(May 15, 2017 at 10:04 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Why WOULDN'T there be something instead of nothing? [1]
No one knows for sure how the universe came into being, and it's profoundly stupid or mendacious to think that anyone could give any other answer honestly. [2]
That the universe is fine-tuned to support human life is a claim based on a thought experiment. You don't know the probabilities and neither does anyone else. No one knows if the universal constants could have been any value at all, a narrowly prescribed range of values, or have to be the way they are by necessity. We don't know if this is the only universe or one out of trillions. [3]
It's the nature of actual evidence that it stands up to scrutiny and leads to a particular conclusion. If the same evidence 'supports' mutually exclusive conclusions, it's not really evidence. [4]
1. Because everything that exists has a explanation of it's existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or an external cause). So, what is the explanation that there is anything at all?
2. I did not ask how the universe (or multiverse) came into being. I asked how it came into being out of 'nothing'. Two very different questions. The first being filled with technical explanations and the second simply asking for the metaphysical explanation how nothing produced an eventual universe.
3. No, the universe is finely tuned to support life (a fact not in question). I have never seen anywhere a serious scientist say that it is the way it is by necessity (correct me if I am wrong) so the only available naturalistic explanation is to appeal to chance--with or without a multiverse. Because the probability is so low, most appeal to a multiverse. Ironically however, the multiverse itself must be finetuned (I posted this a while back)
Quote:The mechanism that generates universes must itself has laws that govern how universes are spawned. An inflationary-type multiverse must have the following mechanisms:
i. cause the expansion of a small region of space into a very large one.
ii. generate the very large amounts of mass-energy needed for that region to contain matter instead of merely empty space.
iii. convert the mass-energy of the inflated space to the sort of mass-energy we find in our universe
iv. cause sufficient variations among the constants of physics to explain their fine-tuning
Both (i) and (ii) are achieved by two factors: a) a postulated inflation field that gives empty space a positive energy density, and b) Einstein's equations from General Relativity. (iii) requires the old E=MC^2. So before we even get to creating matter/laws/constants, we have a very precise initial conditions necessary to to create a "random" universe. How is that not fine-tuned?
(reference: Blackwell's Companion to Natural Theology, p.263 ff)
Regardless, as part of a cumulative case for God, it piles on reasons for belief in God.
4. Do you have evidence that I have overlooked or misidentified? While science can, in some circumstances, certainly provide evidence of a fact that may intersect with the supernatural, most of what I am discussing are metaphysical questions and science is not helpful (and never will be). I think this point escapes many atheists--science will not be providing answers to these questions so to hide behind "we don't know yet" is just the same as "we don't know." I am not claiming this conclusively proves God, but it does make it reasonable to posit God and the best explanation.
