No, the laws of physics were not wrong, they were not yet applicable and remained only in potential form until physical matter emerged from the BB plasma at which time the laws of physics kicked in. And if it appears that the laws of physics are wrong, we just don't understand the physics. The laws cannot be wrong, our understanding of the laws and/or physics can be wrong...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Funny about what? What accident? My use of the term "non-existent"? How about "existing as potential, but "not yet expressed". A singularity is obviously not an expansion (growth) of something, until it expands (inflates). Then the universe emerges and begins to expand by an exponential function. If something is not expanding in an exponential manner, does that make the law of the exponential function wrong? Of course not, laws of physics can exist as abstract potentials, inherent in the fabric of spacetime. But you have to have spacetime and physical stuff and physical interaction or change for the mathematical functions of the laws of physics to become expressed. It is a requirement of reality.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Even in the inflationary epoch, nothing went FTL as far as I understand it. Space merely expanded. Quite quickly, admittedly. But things didn't travel FTL. And still don't. Space simply expands such that more distant objects appear to move away from us FTL, but they are not travelling. And there were laws during the inflationary epoch. Unsurprisingly, they are the same laws as govern the universe at the moment. The laws didn't suddenly change. The conditions were different, allowing the inflation, but the laws themselves still hold. Not "after the event" but "with the event". It makes no sense for time to start "after" an event, as "after" implies a passage of time. You may think you're going by the evidence but I think you have misinterpreted it. The laws of physics of this universe began, as far as we know, with this universe. They didn't "emerge". They were there from the start and continue. It is that very invariance of the physical laws that has allowed scientists to be able to model the universe back to pretty much the first moment, and why we believe those laws break down at t=0. It is the invariance of those laws that has given rise to the current models, and all the variations thereof. The only things that have changed have been the conditions that the laws apply to. We may only have discovered some pertinent to current conditions, but they were still all part of the universe from t=0. We can't form a model other than out of pure speculation. There is no predictive value in any model. We have zero knowledge of it, other than one example of what it gave rise to. You say that the conditions "no longer exist or will ever exist again" but those conditions never existed within our universe. From after t=0 the universe was, at least as far as science understands it, a closed beast. This is precisely why we are able to theorise about, and model, the early universe. Our universe began at t=0. While the inflationary epoch lasted until c.10E-32 seconds or so, the universe did exist before then, although there are no theories with predictive value before 10E-43 seconds (Planck epoch). It is thought, however, that particles acquired mass around 10E-12 seconds. That is quite a long time (in universe-formation terms) after the inflationary epoch. But even before then... the universe did exist. That is a rather curious way to look at things. The laws of physics still apply to electromagnetism, to gravity, to Higgs Bosons, to electronuclear forces etc. Matter is just a more recent form of what was already there. Physics applies to them all, from t=0. Only the conditions changed. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, no harm done. I completely agree with all of that. They even hold in the abstract. But they emerge (govern) only with specific expressions of change, not all at once everywhere. Until a law is required it remains a latent potential. Yes, I agree, time started with what I believe was a mega-quantum event and the release of near infinite energy, which then chronologically was converted into matter, each stage in accordance with the applicable mathematics. However, if there was a state of initial chaos (see chaos theory) everything thereafter is an emergent property of spacetime. Oh yes, I totally agree, I would even go further and say that the laws of physics abstractly existed before this universe began, but emerged from latency along with the emergence of matter. I agree. I agree with all of it. LOL, yes, I think we are very close in our perspectives. I was taking a shortcut. You say ALL the laws of physics came into existence with the advent of the universe. I say NOT ALL the laws became active with the advent of the universe. Some laws were implicated but had to wait for say Hydrogen to appear, that the physical laws pertaining to hydrogen to emerge (become manifest) as mathematical guiding forces, as with helium, oxygen, physical stuff, stars, galaxies,........... etc. But as Tegmark says : It can all be modelled with 33 numbers and a handful of equations (constants). Reality is a collection of dynamic mathematical patterns. Which would make mathematics an essence of the universal fabric and the laws of physics are the mathematical guides of how physical change happens. But they remain latent until used...Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
There is a shorter route. "I can only approach the subject of God within a political context." This places you in a broader spectrum rather than the downright evil (which is quite an exclusive position). It is better to be moderate and assume the humble position rather than to artificially espouse being the topmost, like some sort of egotistical radical extremist.
They did not. They have posted essentially nothing on topic in this thread. That's not why they are here. They post like this, instead:
Much like there is no evidence that the Andaman Islands is under Indian sovereignty .... depending of course on who you ask.
You can just say "I don't have anything" rather than the endless deflections and attempts to change the subject. Might save you some typing.
You could also try saying "Lets talk philosophy while ignoring anything philosophical." It could also save you heaps of time ... assuming you can resist the urge to draw pictures of dead fish and the like.
All you have to do, to shut everyone up is just present some evidence. It's that simple. If we disagree, you can defend it, and present any number arguments to support it. But we would have made the first leap forward in this thread in almost 1000 posts, We'd at least be arguing about whether or not something someone actually produced is convincing,
Instead of popping in for token atheist posturing and other forms of generic skulduggery, you could try taking things back to the beginning ... http://www.sciforums.com/threads/evidence-that-god-is-real.161157/page-2#post-3540828
That bs is all those guys are ever going to post on this forum. Providing threads for them is just giving them a platform for repetition. They are not here to discuss anything. They are here to disparage reason and science and the people who employ reason and science, over and over, under any pretext they can find here.
The way the traditional arguments of natural theology seem to go is kind of the reverse of that: 1. Physical reality exhibits particular qualities: it behaves in accordance with reason, it exhibits cause-effect order and so on. To say nothing of being beautiful, inspiring and things like that. Mind and mental qualites are displayed by parts of it. That's the evidence that everyone is shouting about... how the universe is observed to be. Both theists (in their natural theological moods) and atheists start in the same place with essentially the same evidence. Subsequent differences come from their spinning that evidence in different ways. 2. Physical reality, and these aspects of reality, need explanation. Science might arguably be out of it's depth when it addresses metaphysical problems like these, since it's all about observing the relationships (preferably mathematical relationships) that seem to hold true between different parts of physical reality. Metaphysical naturalism is arguably just as much a leap of faith as anything else. 3. Whatever the answer to these sort of big metaphysical questions might be, it would presumably exhibit certain qualities of its own. The source of the universe's order and rationality would presumably itself be ordered and rational to at least the same degree. Any hypothetical first-cause would be something that doesn't require a cause of its own. And so on... 4. The qualities attributed to the hypothetical explanation are identified with traditional divine attributes.
Several posts have emphasized a big distinction between evidence and argument. The complaint was that while Craig presents arguments, he doesn't present evidence. I'm a bit doubtful about that. What Craig seem to do is make a inference to the best explanation argument. (Or what he believes is the best explanation.) Science does that all the time. Suppose that somebody is challenged to produce some evidence for the truth of general relativity. They might point to the precession of Mercury's orbit. But... whatever observational evidence we have there is just evidence for the precession of Mercury's orbit, not for general relativity. An argument still has to be attached to it. The support for general relativity isn't directly observed, it derives from how what is observed is subsequently spun. Most of science is like that. Evidence is often rather indirect and inferential, and conclusions are dependent on all kinds of auxiliary assumptions. Atoms and molecules play big roles in science, but they aren't directly observable. They are inferred. Even if some instrument, an electron microscope or whatever, can image a molecule, understanding and justifying the instrument's operation will depend on a large amount of theory. (Interestingly, the physicist Ernst Mach never really accepted the reality of atoms for this kind of reason and considered them theoretical constructions.) Or take a more mundane example. You wake up in the morning, go in the kitchen, and see a plate, crumbs and an empty glass with milk residue in it. You conclude that somebody you live with got up and made themselves a snack. But that's not something you observe, it's a conclusion drawn as the result of an inference. It isn't a deductive inference either, since it remains logically possible that the things on the table had another explanation. (Maybe you did it yourself while sleep-walking and don't remember it. Maybe somebody broke in to your house and did it. Maybe the plate and crumbs were on the table last night and you didn't notice.) Bottom line: I don't think that evidence and argument can typically be so cleanly distinguished.
Nope. I'd rather just ask for evidence, then laugh when you try desperately to dodge the question or deflect it into philosophy or something.
Remember, you asked. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! You're playing the role of an apologist. You're siding with the pro-evidence stance but I don't think you actually have a stance of your own on the existence of God - at least not one you're willing to put on the table and defend. And that's OK. (If that's wrong, then your position may have gotten lost in the fray.) But I think it indicates that you're more interested in the battle than the victory. You use equivocation a lot to argue why evidence is not going to get the OP and like-minded members what they seek. That's not the same as standing up for the existence of evidence of God. Super-simplistically, the debate breaks down three ways: James R, et al: I see no evidence for the existence of God. Jan et al: There is lots of evidence for the existence of God. Musika: We can't discuss whether or not there's evidence for the existence of God unless it's done right. Not that I'm harping on your motives - after all, why we argue the things we do shouldn't really come into play. The reason I think it's germane is because of this: I see you asking for special pleading in the case of God. That is it not subject to analysis, unless it's on your terms. That seems to be the takeaway that affects this thread. It if isn't meant to be, then perhaps, again, the message has gotten lost in the fray. That being said, if there is evidence for God in the post you referenced, I am missing it. I blame my aging eyes. Can you point me directly to the particular phrase?
