There is no logical reason to conclude that nothingness was the default state of the universe. For example, picture a number line: ..... -3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3..... Zero, representing nothingness, is just a single point on an infinite line of possibilities. So why was nothingness more probable than anything else? Even if we reduce that to a single number set of two states, {0 for nothingness, 1 for matter/energy}, your nothingness can't be assumed logically. For all we know, matter/energy are eternal, have always existed, and will always exist. There is no reason to believe that something ELSE has always existed and will always exist. That's a logically unnecessarily complication.
The "fine tuning" argument is spurious. It's only a "good" argument in that it's capable of persuading lesser thinkers. Its problem is that it's circular, as are many theist arguments. It presumes what it seeks to prove; the premise is the same as its conclusion: "this is a universe finely tuned to life so it must have been finely tuned to life." The premise is faulty; it places a restriction upon possible states of existence that doesn't hold logically. In fact, we don't know that it's "finely tuned" at all... there are countless ways in which this universe could have been better tuned.
My question was about man's quest to explain why are we here and for what reason not about the universe. I assume you believe planets, suns etc aren't thinking living creatures. As a human I can't believe that. Wasn't that long ago that I maybe in my 40's confirmed to myself that we and the universe were created. I don't believe in the big bang or everything was just here. I am not religious but it's safe to believe all religions have a higher power or god. There is a god that created all this. I have no idea who or what he or it is. I just have FAITH that there is a god and represents what is good and right. I don't care what religion or who created the 10 Comamernts but they are a great way to live your life.
you are just using the word "created" as synonymous with "exists" . like saying all things that exist were created. a volcano was created by hot lava, a mountain range created by folding plates of Earth's crust, a lake formed by rain, etc. yes, those things are creation, they exist, they were created. that's different sense of the word that we are using when discussing a creator being. the creator being, the designer. he is just made up. and intelligent design is not needed to describe anything when evolution exists. things optimize themselves, fine tune themselves.
The numbers were punched one time and then the universe erupted from the singularity. There is no evolution to the laws of physics and universal constants. And against incredible odds they allowed for intelligent beings. Roger Penrose estimated the odds of this at 10^10^123, or 1 with 123 zeros. That's about the same odds of throwing a dart across the Universe and hitting a bullseye.
the fine tuning argument has led many leading Atheist physicist to seek refuge in the multiverse. Take Penrose's statement, also Hawkings, Paul Davies, etc... Fred Hoyle "a commonsense interpretation of the facts suggest that a super intellect has monkeyed with physics and that there are no blind forces in nature". The argument was so good for Hoyle (atheist) he had no option but the multiverse. Where your arguments have merit. In an infinite amount of universe one is bound to have the laws of ours.
i am proposing that the universe - space, time, laws of physics, universal constants, all energy, - popped into existence at the moment of the big bang. You may not accept that. But you are going against the best interpretation based on all information that we have. And it popped into existence tuned to allow for intelligent beings. Penrose estimates the odds of this at 1 in 10^10^123. You have three options from here: 1) we were incredibly lucky. 2) multiverse - infinte universes. This is where leading atheist physicist bail out. One universe is bound to have our tuning so...etc 3) intelligent design. This is what i choose. Of course, there are quack theories that you are welcome to embrace as well. Like everything existed for eternity and goes in cycles. Most leading physicist bailed on this long ago.
Your "intelligent design" has crippled children, animals crunching on other animals screaming in agony, Holocausts, murders, rapes, child molestation, racism, hurricanes, tornadoes, asteroids crashing into planets, sunspots, mosquitoes, donald trump, and every other manner of horrors. None of that is reconcilable with "intelligent", but all of it is explanable by natural processes and evolution.
back in the day I used to read a lot about robots and consciousness. one of the skeptics of AI was sir Roger penrose, because he had a unique interpretation on how intelligent beings exist. he said AI at human intelligence/consciousness level was impossible because of some super weird quantum gravitational collapse in human brains that was unique to human brains. I didnt understand what he meant. he has a weird view on intelligence and what causes it. I don't trust his calculations, because again, I suspect his variables are all unknowns. like the drake equation. I don't believe we have to be lucky to exist as intelligent beings. I don't believe we can say how rare or common the conditions are for development of intelligent beings. I think people that claim to know this are making it up. I don't accept or not accept the big bang theory. its a theory, I have a very basic understanding of how it works. that's it. I don't think that everything always existed is a quack theory. isn't your theory that god always existed? the matter that expanded at big bang, where was the matter before?
