Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan  As for virtual particle pairs - this is why they are PAIRs. The two halves balance each other in every way (charge, etc). Once again nature avoids breaking conservation laws. Otherwise space itself would glow with new energy all the time. |
Thank you for the clarification.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan The life forms to follow the laws. Not the other way around. |
I'm not sure what you mean by this exactly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan Also note that there are many modern physics theories that posit multiple universes. Under this model, most universes are empty of life. We think ours is perfect for it because it just happens to be the one that we are in. But it's not that improbable because there is either a very large number or an infinite number of universes. |
That is one theory yes. Is it easier to believe in a trillion useless universe just for the sake of refuting the fine-tuning argument or to accept it? The multiverse hypothesis is fringe but my argument is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan These observations are much more easily explained as hallucinations than as verifiable experiences. If we are following Occam's Razor here, there is no reason to believe that consciousness can exist outside a brain. |
I think you would like to think that it would be easier to explain them away as hallucinations but in many cases the "consciousness creates the experience" hypothesis doesn't fit the bill. Based on the evidence it is far easier to believe consciousness can exist outside the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan Try to understand that the big bang posits a small beginning of spacetime. Not space. Time itself did not exist 'before' the big bang. The concept of 'before' the big bang is meaningless. |
This is the opinion of Stephen Hawking but not all feel this way. It is true that before the big bang the concept of linear time would be meaningless but contemporary physics allows for speculation beyond the confines of finite time. That argument used to refute the first cause is simply an "out". There is no evidence of energy appearing from nowhere so the concept of some kind of energy outside of space-time as we know it is worth considering.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan What I do know is that 'the universe just was' is a hell of a lot SIMPLER than the god hypothesis (any of its many variations). Once again, if we're following Occam's Razor, God is as unnecessary as the dragon in the garage. |
How so? If we are following occams razor the insane amount of cosmic coincidence it would take to be an atheist is a little extreme in my opinion. I think randomness as argument is absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan Also note that the big bang theory is not a philosophical idea. It is an expression of mathematical models which have been developed to match our observations of our universe very precisely. If we take these models (which consist of an expanding spacetime universe governed by relativistic laws) and extrapolate them backwards, we find a point of infinite density and temperature and a universe of zero size about 13 billion years ago. At this point our models break down. |
Exactly. The closer mathematically physicist get to the first moment of the big bang our concepts of space and time break down. That refutes the claim that it is "meaningless to ask what came before the big bang". Like I said it is meaningless in terms of cause and effect rendering the who created god argument illogical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynan Note a continuous Occam's Razor theme here. I'm saying that many beliefs are UNNECESSARY, not that they are provably wrong. They are not disprovable because they don't make real predictions. This means they contain no information. Better to forget them completely. They're just cluttering your brain. |
Likewise my friend. The atheist/materialist world view is followed like a dogma to the point of absurdity.