1. Chances of a very special universe that is life supporting by accident: billion to one
2. Chance of a fine tuner who exists in a non fined tuned environment: considerably higher

1. chance that A just so happens to exist and has property B
2. chance that X just so happens to exist and has property Y which is to create A that has property B

1) What is your definition then?
2) I am thinking of everything in 4d spacetime mode. So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point.
3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening.
4) -
5) What is your definition then? — Devans99

1) Time. Sometimes language is the problem. In definitions there's usually an "is." To define time, it seems natural to start with, "time is...". But that doesn't work. Better to start with a phenomenological approach. E.g., what is time when it is functioning as time? This of course is clumsy, but it bends the path of thought to what it is in use - and who is using it, and how and why. And that's about the best that can be done, so far as I know. Sometimes this kind of "definition" is expressed in an "is when" proposition. E.g., time is when that happened then, this is happening now, and something else will happen in the future. Past, present, future, before, same time, after. And so forth. In short, I think time is defined by how we observe it, use it, and understand it in use. If you know of anything better, please cite it here. A consequence is that if anyone does say that, "time is," that is immediately suspect until and unless it be more fully explicated, usually as, "time is when," which is to say, phenomenologically. And this all means that a person has to take some care with what they say about time.

2)

So space is analogous to time. So like every object has a spacial starting point(s), it also has a temporal starting point. — Devans99

Until you account for the "starting" point on any surface, like the surface of a sphere, you got nothing here, either spatially or temporally. You could make it all a hypothetical, as in, "if" x then y, but that gets you exactly nowhere in your thinking.

3) Cause.

3) How about the physical pre-conditions that result in an event happening. — Devans99

Like the great chain of causation? Chains, of course, are made of links - that's the idea, yes? - but links don't make the chain. The missing ingredient is the linking of the links to make a chain, and never mind the phenomenology here. If you want to argue in terms of causes, then you have to have a good grasp of linking. Perhaps the difficulty of this question, or at least it's problematic nature, is why formal science thinks in terms of fields, and leaves "causes" for informal and descriptive exposition. This, btw, having been explicitly expressed to you by several people several times.

4) Big bang. Care even with this blunt object of a concept. But no complaints here, yet, with yours.

5) First. Coherent in ordinary usage, Not coherent in your usage. For you it stands as a presupposition. But even in your usage it won't serve. You want your designer/g/God, even at the cost of rationality. But all you've done is pushed the can - the question - down the road. As a presupposition, you would have it that it works in your argument. But then it poisons your whole argument. "If frogs had wings...". Great, but at the moment frogs don't have wings. Your argument becomes one of flying frogs. That is, even if you had your g/God, then where (when, why, how) did it come from? Always there? Turtles all the way down? I call this argument the fallacious appeal to the greater nonsense.

Ignorance is the general and greater condition of us all. We do know a thing or two, but expanding on that is result, ultimately, of work, not fantasy.

So you think that a greater than any finite number of days (or Planck intervals if you prefer) has passed? — Devans99

Non sequitur.

The length of a circumference can be measured with a finite (natural) number of [units-of-choice] and yet it's unbounded.

I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB — Devans99

Of course you don't. :yawn:

There is nothing without a first cause; it determines and defines everything else in existence. — Devans99

Repeating this uncorroborated and unsound assertion (i.e. g/G of the gaps) doesn't make it so. Besides, "first cause" is jabberwocky like first integer ... or north of the north pole.

You are not able to give a satisfactory reason why the argument does not work, so I will keep posting it; it is a sound argument. — Devans99

A. assume infinite past moments
B. then there's no 1st moment
C. or 2nd ... or nth moment
D. so A can't be numbered with a 1st ... nth moment
E. ?

You allege yours to be a purely deductive proof, yes?
So, show your E (or F) deductively.

Whether A or not, we can (and do) put up a temporal flag pole (say, at 1970-01-01 00:00 UTC) and take it from there. Works fine either way, whether A or not, past and future. In fact, we have to, because we don't know of any definite 1st moment that we can adjust all our clocks to.

Then it must have tuned itself while it was beyond space and time. Of course it’s possible, you should know, it’s simply a special kind of universe. — Zelebg

What possible motive would there be for spacetime to fine-tune itself for life? There is no such motive; the motive for fine tuning is the generation of a spacetime that supports life must be linked to an intelligent agent that desires spacetime to support life.

God is superfluous proposition that does not answer any questions -- god is fine tuned to create life, so there must be a god-tuner. Do you see? — Zelebg

God is not fine tuned to create life; it is a natural instinct for all intelligent beings to desire information and life is information. God created spacetime because he was bored. Put yourself in God's shoes; what else would you do apart from create spacetime?

To express the argument in the OP an bit more succinctly:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner (99.999% probability)
2. Can’t be an infinite regress of fine tuners (100% probability)
3. So there must be an uncaused fine tuner in a non-fine tuned environment (99.999% probability)

The length of a circumference can be measured with a finite (natural) number of [units-of-choice] and yet it's unbounded. — 180 Proof

So you are proposing that time is circular? Even in that case, it still has a start.

I don't see how anything at Planck-scale could possibly be responsible for something like the BB
— Devans99
Of course you don't. :yawn: — 180 Proof

And you can't explain how it could happen either.

Repeating this uncorroborated and unsound assertion (i.e. g/G of the gaps) doesn't make it so. Besides, "first cause" is jabberwocky like first integer ... or north of the north pole. — 180 Proof

It is corroborated and sound; it is simply impossible for causality to exist without a first cause. Imagine a perfect, frictionless, pool table. The ball are wizzing around, they will go on wizzing around for a potential infinity of time. Your claim is like saying there was never any break-off shot by the player; utter nonsense.

A. assume infinite past moments
B. then there's no 1st moment
C. or 2nd ... or nth moment
D. so A can't be numbered with a 1st ... nth moment — jorndoe

But D is just plain wrong - we can run down the list of moments numbering them all.

In short, I think time is defined by how we observe it, use it, and understand it in use. — tim wood

What about the speed of light speed limit? Speed is distance/time, so something in the universe (the laws of the universe) are intimately aware of time. Hence I say time is a component of spacetime, a dimension - it is not just a human measurement tool - it is part of the universe.

Until you account for the "starting" point on any surface, like the surface of a sphere, you got nothing here, either spatially or temporally. You could make it all a hypothetical, as in, "if" x then y, but that gets you exactly nowhere in your thinking. — tim wood

We can use arbitrary imposed coordinate system on space to judge what is the spacial start of each object. With time the coordinate system is less arbitrary as time has a definite direction.

Perhaps the difficulty of this question, or at least it's problematic nature, is why formal science thinks in terms of fields, and leaves "causes" for informal and descriptive exposition. This, btw, having been explicitly expressed to you by several people several times. — tim wood

Science still uses cause and effect; a photon collides of a proton; the proton is deflected; the photon causes the proton to deflect. You cannot get away from cause and effect being a totally fundamental concept in science. Does or does not cause and effect rule everything you do or experience?

You want your designer/g/God, even at the cost of rationality. But all you've done is pushed the can - the question - down the road. As a presupposition, you would have it that it works in your argument. But then it poisons your whole argument. "If frogs had wings...". Great, but at the moment frogs don't have wings. Your argument becomes one of flying frogs. That is, even if you had your g/God, then where (when, why, how) did it come from? Always there? Turtles all the way down? I call this argument the fallacious appeal to the greater nonsense. — tim wood

I am using rational arguments. I merely think God is the most probable explanation. God did not come from anywhere and there is no question of why God exists. God exists timelessly and permanently; there is no 'before' God so there can be no reason for his existence. Everything in time has a cause. God is beyond time and the required cause of everything.

God is not fine tuned to create life; it is a natural instinct for all intelligent beings to desire information and life is information.

Obviously then god must be fine-tuned to have information deficit, natural instincts and desire to create life, therefore there must be god-tuner.

To express the argument in the OP an bit more succinctly:

1. The universe is fine-tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner (99.999% probability)
2. Can’t be an infinite regress of fine tuners (100% probability)
3. So there must be an uncaused fine tuner in a non-fine tuned environment (99.999% probability)

You are confusing yourself with unnecessary information. The choice boils down to this:

1. A just so happens to exist and has property B
2. X just so happens to exist and has property Y which is to create A that has property B


Do you understand that postulating god, even if it explained the existence of the universe, does not explain god’s existence nor any of its properties, and that you are left with bigger mystery than before?

It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand. One last attempt: tell us in your own words exactly what you think time is.

↪Devans99 It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand. — tim wood

The charitable bet's on "cannot".

Obviously then god must be fine-tuned to have information deficit, natural instincts and desire to create life, therefore there must be god-tuner. — Zelebg

But all intelligent creatures naturally have an information deficit; God is not fine tuned in anyway. Put yourself in God's shoes, an empty universe; what would you do? Create some sort of toy. A life supporting universe is the ultimate toy.

Do you understand that postulating god, even if it explained the existence of the universe, does not explain god’s existence nor any of its properties, and that you are left with bigger mystery than before? — Zelebg

The whole story of the universe only hangs together if there is a timeless, uncaused cause that fine tunes and creates spacetime; there is simply no other explanation that is as satisfactory in a logical sense as some sort of creator. It's almost certain that time has a start and something timeless and causally effective is required to create time.

It's clear that either you do not or will not or cannot understand. One last attempt: tell us in your own words exactly what you think time is. — tim wood

I've already told you. Again:

- Its a degree of freedom, like a dimension, only we can only move one way through it
- It is part of the fabric of the universe; not some manmade creation (see the speed of light)

God is not fine tuned in anyway.

God is fine-tuned to produce life in the same way you concluded the universe is fine tuned. It created life, so it was either fine tuned to do so or it was an accident.

Was there a chance for god to not create the universe?

The whole story of the universe only hangs together if there is a timeless, uncaused cause that fine tunes and creates spacetime; there is simply no other explanation that is as satisfactory in a logical sense as some sort of creator. It's almost certain that time has a start and something timeless and causally effective is required to create time.

You do not have an explanation. You just substituted one mystery with another, bigger one. Why does the universe exist - because of god. Why does god exist?

I've already told you. Again:

- Its a degree of freedom, like a dimension, only we can only move one way through it
- It is part of the fabric of the universe; not some manmade creation (see the speed of light) — Devans99

That's evidence of something called "time," got through perception. But you seem to want more, so I ask you for more. You like "is," so use it. Time is....

Alternatively, just own your arguments as the hypotheticals they are. So, for example, if God is a giant hippopotamus, then He has a big mouth (or any other silly example you care to provide). The point is that if you grant the antecedent, then the argument is valid - which I am sure you know perfectly well. And here you ought to stop, but you go far beyond into the invalid, unfounded, nonsensical and untrue, seemingly all based on your hypotheticals. Persistence in these, in nonsense, is evidence of cognitive difficulty, and it is a mistake on the part of others, like me, to engage with it.

You shall have to simply accept that your "problems" are a mix of language misapplied, misunderstood, and your desire for a certain kind of meaning, as against a universe which not only does not care, but does not even notice.

... there is simply no other explanation that is as satisfactory in a logical sense as some sort of creator. — Devans99

Yet 'the kalam' doesn't sufficiently explain anything in a physical sense.

:yawn:

As for your "logical sense", D99, it's (at best) naïve. Besides the litany of your fallacies myself and others have pointed on this and other threads, your specious argument/s amount to

• A specific mystery ("cause of the big bang") 'resolved' by a general mystery ("uncaused, or so-called 'first', cause")???

• Causality itself (i.e. the cosmos) is an 'effect' of a ... 'cause'??? (via antiquated newtonian "billiards" metaphor of cause-effect ... :roll:)

• An a posteriori conclusion that an a priori premise obtains???

:rofl:

God is fine-tuned to produce life in the same way you concluded the universe is fine tuned. — Zelebg

No that's not the case; intelligent creatures are interested in information; IE other intelligent creatures. Its just natural to want to fill the emptiness with something.

You do not have an explanation. You just substituted one mystery with another, bigger one. Why does the universe exist - because of god. Why does god exist? — Zelebg

There is no reason for God's existence; he is timeless; there is no 'before' God so there can be no reason for God. Something must have permanent, uncaused existence, else there would be nothing at all and permanent existence is only possible outside of time.

A specific mystery ("cause of the big bang") 'resolved' by a general mystery ("uncaused, or so-called 'first', cause")??? — 180 Proof

If something looks very unnatural then it probably is unnatural. A massive unnatural looking explosion; the exact opposite of natural equilibrium, expanding at just such a rate that equilibrium is avoided and life is therefore possible. It must have been caused by something and causality requires a first cause. Seems perfectly straight-forward to me. I think you are searching for an answer that does not require a first cause and from your clueless flailing above; it is clear you have no such answer.

Causality itself (i.e. the cosmos) is an 'effect' of a ... 'cause'??? (via antiquated newtonian "billiards" metaphor of cause-effect . — 180 Proof

Causality rules our lives; there is nothing we can be more certain of than causality. Ignoring the pivotal role of causality is extremely foolish of you.

1. Time has a start
2. Universe is not in equilibrium
3. Causality based arguments
4. Fine tuning
5. Big Bang
6. Aquinas 3rd argument

Thats a lot of evidence for a creator of the universe; verses precisely none against that you and others have offered up.

Was there a chance for god to not create the universe?

No that's not the case; intelligent creatures are interested in information; IE other intelligent creatures. Its just natural to want to fill the emptiness with something.

Oh yes, it is the case. You are merely substituting one word with another and think new word brings in explanation. Wake up!!

God is fine tuned to be exactly in the way of whatever properties you imagine it to have, so fine tuned to be interested in information, thus fine-tuned to create life.

And also, god creating the universe would be artificial, while it is only natural for the nature of the universe to naturally produce life, obviously.

There is no reason for God's existence

There you go, congratulations! You are free now, enjoy.

Was there a chance for god to not create the universe? — Zelebg

My feeling is that there is a 10% chance of no God and a 90% chance of God.

God is fine tuned to be exactly in the way of whatever properties you imagine it to have, so fine tuned to be interested in information, thus fine-tuned to create life. — Zelebg

No, all intelligent creatures are basically the same; an information processor (mind) and a memory. All intelligent creatures desire information. So left with a blank, empty universe, any intelligent creature would try to create something to occupy him (IE spacetime). There is no fine-tuning of God.

And also, god creating the universe would be artificial, while it is only natural for the nature of the universe to naturally produce life, obviously. — Zelebg

It is very unnatural for a universe to create life; nearly all hypothetical universes would not support it.

1. Time has a start
2. Universe is not in equilibrium
3. Causality based arguments
4. Fine tuning
5. Big Bang
6. Aquinas 3rd argument

That's a lot of evidence for a creator of the universe; verses precisely none against that you and others have offered up. — Devans99

You're a broken record repeating the same things over and over. What evidence do you have that time has a start (or for any of your other assertions)? After all, you assert them. Now prove them. Until I see them I'm out of the Devans99 business, until and unless you perpetrate some new outrage on sense.

You should understand this as the harshest possible criticism of your arguments and manner of arguing them. That is, it simply is not worth the trouble of responding to you.

No, all intelligent creatures are basically the same; an information processor (mind) and a memory. All intelligent creatures desire information. So left with a blank, empty universe, any intelligent creature would try to create something to occupy him (IE spacetime).

And I say god is fine-tuned to be intelligent. You think it’s an accident?

There is no fine-tuning of God.

I can argue senselessly like you, look: universe is natural and natural universes naturally create life. There is no fine-tuning of the universe.

It is very unnatural for a universe to create life; nearly all hypothetical universes would not support it.

Creation is artificial, nearly all hypothetical gods and devils would not create universe, while the most of the rest would create heaven or hell right away. Universe is natural, it spontaneously evolved life.

My feeling is that there is a 10% chance of no God and a 90% chance of God.

I guess that god of yours is not necessarily the one to create this universe then, not really that one necessary cause without a cause, after all. Too bad. But did you know the chance of the devil is 417%, and can go up to 735% when beyond time and space? I’m afraid to even think what that could mean.

In the beginning, kid, was unbounded finitude ... :fire:

Seems perfectly straight-forward to me. — Devans99

:rofl: No doubt about that!

I think you are searching ...

Oh yeah, I'm "searching"; but clearly you don't "think".

Causality rules our lives; there is nothing we can be more certain of than causality.

For starters ... read Hume. Read Stenger. Read Deutsch & Rovelli.

Ignoring the pivotal role of causality is extremely foolish of you.

The only one "foolish" around here is you, kid, for denying fundamental physical reality (i.e. quantum uncertainty ... to wit: the BB was a planck event, and therefore a-causal (i.e. @ its planck radius 13.8 billion years ago, the universe's 'initial conditions' were set by random 'vacuum fluctuations' re: CMB)) while pimping strawmen to distract(?) from, or compensate(?) for, your inadequate, antiquated, pseudo-scientific woo. :lol:

If something looks very unnatural then it probably is unnatural.

By that token, if statements "look" stupid then probably they're author is stupid. :razz:

As a famous philosopher once said: Unnatural is as unnatural does, kid - or rather: When nature does it, whatever it is ain't "unnatural".

UPDATE: (flashback)

Planck time. Spontaneous symmetry-breaking (i.e. events). Superset of events (E). Set containing one or more causal events (CE). E⊃CE