself have a fine-tuned environment.

It's not about the numbering of moments — Devans99

Then what's 1st and nth about here? ↓

4. If time has no start, it has no 1st moment. If it has no nth moment, it has no nth+1 moment — Devans99

So, without such a 1st moment, you can't number such moments like that. (y) (though whatever indexical numbering will do, it's what we already do anyway)

the fact that the previous moment defines/determines the next moment — Devans99

A supposed 1st moment, having no defining previous moment, is then undefined?

And logic suggests it stops at an intelligent, timeless, fine-tuner — Devans99

Timeless? In that case, you break the principle of sufficient reason. (and some other things)

Then what's 1st and nth about here? — jorndoe

To think about time, it is handy to introduce numbering (IE a clock). I am not claiming time is actually numbered, just that in order to think about time, it is useful to have numbering (IE a clock).

So, without such a 1st moment, you can't number such moments like that. (y) (though whatever indexical numbering will do, it's what we already do anyway) — jorndoe

But my point is that there is a first moment. If there is no first moment, then there is no time at all.

A supposed 1st moment, having no defining previous moment, is then undefined? — jorndoe

The first moment of time is caused by the creation of space time. The first moment causes the second moment and so on...

Timeless? In that case, you break the principle of sufficient reason. (and some other things) — jorndoe

That is the whole point of my argument - to propose a revised version of the PSR - IE 'Everything in time has a cause'.

I actually appreciate your referring back. Anyone reading here can also refer back.

I see this: "They do not exist IMO." Of what relevance your opinion?
I see this: "I do not buy such explanations." Again, relevance?

This:
"It is a minor miracle that the atom exists and it requires specific fine tuning of the properties of quarks, electrons, the strong nuclear force, the electromagnetic force. All have to have their current values else no complex matter would exist and therefore no elements, no chemical compounds, and no life."

I assume you do not deny the existence of atoms & etc. So miracle or no, they're here. Science gives an account - understood as incomplete but still pretty good - and a "minor miracle" if you will. But you would replace that account with another that absolutely would be a major miracle. If you don't like miracles, why go from minor to major? Why go from that for which reasonable account is given, to something for which no account can be given, even in theory.

This:
"- 1) Any explanation of origins of the universe that involves a billions to one shot coming off is not worth the paper it's written on.
- 2) Each of those countless universes is made of the same stuff and evolve in the same way, so they all support life
- 3) Certain physical law apply across all possible universe and those laws must be fine tuned else our universe would not support life
- 4) We have a sample size of 1 that all universes support life so the statistics indicate they all support life."

#1 Where I live there are lotteries. In one of them the odds are around 250x10^6 against, yet people win them. You are yourself unlikely. Does that mean you do not exist, or that any reasonable account of you is nonsense? Yours is unthought-out nonsense. Any universe that existed would be - is - unlikely, if seen as a throw of dice. But as the operation of laws, not-so-unlikely. Maybe even inevitable, in some sense. You can have what you like to believe, but belief doesn't cut it as science, and my animosity is to someone who willfully disregards that distinction and argues belief as or instead of science.

#2, #3 In a book I have referred to before to you, Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees, it's made clear that in a multiverse environment, there's no law that says the the laws in any given universe match those in another. That is, your comments here are incoherent.

#4 Really? You do not seem to grasp that the criticism you receive is substantive and not mere invective. Your "views" are unreasoned, unreasonable, unreasoning expressions of belief. But in the dining room of reason, they're merely an offensive snout that just pokes above the level of the table and tries to steal a morsel.

#1 Where I live there are lotteries. In one of them the odds are around 250x10^6 against, yet people win them. You are yourself unlikely. Does that mean you do not exist, or that any reasonable account of you is nonsense? — tim wood

This is I think the Weak Anthropic Principle to which you refer. It explains that the universe must be life supporting because we are here to experience it - so no mystery about that. But it does not explain the reason why the universe is live supporting. There are two possible reasons:

1. A complete fluke (billions to one shot)
2. It was fine tuned to be life supporting

Which is the more likely in your opinion?

#2, #3 In a book I have referred to before to you, Just Six Numbers, Martin Rees, it's made clear that in a multiverse environment, there's no law that says the the laws in any given universe match those in another. That is, your comments here are incoherent. — tim wood

Multiverses are fundamentally unobservable so unscientific concepts. So you have to use your common sense and probability when thinking about multiverses. Really what are the chances that each universe is completely different from each other Vs they are all similar. The 2nd is much more probable.

In any case, the predominate multiverse theory, Eternal Inflation, has the universes all manufactured out of the same stuff and go through the same evolution. So the only common sense conclusion is that they all must be live supporting.

#4 Really? You do not seem to grasp that the criticism you receive is substantive and not mere invective. Your "views" are unreasoned, unreasonable, unreasoning expressions of belief. But in the dining room of reason, they're merely an offensive snout that just pokes above the level of the table and tries to steal a morsel. — tim wood

I've told you about this before. Reasoned counter arguments please, not mindless diatribe.

Reasoned counter arguments please, not mindless diatribe. — Devans99

Deal. Now present reasoned arguments.

"The mind is fundamentally illogical" Devans99

OK.

1. The universe is indubitably fine tuned for life and the WAP/SAP are both flawed explanations of why. So there can be only one explanation, that a fine tuner exists.

2. Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect. Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime.

Your counter arguments please...

If you remove God, you are left with something completely inexplicable / unexplained, so that is not a more reasonable explanation, it is a less reasonable explanation.

I would think by definition there can not possibly exist anything more inexplicable and unexplained than god itself. Every property of god is maximally fantastic and magical, to say the least, and not to go into how they are paradoxical as self-refuting or contradicting each other.

I would think by definition there can not possibly exist anything more inexplicable and unexplained than god itself. Every property of god is maximally fantastic and magical, to say the least, and not to go into how they are paradoxical as self-refuting or contradicting each other. — Zelebg

That is using a theist definition of God. I use a deist definition of God. He is more like a timeless architect, a designer, as opposed to the omnipotent/omnipresent/omniscient God of ancient scripture.

I am not claiming time is actually numbered, just that in order to think about time, it is useful to have numbering — Devans99

A different deduction, then. Cool, let's have it. (y)
^{(Despite the connotations, mathematical induction is fine as far as deduction goes.)}

If there is no first moment, then there is no time at all — Devans99

Let's have the proof (I mean, not just saying so). (y)

The first moment of time is caused by the creation of space time — Devans99

Everything in time has a cause — Devans99

Subtly switching between moments and causes in mid-run. :meh:
So, "the creation of space time" is supposedly the 1st cause and the 1st moment?
Anyway, let's have the proof instead.

Subtly switching between moments and causes in mid-run. :meh:
So, "the creation of space time" is supposedly the 1st cause and the 1st moment?
Anyway, let's have the proof instead. — jorndoe

OK BGV theorem:

1. An expanding universe (the only sort possible) must have a spacetime boundary at the start.

2. Einstein says (and we have empirical evidence for his claim) that time is observed to slow in intense gravitational fields. So as we go back in time in our expanding universe, we observe time to slow down as gravitational forces increase due to increased density of matter. At the first point of expansion, time is logically not flowing. A start of time.

3. Something must have caused the expansion to start. Call it X. What caused X. Call it Y. What caused Y. Call it Z... we are in an infinite causal regress. The only way out of such is to have something uncaused (from beyond causality=time) to start of the whole process.

So expanding universes (which science tells us our universe is) must have a start of time; trebly so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borde–Guth–Vilenkin_theorem

For the reader, the BGK theorem only says there is a distinct boundary at the start, a unique start. The authors have clarified MANY times that they didn't mean to say that an eternal universe is impossible.

https://bigthink.com/surprising-science/radical-theory-says-our-universe-sits-on-an-inflating-bubble-in-an-extra-dimension?utm_medium=Social&facebook=1&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR0lb4dTeKeT3quHEfiBQUnAJoHVNkiXkN9l9ImhotEr_RNK_nsK0EJNv6Q#Echobox=1577574580

1. The universe is indubitably fine tuned for life and the WAP/SAP are both flawed explanations of why. So there can be only one explanation, that a fine tuner exists.

2. Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect. Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime.

Your counter arguments please... — Devans99

"The universe is indubitably fine tuned for life." Meaning of "fine-tuned" please. Even "fine" and "tuned" separately. WAP/SAP are not "explanations" of life. Why would you think they were? And "Indubitably"? How do you know that life is not merely an evolved state of matter, inevitable where matter is, and enough time? Therefore no "fine-tuning," no "indubitable."

"Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect." Really? Does it? Please cite. (I don't think it does, except apparently in some certain ways, but not in others.) Anyway, yours a claim, not an argument. Make it an argument with a citation.

"Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime." A completely unsupported claim. Please support.

I thought we had a deal. Your argue/counterargue, I counter argue/argue/and give up so-called "mindless diatribes." Do you even know what an argument is?

However, I think this is a bit defeatist. With such an attitude, science will not progress. — Devans99

It looks like you misinterpreted me. What I said was that we cannot base our understanding of time based upon the way our brain perceives it - this also applies to our understanding of gravity, quantum mechanics, etc. If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into.

We understand time and causality well enough to draw some initial conclusions — Devans99

This notion of causality has no place in physics. I can speak from experience as I was a physics major in college - albeit not a very good physicist. I can assure you that the notion of causality never appeared in my 4 years of undergraduate study. I did encounter it when I took Philosophy 101 & 102. However, this philosophical concept of causality does not correspond to reality at the atomic and sub-atomic levels. Events happen with no prior measurable or discernible "cause" whatsoever.

As far as time goes, it appears - based on our current understanding - that time started with the big bang some 13 odd billion years ago. However, that knowledge is *very* preliminary - and we cannot draw any other conclusions from it.

I have no idea what you're getting at with the hamsters. I also have no illusions that I will change your mind.

I'll give you the last word here - if you want it that is :smile:

How do you know that life is not merely an evolved state of matter, inevitable where matter is, and enough time? — tim wood

Because even advanced matter (IE atoms/molecules) would not form in the vast majority of hypothetical universes. If you had a computer program generate universes at random with random configurations of forces and particles, the huge majority of generated universes would fall into one of the following categories:

1. Too much adhesion. Everything ends up in one big black hole
2. Too little adhesion. IE quarks bouncing off each other forever (no advanced matter)

Our universe, with atoms/molecules, is a very fine balancing point between these two extremes. The chances that this balance happened by accident are probably billions to one.

"Everything in the spacetime follows the law of cause and effect." Really? Does it? — tim wood

What can I say. You experience causality every second of your life and yet you are in denial of it? It governs every macro level interaction in the universe and the origins of the universe is a macro level question (involving huge amounts of matter).

"Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime." A completely unsupported claim. Please support. — tim wood

1. If there is no first cause, there is no second cause
2. If there is no nth cause, there is no nth+1 cause
3. So there are no causes. But there are causes all around us so this is a contradiction
4. So there must be a first cause
5. A first cause must be uncaused; IE beyond causality; IE beyond time.

If we ever come to an understanding of these issues, it will most likely come through years (decades? centuries? millennia?) of continued scientific research - or whatever scientific research evolves into. — EricH

Yes but I cannot wait millennia, I need answers in my lifetime. So I have to use probability. I estimate it is 95% likely that time has a start. So I maybe wrong, but probably not.

This notion of causality has no place in physics. — EricH

Newton's 3rd law - every action has an equal and opposite reaction - does reflect the nature of cause and effect somewhat. Causality does (by appeal to everyday experience) govern everything in the macro world and the origin of the universe is a macro question (huge amounts of matter involved).

As far as time goes, it appears - based on our current understanding - that time started with the big bang some 13 odd billion years ago. However, that knowledge is *very* preliminary - and we cannot draw any other conclusions from it. — EricH

All expanding universes lead to a start of time logically, as mentioned here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/368829

I have no idea what you're getting at with the hamsters. — EricH

1. You put the hamster in the cage and observe
2. You take the hamster out of the cage and observe
3. You conclude that there must be a God — Devans99

The universe is not in equilibrium and has never been in equilibrium. All dumb mechanical systems tend to equilibrium. So the universe must have always been more than a dumb mechanical system; there must of always been a hamster (=God) keeping the universe out of equilibrium.

...I'm sorry, were you not able to answer my questions?

"Therefore logically there must be a cause beyond spacetime." A completely unsupported claim. Please support.
— tim wood

1. If there is no first cause, there is no second cause
2. If there is no nth cause, there is no nth+1 cause
3. So there are no causes. But there are causes all around us so this is a contradiction
4. So there must be a first cause
5. A first cause must be uncaused; IE beyond causality; IE beyond time. — Devans99

Ah, but this is a construction grounded in a logic and a language. Which both comport with themselves and more or less with the ordinary world as we perceive it; on this we can agree: logically, you appear to be correct. But you seek to apply that logic and its language to that with which they may not "comport," and that is a failure of thinking and of understanding. Logic/language are tools, shaped to conform to our needs in our version of the world as we experience it. That in no way means that the world is itself obligated to conform to either. To suppose that it might and investigate whether is one kind of scientific approach. On the other hand to insist that it does is just a mistake.

And, you take the meaning of "cause" for granted and leave it undefined. This too is (by now) in your thinking a failure of your thinking and your understanding. Others have instructed you on "cause." It's a word you need to research and come to an understanding of, in its proper context.

Logic/language are tools, shaped to conform to our needs in our version of the world as we experience it. That in no way means that the world is itself obligated to conform to either. — tim wood

I have the opinion that reality is 100% logical and anywhere where it seems illogical is just due to our lack of understanding. So we can use logic to probe reality - contradictions just don't happen in reality - so we can trust our logical arguments.

And, you take the meaning of "cause" for granted and leave it undefined — tim wood

A first cause must be able to cause effects without in itself being effected. So it must be self-driven. IE Intelligent.

you're not open minded

Maybe the universe flows from the Tao and doesn't change it