Answering Atheists: Does God Exist? - The Design of the Universe

[HARK!]

I watched the video and thought it was very good. I didn't mean to give a contrary impression. I appreciate your posting it. Iron sharpens iron, and all.

Iron sharpens iron. I agree. I assumed that you were playing the devil's advocate; and I appreciate your counterarguments. I have been critical; but it in my mind I wasn't being critical toward you, but critical of the hypothetical opposing arguments.

 

[public hermit]

Are you familiar with logical arguments? Argumentum ad ignorantium is a logical fallacy. It is also notable to understand who bears the burden of proof in a logical argument.

My purple unicorn egg, carries as much weight in a logical argument, as a multiverse. The burden proof falls on the person who asserts that it exists.

When it comes to metaphysics it's not that clear cut. The metaphysician who asserts there is only one universe has made a metaphysical claim that bears the same burden of proof as the multiverse theorist. Why the same burden of proof? Because, as I have said ten ways from Wednesday, there is no empirical means to adjudicate between the two. You seem to think it is obvious there is only one universe. You have no way to show the obviousness of what you assume.

 

[public hermit]

I should point out that in the current state of metaphysics, modal logic (logic of counterfactuals and possible worlds) is considered a legitimate tool in the metaphysicians tool bag. The majority of metaphysicians consider possible worlds as ersatz worlds, but there are some, e.g. David Lewis, who hold that all possible worlds are concrete worlds. So, if you are sharpening your own set of tools you need to be prepared to encounter those who can wield possible worlds as a powerful logical device.

Possible world's in the sense of modal logic is not necessarily the same thing as multiverse theory, but there is overlap, especially when it comes to discussions of just how many world's there actually are. Just a thought.

 

[HARK!]

When it comes to metaphysics it's not that clear cut. The metaphysician who asserts there is only one universe has made a metaphysical claim that bears the same burden of proof as the multiverse theorist. Why the same burden of proof? Because, as I have said ten ways from Wednesday, there is no empirical means to adjudicate between the two. You seem to think it is obvious there is only one universe. You have no way to show the obviousness of what you assume.

I'll break it down.

Speaker 1:

There is a countless herd of immortal purple unicorns, who go prancing in darkness, on the outskirts of countless universes laying eggs for all of eternity, each one bursting forth a new universe. When they reach the edge of infinite empty space; there is a barrier. Fairies are on the other side; and they won't let the unicorns pass; but it doesn't matter. By the time they reach the outer wall; the inner universes have died a heat death. (Well that is the universes that actually conform to the known laws of physics. The others pass through the wall; and the fairies make fairy dust out of them.) So the unicorns prance back to the center of the empty space within the walls to lay more unicorn eggs. We can't see these other universes because we are blinded by the fairy dust.

Speaker 2: Wrong!

Speaker 1: Prove me wrong!

Speaker 1 has just shifted the burden of proof. This is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the positive assertion.

 

[HARK!]

I should point out that in the current state of metaphysics, modal logic (logic of counterfactuals and possible worlds) is considered a legitimate tool in the metaphysicians tool bag. The majority of metaphysicians consider possible worlds as ersatz worlds, but there are some, e.g. David Lewis, who hold that all possible worlds are concrete worlds. So, if you are sharpening your own set of tools you need to be prepared to encounter those who can wield possible worlds as a powerful logical device.

Possible world's in the sense of modal logic is not necessarily the same thing as multiverse theory, but there is overlap, especially when it comes to discussions of just how many world's there actually are. Just a thought.

How do I draw a distinction between that, and pure conjecture?

 

[public hermit]

How do I draw a distinction between that, and pure conjecture?

I think it will depend on the discussion. If you encounter someone who posits a multiverse, you can certainly employ the arguments from the video. I just think if you are pushed against the wall to show how you know there is only one you're going to have trouble establishing it, especially if you are trying to rely purely on what is empirically available.

Also, keep in mind that multiverse theory is not simply an ad hoc move for atheists to get out of the powerful fine-tuning arguments of theists. (And, I do think they are powerful.) Multiverse theories are also related to string theory and other cosmologies physicists are working on that have nothing to do with disagreements between theists and atheists.

 

[public hermit]

I'll break it down.

Speaker 1:

There is a countless herd of immortal purple unicorns, who go prancing in darkness, on the outskirts of countless universes laying eggs for all of eternity, each one bursting forth a new universe. When they reach the edge of infinite empty space; there is a barrier. Fairies are on the other side; and they won't let the unicorns pass; but it doesn't matter. By the time they reach the outer wall; the inner universes have died a heat death. (Well that is the universes that actually conform to the known laws of physics. The others pass through the wall; and the fairies make fairy dust out of them.) So the unicorns prance back to the center of the empty space within the walls to lay more unicorn eggs. We can't see these other universes because we are blinded by the fairy dust.

Speaker 2: Wrong!

Speaker 1: Prove me wrong!

Speaker 1 has just shifted the burden of proof. This is a logical fallacy. The burden of proof falls on the person who makes the positive assertion.

Lol, this is pretty great!

 

[HARK!]

I think it will depend on the discussion. If you encounter someone who posits a multiverse, you can certainly employ the arguments from the video. I just think if you are pushed against the wall to show how you know there is only one you're going to have trouble establishing it, especially if you are trying to rely purely on what is empirically available.

Also, keep in mind that multiverse theory is not simply an ad hoc move for atheists to get out of the powerful fine-tuning arguments of theists. (And, I do think they are powerful.) Multiverse theories are also related to string theory and other cosmologies physicists are working on that have nothing to do with disagreements between theists and atheists.

When an Atheist comes to a Christian forum to make an argument; I assume that they have come prepared to debate Theists, and pick apart their Theistic arguments. I don't give them that opportunity. That is why I didn't mention Elohim in my 'Science Proves Creation' thread.

They came prepared to pick apart my arguments on my ground. Why would I entertain that; and give them a platform to spread doubt? I don't want their ball in my court; so I wack the ball back into their court. I come onto their ground and pick apart their conjecture, that they're masquerading as some sort of truth.

Is there any empirical evidence of multiple universes? I haven't seen any.

 

[HARK!]

Lol, this is pretty great!

You like that one? I blurted that out on the fly. I can come up with better ones all day long. Take it. Improve it. Make it your own.

It's FREE! GRATIS MI AMIGO!

 

[HARK!]

Now, as a theist, you have no way to argue God only created one universe. How will you argue that? Certainly, you don't want to say that God couldn't create more than one. So, now, you have also reached the limit of your theological bounds. So, what now? The assumption that there is only one universe is just that, a theological/metaphysical assumption.

Again, I keep the ball in their court. I keep them on the defensive. They came to pick apart an argument that I won't have with a disbeliever. I would have that argument with a sincere unbeliever who was seeking knowledge; but an Atheist disbelieves. Since that is his modus operandi; at best maybe I can get him to question what he clings to. If not, maybe I can keep believers from believing what he clings to. The point is to punch holes in his weak arguments, with the science that he claims his spurious assertions rest on.

I've been working this approach for decades. I don't get backed into corners; but their best chance at refuting me, is to undermine the very science that they purport that their spurious claims rest on. Apparently those at 119 Ministries embrace a similar approach.

 

[HARK!]

using the circular argument " the universe had to have created itself because I believe there is no God to create the universe"-- they indeed could argue that way.

I've been familiar with 119 Ministries for years; but I just found this series, right before I watched the video, and posted the OP.

I've often made the argument that whatever created the physical universe; must transcend the physical universe.

Here is another relevant video in that series, which cuts at the heart of that circular argument. It puts a lot more meat on the skeleton of my argument.

 

[Hmm]

Is there any empirical evidence of multiple universes? I haven't seen any.

There isn't any and probably never can be because we are talking about universes that are not spatially or temoporally connected to our own. So we can never walk across to them because, if they exist, they won't share the same space as us. That's hard enough to envisage but what's even harder is that they also won't share the same time as us, so would make no sense to ask questions like Did this universe exist in the past, does it exist now or will it exist in the future?However, multiverses make sense mathematically and they were first proposed as an interpretation of quantum mechanics by Hugh Everett in 1954.

 

[BobRyan]

There isn't any and probably never can be because we are talking about universes that are not spatially or temoporally connected to our own.

so they can only be "imagined".

And the realm of "imagination" is not as predictable and constrained as one might have hoped for.

 

[LaSorcia]

unseen universes

I'm a graduate of Unseen University. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

 

[1watchman]

One has said: "a mind persuaded against its will, is of the same opinion still". No further debate here is of any profit. We are ONLY responsible eternally for what our Creator-God has shown us in His immutable "Word of truth". We can profit from that if we will! I suggest one who wishes to speculate about the universe might visit the sound Christian site at 'Institute Of Creation Research' in Texas. The scientists there can speak well to the universe and do uphold our Creator.

 

[Hmm]

so they can only be "imagined".

And the realm of "imagination" is not as predictable and constrained as one might have hoped for.

They can't be "imagined" because they're beyond our experience. They can only be, and are, described mathematically. Whether there's a reality behind them is another question.

 

[BobRyan]

They can't be "imagined" because they're beyond our experience.

I can imagine a three-headed easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

 

[Hmm]

I can imagine an easter bunny riding a turtle in space... eating ice cream

You're perfectly free to mock science if that makes you more comfortable in your faith.

 

[BobRyan]

You're perfectly free to mock science if that makes you more comfortable in your faith.

Your statement below - is not science.

Hmmm! said: ↑
They can't be "imagined" because they're beyond our experience.

I was simply pointing out that the premise for the statement is demonstrably flawed, by posting a simple example that refutes it.

 

[Hmm]

I was simply pointing out that the premise for the statement is demonstrably flawed, by posting a simple example that refutes it.

I don't think so lol