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.
...raised our right hand and pledged allegiance to the Atheist Flag.
The other universes were created by him to test which ones wouldn't work out when he was a twiddling the fine tuning knobs .. He then obscured them from our view so we wouldn't find out .. but he can't fool us .. we now know he must therefore, be a scientist.Can't you actually construct an argument in favor of a multiverse, based solely on the properties of God as defined in scripture?
Premise A: God is the maximum, most powerful, and perfect entity that could possibly exist
Premise B: A God that created infinite universes is infinitely more impressive than a God that created just one
Conclusion: The multiverse exists
In most of my science classes while getting my doctorate we started off all classes with a solemn oath to destroy the concept of God (raised our right hand and pledged allegiance to the Atheist Flag) and only THEN could we start class.
Since when was utility the prime reason for curiosity?I've never really seen that the question being asked behind the so-called 'fine-tuning', as being anything more than a purely philosophical one .. which would then make the explanation a purely philosophical explanation .. so, therefore, I'm not at all convinced of its usefulness?
It echoes Anselm's Ontological Argument for God - but slightly more plausibleWell I'm no expert on formal logic, but I think you can get the gist of what this hypothetical argument is going for.
It happens when some terms take on a life of their own. Meanings shift, and then you have to create new terms to get back to the old meaning.I don't know about that, but "multiverse" is certainly a contradiction in terms, similar to "four-sided triangle".
Yes, Sean Carroll pointed this out in one of his theist vs atheist debates. An omnipotent creator wouldn't need to 'fine-tune' (and if creating just for us, wouldn't need to put us in the outskirts of a galaxy of billions of other stars that's just one of billions in a universe larger than we can comprehend).The fine-tuning argument as evidence for a creator, especially one of the proposed "God" kind, always had a curious flaw in my view. A flaw that somehow all its supporters keep to ignore.
If the universe is "fine-tuned"... what is it fine-tuned to?
Every physical concept we observe or postulate, every "law", every "constant", is based on the very "universe" that we observe. From our view, the universe would appear to be fine-tuned... to itself.
But with the idea of an non-physical, omnipotent deity creating "ex nihilo" - from nothing... there just isn't anything to fine-tune to. The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.
Where do you get this from? There aren't any scientific proposals that claim this. I think that you just made it up.
Where's the contradiction?I don't know about that, but "multiverse" is certainly a contradiction in terms, similar to "four-sided triangle".
I suspect he's not aware that galaxies were called 'island universes' within living memoryWhere's the contradiction?
I think what @chilehed is getting at is - the universe is, by definition, everything. So, how can we have multiple, discrete everythings?Where's the contradiction?
It's a term that indicates "multiple universes",which by definition is a contradiction in terms.Where's the contradiction?
A contradiction in terms doesn't become otherwise merely because more than one person uses it.I suspect he's not aware that galaxies were called 'island universes' within living memory
So we have a word problem. This says nothing about the aspect of reality under discussion.It's a term that indicates "multiple universes",which by definition is a contradiction in terms.
A contradiction in terms doesn't become otherwise merely because more than one person uses it.
The odds being so overwhelming that there exists another world possible of sustaining life, that scientific philosophers still cannot get around the Boltzmann Brain problem. The Boltzmann problem, in the nutshell, is that the odds of there existing another life-sustaining world is so overwhelming that it is more probable that we are occasionally popping in and out of the equilibrium and experiencing reality.Yes, Sean Carroll pointed this out in one of his theist vs atheist debates. An omnipotent creator wouldn't need to 'fine-tune' (and if creating just for us, wouldn't need to put us in the outskirts of a galaxy of billions of other stars that's just one of billions in a universe larger than we can comprehend).
But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible? And as far as I understood it this is why people come back and reply that maybe there are infinite universes, and the settings of our universe is the winner of a cosmic lottery (so there are trillions of other universes out there that are perhaps just huge clouds of dust that have no organization to them). So that it’s not about fine tuned as compared to other universes, but about being fine tuned to meet strict conditions so that something works. For instance I could say that a truck was built very well if it serves me with minimal issues for 50 years, even if I have never seen any other vehicles in my life to compare it to and I don’t really know how long trucks are supposed to run for. Ok I get it that maybe you could say that I’m ignorant to the fact that other universes are better designed and they last 20 times longer than our universe, but I’m just talking about the level of fine tuning for something to work compared to it not working.The fine-tuning argument as evidence for a creator, especially one of the proposed "God" kind, always had a curious flaw in my view. A flaw that somehow all its supporters keep to ignore.
If the universe is "fine-tuned"... what is it fine-tuned to?
Every physical concept we observe or postulate, every "law", every "constant", is based on the very "universe" that we observe. From our view, the universe would appear to be fine-tuned... to itself.
But with the idea of an non-physical, omnipotent deity creating "ex nihilo" - from nothing... there just isn't anything to fine-tune to. The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.
But doesn’t that actually make the point? If the rules for the formation of something to work are more & more strict then the stricter those rules become the less & less likely that it happening by accident is feasible. So that it wouldn’t be too far fetched to see a piece of paper that got smooshed and creased many times successfully fly like a paper airplane, and to conclude that it was just accidental coincidence that it got folded in all the right ways, but by contrast it would become unreasonable to claim that a real airplane successfully flies because it got accidentally formed in all of the right ways.The very idea implies that the creator had to follow some general universal rules in his creation... and that contradicts the whole concept.
But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible?
The reality is that, however many of these postulated mutually-inaccessible regions of temporal there are, by definition every one of them is part of a single universe.So we have a word problem. This says nothing about the aspect of reality under discussion.
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?