PaulSacramento wrote:Neo, it doesn't matter if the universe had a beginning or not, it matters that SOMETHINGS have a beginning and SOMETHINGS move/change and ALL THOSE things do that ( come into being, move / change) because of something else.
Sure, that I can agree with.
Why does a match, when struck, produce fire and not ice? or not flowers?
It doesn't matter that it doesn't always produce fire ( maybe just a spark, maybe just smoke, maybe nothing), it matters that when it does produce what it is "designed" for ( for lack of a better word) it produces that instead of something else.
You keep saying "react" but why doesn't the match "react" and make flowers ??
Because react doesn't mean that its random every time, that only happens at quantum scale and once those attributes of reactions are set because of the elements produced because of and during the expansion they seem to stick, as no further fluctuation is affecting them unlike within the singularity. The same way, let's say, that if environmental factors or biological factors stop happening for any given reasons, there would be no biological evolution as there would be nothing affecting the DNA. The same is true of the universe, there is nothing actively changing the laws or affecting them at their core, hence we have effects that are repeatable. However, in their infancy, within the singularity, things were different.
And so, design doesn't lack a better word, equally you can do again is, react. And this goes back to my previous response, if it wasn't clear before, that this happens because we live in a universe where such and such react.
Consider in a broader sense, that in any array of quantum fluctuations one of them being which caused our singularity to expand, the resulting universes would all have different reactions, because their initial starting points would be random, setting them off on equally strange and different paths, thus having different effects altogether.
And thus why, whether a match creates fire or flowers, has no bearing on my argument. And even if you don't agree with it, which is fine, you must see where I am coming from this has no influence on my chain of thought. To me, it's only one possibility among many which we could have ended with once the initial fluctuations happened.
Take this example and try to repeat it. Take a few pebbles, throw them on the ground randomly, mark their position, re-throw exactly with the same force and gesture of hand. Your pebbles will land differently, maybe within a few mm's of the original and a little off but not at the exact same spots as before. Hypothetically speaking you could try till eternity and never get the same spots again. But you will get remarkably different ones.
Or take another example, go to your kitchen sink and open the water tap, record the flow of water, close it, open it again. The flow of water would be different, may be alike but not exactly the same.
Or take another, take a canon ball, observe the temperature, air pressure, humidity, etc. etc. and fire it in the air, mark the landing spot. Take another ball and with the same conditions fire again. The balls won't land at the exact same spot, maybe close but not the same. They should but they wouldn't.
You can try anyone of the experiments, but the results would be different and if you agree with me now or after you have tried anyone of them, I'd ask you:
Why doesn't it land every time the same way even when you throw it or observe it or repeat it the same way - as opposed to a match which creates fire and not flowers everytime, what's different here?