Quote from stu: The laws of physics are all that is required to create the universe. So big bang need only have occurred as the result of natural laws. A consequence, a coincidence of them. Scientifically it's all that's required. -------- Oops. Check your facts on the big bang. They have no idea what created the big bang. Mathematics does not take them all the way to the instant of creation.
That's not how it works. If anything is creating theory then for sure, science creates scientific theory. Scientists discover them. Lol. You say Scientific theory supported by mathematics, science, physics and cosmology are all unsupported conjecture. Whilst make-believe and wild imaginations for a magical "Tuner" are not. You really are too childish.
Oh I do check facts, and what you say is not correct. Science does have a very good idea. Quantum mechanical random fluctuations can explain how producing matter and energy from nothing, a big bang, without violating the laws of physics, is viable and all that's required. What you seem to be unclear about is big bang is at a quantum level. Although quantum mechanics has never been disproved and is applied in science to an infinitesimal fraction of a second after big bang right through to the present time, every day, it is not fully understood how it is specifically applied to big bang itself. Nevertheless, there is despite that, more than enough sufficient information to explain how a universe can spontaneously appear from nothing without the need of a magician.
once again you confuse speculation with fact. there is a theory the universe can spontaneously appear... but there are problems with the theory... and that theory is a long way from being fact.
you are so full of shit. but you do bring up a point... many scientists state that the concept of a multiverse does not rise to a level of scientific theory... because it is unproven, unobserved and so far "untestable". So you are correct you have not been arguing theory... Your answer for the fine tunings is speculation.
"Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist." Stephen Hawking well then... You can't have it both ways. Either spontaneous creation IS the reason why there is something rather than nothing.... why there is so called fine tuning. In which case the so called tuning is being accounted for.... so wtf is your ridiculous argument about anyway. OR they are both speculative... ..in which case, wtf is your ridiculous argument about anyway. sheesh.
only a troll like you would waste your time bullshitting and then make a stupid argument like that. first of all the big bang... is spontaneous creation. it is consistent with a creator to say something came out of nothing... so your argument is kind of nutty right now. but... what we have been arguing about is you have been denying the appearance of fine tuning... I have been telling you that many top scientists state our universe appears designed and you keep bullshitting. Additionally if you were comfortable with modern science or trading and probabiliites you would not ask such an facile question. But, to satisfy your facile mind... I will show you how it is arguably (within reason - as I am not going get into whether our existence is really more like a hologram) one or the other and not both the same... a. I would argue that is quite fair to say.. our universe is extremely fine tuned. to find and predict the higgs boson... scientists used about 20 constants tuned to 32 places... let me know if you do not remember the quote from the economist or if you deny this fact. b. whether there are alternate universes is conjecture, speculation or in a liberal sense of the word for scientists untested, unproven, theory.
Quote from stu: Oh I do check facts, and what you say is not correct. ------- Of course, what I am telling you is the absolute truth, stu. You just reject the truth. Mathematics does NOT explain the big bang to the moment of the signularity. Here's a little peek for you. This singularity signals the breakdown of general relativity. How closely we can extrapolate towards the singularity is debatedâcertainly not earlier than the Planck epoch. http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/b/big_bang.htm In the time before the first 10-44 seconds of the Universe, or the Planck Epoch, the laws of physics as we know them break down; the predictions of General Relativity become meaningless as distance scales approach the Planck length at which random quantum mechanical fluctuations dominate. Most particle physics models predict that during this epoch the four fundamental forces were combined into one unified force. Very little else is known about the early part of this era, and the mystery it poses is perhaps the central question in modern physics. http://www.universeadventure.org/eras/era1-plankepoch.htm
Quantum entanglement. Now there's a mind-bender. Changing one quantum entangled particle instantaneously changes the state of the other one? WTF? They have now done that with particles 89 miles apart. Amazing stuff. Perhaps our whole universe is entangled with an anti-universe. Taken together they are nothing.
Excerpts from a lengthy article at http://www.naturalnews.com/038985_universe_simulation_intelligent_design.html A new scientific paper published in arXiv and co-authored by Silas Beane from the University of Bonn reveals strong statistical evidence that our reality is, indeed, a grand computer simulation. The title of the paper is Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation. Here's what it means in layman's terms Here's the super easy way to understand all this. Your computer display screen has a finite number of pixels available, and this is called the "screen resolution" such as 1920 x 1440. This means there are 1920 pixels across and 1440 pixels vertically. Everything you see on your computer screen must be drawn and depicted using these pixels, and nothing can be displayed that's only half a pixel. For example, you can't draw a vertical line on the screen that exists between the pixels that are hard-wired into the screen resolution. Everything you view on the monitor -- a computer game, a website, even a video -- is essentially transposed onto the "lattice" of pixels that exist in your hardware. Your hardware, in effect, has a hard-wired "resolution limit" which defines the smallest size of any object that can be depicted on the screen. Now, zoom out to the "real" world in which we live. Here in the real world, we think that there are no pixels and that we can move fluidly to any location we wish. We are not digitized being, we think; we're analog beings living in a fluid world without the pixelation of a computer screen, right? Not so fast. As it turns out, our "reality" is also pixelated, just at a very fine resolution. This study out of Bonn revealed that the energy level of cosmic rays "snaps to" the "resolution" of the universe in which we live. The very laws of electromagnetic radiation, in other words, are confined by the resolution of the three-dimensional simulation we call a "universe." The existence of this construct, if proven, also proves intelligent design by a conscious Creator who built the universe to begin with. This is the upshot of this scientific discovery that most scientists refuse to acknowledge. But the conclusion is inescapable: If our universe is a carefully-constructed simulation, then by definition there must have been a purpose behind its construction as well as a Creator who built it.