Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Lol, this is pretty great!
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.
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.
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.
I'm a graduate of Unseen University. Just thought I'd throw that out there.unseen universes
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.
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?