• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why Some Scientists Embrace the 'Multiverse'

And when I put water in my freezer it turns into ice. Prager is a ****ing moron. He proved that when he declared that there is no possible way to provide evidence for the multiverse theory. He doesn't want evidence. He just wants to remain ignorant. That's why he made such stupid claims. It's fine if he wants his religion and to remain ignorant of science and the world around us, but thankfully there are actual scientists out there willing to put in the hard work to actually answer the questions rather than accept the verbal diarrhea that Prager is spewing here. Just because he is far too stupid to understand something doesn't mean it's impossible.

And just because you misread someone and obviously don't understand the matter in its entirety doesn't mean you should be called a moron or stupid.

Prager doesn't argue that a multiverse matrix is impossible. He's talking about falsifiability and, therefore, understands the matter just fine.

Many big names in science—including the likes of Ellis, Tegmark and Davies—hold that multiverse theory is unfalsifiable or violates Occam's Razor in terms of explanation, and for good reason. Certainly, there's nothing discernibly necessary about a multiverse matrix. Either there are other universes or there aren't. Period. Clearly, you don't understand the challenge and/or the potential barrier that the cosmological horizon presents even in the face of supposed evidence in the cosmic microwave background relative to the eternal inflation model.

Further, there is no scientific evidence that refutes the potentiality that the universe is fined tuned for intelligent life either!
 
And just because you misread someone and obviously don't understand the matter in its entirety doesn't mean you should be called a moron or stupid.

Prager doesn't argue that a multiverse matrix is impossible. He's talking about falsifiability and, therefore, understands the matter just fine.

Many big names in science—including the likes of Ellis, Tegmark and Davies—hold that multiverse theory is unfalsifiable or violates Occam's Razor in terms of explanation, and for good reason. Certainly, there's nothing discernibly necessary about a multiverse matrix. Either there are other universes or there aren't. Period. Clearly, you don't understand the challenge and/or the potential barrier that the cosmological horizon presents even in the face of supposed evidence in the cosmic microwave background relative to the eternal inflation model.
Yes, they hold it as unfalsifiable, but they don't draw from that the same ridiculous conclusions that Prager reaches because of this.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe.
Absolute bull****. And this is where Prager goes from a possibly accurate statement, to full of crap.
Further, there is no scientific evidence that refutes the potentiality that the universe is fined tuned for intelligent life either!

Of course not. It's a theory that is completely impossible to disprove because it explains nothing right from the start. However, we have the multiverse theory, which though it may not be able to be seen and verified through those methods, might be able to have ample evidence built to support it through various methods, and when a moron like Prager hears that, he declares it is automatically dead on arrival.
 
First, I want to thank Digs and Rawlings for moving this thread. Now, hopefully, we can have a better discussion.



Now, for one, you probably shouldn't get your science from a non-scientist working at a non-scientific place. There are hundreds and thousands of journals out there that harbor the actual science, not like this.

Uh . . . don't assume. I know the science.

From my blog. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: Slammed-Shut Doors


The author makes the false claim of things being "right" implies fine-tuning.

Ah! Finally, someone who makes sense.

Mostly agree.

However, Prager is not arguing that his belief in God or in the universe's fine tuning is subject to scientific falsification. He believes God exists and that the universe is fine tuned for life. Period. Strictly speaking, the conditions that exist in the universe do in fact support the notion that the universe was fine tuned for life . . . he wrote with a smile. However, quite obviously, as an argument, it's tautological, essentially meaningless.

The assertion that life is merely suited to the conditions of the universe (anthropic principle) relative to the potentialities of divinity and design is no less tautological or scientifically demonstrable. Coupled that with the fact that many scientists do in fact embrace multiverse theory as a means of explaining things about our universe that belie a strict metaphysical naturalism and we are more at Prager's point. That's all Prager's arguing, not necessarily anything different than Tegmark.
 
And when I put water in my freezer it turns into ice. Prager is a ****ing moron. He proved that when he declared that there is no possible way to provide evidence for the multiverse theory. He doesn't want evidence. He just wants to remain ignorant. That's why he made such stupid claims. It's fine if he wants his religion and to remain ignorant of science and the world around us, but thankfully there are actual scientists out there willing to put in the hard work to actually answer the questions rather than accept the verbal diarrhea that Prager is spewing here. Just because he is far too stupid to understand something doesn't mean it's impossible.
Hi, is that an LSU Tiger field in your icon picture? GEAUX TIGERS!
 
I am curious about something, and I would like to ask those who are opponents of the teleological arguments, especially "design" arguments, what would amount to evidence for design. What could we observe of some object that would be strong, or definitive, evidence that it was designed?

Here's why I ask: there's two ways to consider design arguments. If it's the case that designed things have some property which undesigned things could never have, then we really don't need to consider probabilities. The universe either bears those properties, or not. However, if it's the case that for all designed things, it's possible for the object to acquire all its present (intrinsic and relevant relational) properties by ateleological processes, then it seems we have to start thinking in terms of probabilities, and there won't be a way to decide the case in an unambiguous manner.
 
Wrong. Once again. Your assertion is philosophical in nature. Science deals with the empirical or measurable. That doesn't mean that science in and of itself is what you hazily have in mind at all.

The surest thing we have are the rational forms and logical categories of human consciousness, i.e., the first principles of philosophy, not our estimations about phenomena beyond. The very premise of science is necessarily metaphysical and unfalsifiable. Further, you don't grasp that you're revealing an unwitting assumption of a metaphysical naturalism for reality.

Philosophy necessarily precedes science; science necessarily rests on philosophy.

You just think you understand the matter.

No it doesn't. Science involves the systematic study of the physical and natural world through study and observation it has a process so in order for something to be science it has to follow that method of identifying, creating a hypotheses, analysis, testing and then the findings must be analyze and re-produced by a peer. I'm not interested in a philosophic discussion on God, or views on science from a 100 years ago or more where philosophy actually played more of a role, it doesn't in today's world.
 
Monserrat said:
No it doesn't. Science involves the systematic study of the physical and natural world through study and observation it has a process so in order for something to be science it has to follow that method of identifying, creating a hypotheses, analysis, testing and then the findings must be analyze and re-produced by a peer.

So, from what you're saying here, it seems one can reasonably infer all of the following:

1) Phrenology is as much science as physics. Phrenologists studied the natural world systematically (at least a part of it). They created, analyzed, and tested hypotheses. And their findings received peer-review and duplication.

2) Mathematics is not a science, since mathematicians do not study the natural world. I think this seems especially odd, since scientists use math so much. What would mathematics be, then? A kind of Philosophy? Sheer imagination? Doesn't speak well for science in either case.

3) Relativity theory was not science for several years after its invention; it only became science when Eddington observed the famous eclipse. Prior to that, it was just based on Einstein's imagination plus an extension of previously accepted mathematics.

4) Laws like the ideal gas law are not scientific, as they aren't based on observation at all.

I'm sure I could think of others. It seems your idea of science includes too much that isn't science, and leaves out too much that is. That's a nice way of saying that your characterization of science is wrong.

Monserrat said:
I'm not interested in a philosophic discussion on God, or views on science from a 100 years ago or more where philosophy actually played more of a role, it doesn't in today's world.

Well, it may seem that philosophy as a profession doesn't have much of an impact, but philosophy as a practice remains fairly central. Scientists do philosophy every working day of their lives. When they get a piece of evidence, they have to reason about how that evidence is to be intepretted, and that in turn is based on which assumptions they want to take as valid. For example, when it was discovered that the orbit of Neptune didn't follow strict Newtonian predictions, astronomers were faced with some choices. It could be that Newtonian mechanics is wrong (as it happens to be, in fact). It could be that their instruments were not working. Or, it could be that another mass is present. The latter turns out to be correct, and it's the one they chose, though in a bit of irony, the original observations were due both to relativistic physics and the unknown mass (pluto).

Scientists visit my department all the time to consult with philosophers--neuroscientists and physicists mostly, though sometimes we get doctors and biologists. There are some scientists who are hostile to philosophy, but most that I run into are interested in philosophical topics as they relate to their field of study, and generally acknowledge the importance of those problems.
 
No it doesn't. Science involves the systematic study of the physical and natural world through study and observation it has a process so in order for something to be science it has to follow that method of identifying, creating a hypotheses, analysis, testing and then the findings must be analyze and re-produced by a peer.

I understand what science involves. I understand what science is. I understand scientific methodology. I have no argument with the above. There is absolutely nothing mutually exclusive between my observation and yours. You simply have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm not interested in a philosophic discussion on God. . . .

Then you're on the wrong thread.

. . . or views on science from a 100 years ago or more where philosophy actually played more of a role, it doesn't in today's world.

You don't know what you're talking about. You've been talking the philosophy of science here and there all along, but it just flies right over your head. This is why so many laymen atheists are such horrible thinkers, why so many of them confound what is nothing more than pseudoscientific claptrap with real science.

What I'm telling you is readily self-evident, having absolutely nothing to do with dated notions about anything. The philosophy of science and the metaphysics of science are indispensable to the methodology and the doing of science, always have been, always will be.

What? You think science just hovers in mid-air, as it were? Evidence interprets itself in the absence of any presupposed notion about reality? You think your atheistic metaphysics of science (metaphysical/ontological naturalism) is the only historical, rational or legitimate foundation for science.

Do you always beg the question unwittingly?
 
Uh . . . don't assume. I know the science.

From my blog. . . .

Prufrock's Lair: Slammed-Shut Doors

I'm not implying you don't know science, I'm just asking why you'd get science from a non-scientific place and from a non-scientist at that. If I want to understand an interpretation of QM better, I'm not gonna go see someone in the Journalism department.

Ah! Finally, someone who makes sense.

Mostly agree.

However, Prager is not arguing that his belief in God or in the universe's fine tuning is subject to scientific falsification. He believes God exists and that the universe is fine tuned for life. Period. Strictly speaking, the conditions that exist in the universe do in fact support the notion that the universe was fine tuned for life . . . he wrote with a smile. However, quite obviously, as an argument, it's tautological, essentially meaningless.

The assertion that life is merely suited to the conditions of the universe (anthropic principle) relative to the potentialities of divinity and design is no less tautological or scientifically demonstrable. Coupled that with the fact that many scientists do in fact embrace multiverse theory as a means of explaining things about our universe that belie a strict metaphysical naturalism and we are more at Prager's point. That's all Prager's arguing, not necessarily anything different than Tegmark.

I'm not sure why "fine-tuning" is sound. Victor Stenger has a nice piece on this. I'd disagree - the conditions that exist in the universe support the notion that conditions in the universe are capable of supporting life. You're drawing conclusions without the evidence to deduce such things.

As I stated above, there have been proposed experiments to test for multiverse / parallel univers(s). Now, will those be tested? Who knows currently. I know the WMAP Cold Spot was already "pictured" but I am not sure if it has been investigated fully.
 
I am curious about something, and I would like to ask those who are opponents of the teleological arguments, especially "design" arguments, what would amount to evidence for design. What could we observe of some object that would be strong, or definitive, evidence that it was designed?

Here's why I ask: there's two ways to consider design arguments. If it's the case that designed things have some property which undesigned things could never have, then we really don't need to consider probabilities. The universe either bears those properties, or not. However, if it's the case that for all designed things, it's possible for the object to acquire all its present (intrinsic and relevant relational) properties by a teleological processes, then it seems we have to start thinking in terms of probabilities, and there won't be a way to decide the case in an unambiguous manner.

Atheists, with their typically unwitting presupposition of a metaphysical naturalism for reality, think they own science. Many assert teleological or tautological arguments all the time, and it just flies right over their heads.
 
I'm not implying you don't know science, I'm just asking why you'd get science from a non-scientific place and from a non-scientist at that. If I want to understand an interpretation of QM better, I'm not gonna go see someone in the Journalism department.

I featured Prager's article because of his observation about atheists, particularly their typical inability to step away from their preconceived notions about reality due to their inability to apprehend the limitations of science.


I'm not sure why "fine-tuning" is sound. Victor Stenger has a nice piece on this. I'd disagree - the conditions that exist in the universe support the notion that conditions in the universe are capable of supporting life. You're drawing conclusions without the evidence to deduce such things.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Obviously, the conditions that exist in this universe do support life . . . though they're certainly hostile to the prospect of any abiogenetic processes! In any event, I don't deduce the fact that the universe was created to accommodate human life, an entirely different matter altogether, from the universe itself. I know it was created to accommodate human life from the word of God.

As I stated above, there have been proposed experiments to test for multiverse / parallel univers(s). Now, will those be tested? Who knows currently. I know the WMAP Cold Spot was already "pictured" but I am not sure if it has been investigated fully.

Indeed. Agree. Did you read the article on my blog?

Also:

As for multiverse theory, the fact of the matter is that there may very well be other universes beyond the cosmological horizon and/or "the other side" of the gravitational energy of a pre-Big Bang quantum vacuum. And if there are . . . this would have no affirmative bearing whatsoever on the existence or non-existence of God either! And while the notion of a multiverse matrix may be unfalsifiable, we are searching for patterns of collisions with other universes in cosmic microwave background radiation and for evidence of the gravitational effects of other universes on ours. --Rawlings

Prufrock's Lair: Slammed-Shut Doors
 
I featured Prager's article because of his observation about atheists, particularly their typical inability to step away from their preconceived notions about reality due to their inability to apprehend the limitations of science.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. Obviously, the conditions that exist in this universe do support life . . . though they're certainly hostile to the prospect of any abiogenetic processes! In any event, I don't deduce the fact that the universe was created to accommodate human life, an entirely different matter altogether, from the universe itself. I know it was created to accommodate human life from the word of God.

Indeed. Agree. Did you read the article on my blog?

Also:

Perhaps, but whether or not the multiverse is limited by science is not fully understood yet. I also would be careful to declare the multiverse is a "preconceived notion."

Yes, the conditions support life but does that require "fine-tuning?" Too, why are you saying they are hostile to abiogenetic processes? How do you know it was created to accomidate human life from the Word of "god?" Are you sure you don't mean believe?

Finally, I'd probably agree that a universe or multiverse has no bearing on "god's" existance, but, an infinite number would seem to show that universe arise and are destroyed.
 
Dennis Prager | Jun 18, 2013
Townhall.com





Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate, along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants -- from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley and Columbia among other American and European universities -- included believers in God, agonistics and atheists. . . .

http://townhall.com/columnists/denn...sts-embrace-the-multiverse-n1621935/page/full

Multiple universes do exist. There is no debate on this. Theory proves it.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I'm not implying you don't know science, I'm just asking why you'd get science from a non-scientific place and from a non-scientist at that. If I want to understand an interpretation of QM better, I'm not gonna go see someone in the Journalism department.

I find this remark interesting. I agree with it. Here's a funny little story which happens to be true:

A long time ago, back when they were the Internet Infidel Discussion Boards, a story appeared on a liberal-leaning but mainstream news site about some scientists who had created life in the laboratory. The story made it seem like these scientists had ordered some off-the-shelf chemicals, thrown them into a test-tube, and made a new form of microorganism. Of course, the board went wild over this story, because that's supposed to be the holy grail of showing that no divine intervention might be needed to get life going.

I had access to the database that carried the paper, and I went and pulled it down and read it. What the scientists had actually done was take a living cell, inhibited some of its genes, and gotten it to generate new proteins such that the cell mutated, even though it was still recongizably whatever species it started out as. I linked the abstract, which explained all of this, and posted it, along with roughly the explanation I just gave. Nevertheless, strangely, the board continued with all kinds of remarks like "let's see those dumbass theists argue against this one!" or "at least now we can finally claim total victory," or "it was only a matter of time before we'd be able to show that living things just come together from chemicals, and now these guys have literally created living organisms from non-living matter."

This went on for 12 pages. I would pop back up occasionally to point out that the science journalists were simply mis-reporting the experiment. No one had brought forth living things from non-living matter. Indeed, the results were not merely quite humble, they also simply replicated earlier findings.

I find that many atheists (not all, certainly) get their science from science journalism, which really doesn't do a good job, on the whole, of appreciating its subject matter. I did finally prevail in the aforementioned thread--or at least, I finally got a few of the respondents to the thread to go look at the abstract and come back and admit that they were wrong. What this experience demonstrated to me, with startling clarity, is that the truism that people believe what they want to believe doesn't stop being true for atheists as a group (though again, as with some theists, I'm sure it's not true for some individual atheists).

zgoldsmith23 said:
Yes, the conditions support life but does that require "fine-tuning?" Too, why are you saying they are hostile to abiogenetic processes? How do you know it was created to accomidate human life from the Word of "god?" Are you sure you don't mean believe?

This was the reason I asked the question I did earlier in this thread: is it the case that designed things bear some property which unambiguously announces them as designed, or not? If yes, then questions like this should be at least straightforward, if not simple, to answer. If no, then I think there has to be some give on both sides of the question, because we're talking about an essentially philosophical topic to which some scientific observations are germane.
 
Multiple universes do exist. There is no debate on this. Theory proves it.

I suspect theories point to other dimensions with more certainty than multiple universes. I'm waiting for more information on the one we're aware of.
 
solletica said:
Multiple universes do exist. There is no debate on this. Theory proves it.

Wait a minute; I thought theories are supposed to be proven by facts, not that theories prove facts. I'm not sure I understand your remark.
 
I find this remark interesting. I agree with it. Here's a funny little story which happens to be true:

A long time ago, back when they were the Internet Infidel Discussion Boards, a story appeared on a liberal-leaning but mainstream news site about some scientists who had created life in the laboratory. The story made it seem like these scientists had ordered some off-the-shelf chemicals, thrown them into a test-tube, and made a new form of microorganism. Of course, the board went wild over this story, because that's supposed to be the holy grail of showing that no divine intervention might be needed to get life going.

I had access to the database that carried the paper, and I went and pulled it down and read it. What the scientists had actually done was take a living cell, inhibited some of its genes, and gotten it to generate new proteins such that the cell mutated, even though it was still recongizably whatever species it started out as. I linked the abstract, which explained all of this, and posted it, along with roughly the explanation I just gave. Nevertheless, strangely, the board continued with all kinds of remarks like "let's see those dumbass theists argue against this one!" or "at least now we can finally claim total victory," or "it was only a matter of time before we'd be able to show that living things just come together from chemicals, and now these guys have literally created living organisms from non-living matter."

This went on for 12 pages. I would pop back up occasionally to point out that the science journalists were simply mis-reporting the experiment. No one had brought forth living things from non-living matter. Indeed, the results were not merely quite humble, they also simply replicated earlier findings.

I find that many atheists (not all, certainly) get their science from science journalism, which really doesn't do a good job, on the whole, of appreciating its subject matter. I did finally prevail in the aforementioned thread--or at least, I finally got a few of the respondents to the thread to go look at the abstract and come back and admit that they were wrong. What this experience demonstrated to me, with startling clarity, is that the truism that people believe what they want to believe doesn't stop being true for atheists as a group (though again, as with some theists, I'm sure it's not true for some individual atheists).

I certainly understand what you're saying and can appreciate it, but I do somewhat disagree with pieces. For one, I'm not 100% sure which experiment that you're referring to, but showing proteins are capable of being synthesized in such a manner is big. It's not as much anymore, but at one time, it was HUGE! Now we can talk about the generalizations - and that is what they will be, not definite for all of a group. Atheists tend to get their science from scientific journalism but, that sure beats it out of a 2000 year old book and out of a place like "Answers in Genesis" or Dembski, Behe, or Comfort.

This was the reason I asked the question I did earlier in this thread: is it the case that designed things bear some property which unambiguously announces them as designed, or not? If yes, then questions like this should be at least straightforward, if not simple, to answer. If no, then I think there has to be some give on both sides of the question, because we're talking about an essentially philosophical topic to which some scientific observations are germane.

To me, in short, the answer is: No. I also wouldn't say that it's philosophical as the claim is made about reality - where science dwells. What trait(s), action(s), or feature(s) necessarily require design? This article even admitted that the odds, while statistically improbable (to say the least) are, still, possible. And that's all it takes - one spark, one light, one "boom" and the process begins without begging the question of "god."
 
Multiple universes do exist. There is no debate on this. Theory proves it.

LOL! An example of what Ashurbanipal just wrote about. Of course, we don't know if solletica is an atheist.
 
zgoldsmith23 said:
I certainly understand what you're saying and can appreciate it, but I do somewhat disagree with pieces. For one, I'm not 100% sure which experiment that you're referring to, but showing proteins are capable of being synthesized in such a manner is big. It's not as much anymore, but at one time, it was HUGE! Now we can talk about the generalizations - and that is what they will be, not definite for all of a group. Atheists tend to get their science from scientific journalism but, that sure beats it out of a 2000 year old book and out of a place like "Answers in Genesis" or Dembski, Behe, or Comfort.

I think we're close to being on the same page with regard to the above. I became more convinced that materialism (note that I do not equate this with atheism, though I do think they make good bedfellows) is a very weak position after I stopped reading science journalism as a means of attaining reliable information, and started wading through the actual science. It seems to me that science journalists vastly overblow the implications of neuroscience--though they are partly encouraged by a small but vocal group of brain scientists who are great at neuroscience but who are, importantly, lousy at philosophy. I can expand and provide examples on request. I decided to go the philosophy route because it seemed to me that's still where the real issues are to be found.

zgoldsmith23 said:
To me, in short, the answer is: No. I also wouldn't say that it's philosophical as the claim is made about reality - where science dwells.

I'm not sure the distinct is quite that clear. Philosophy that had nothing to do with reality (depending on what we mean by that word) probably won't get much traction. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that science is capable of deciding some fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Do we live in Russell's universe, or Berkeley's? Both have the same observational consequences, but they're definitely not the same universe. We have to decide which account to prefer on philosophical grounds.

The reason I think philosophy creeps into the picture when we admit that there's no definitive test to tell whether a thing is designed or not is because that implies no observation we could make will decide the question for us. Atheists, for example, will then try to bring in principles of parsimony (Occam's razor, for instance)...but the claim that a principle of parsimony should be employed is a philosophical one. It may be good philosophy (or it may not be), but it's still philosophy.

zgoldsmith23 said:
What trait(s), action(s), or feature(s) necessarily require design? This article even admitted that the odds, while statistically improbable (to say the least) are, still, possible. And that's all it takes - one spark, one light, one "boom" and the process begins without begging the question of "god."

Well, this is just to rework the same question. We know there are things that are designed. It's a fact, for example, that the computer I'm typing on is designed. But if it's not impossible for it to have just come together via unguided processes, then...

Here's the point: take this computer as an analogy for the universe, just conditionally speaking (i.e. for the sake of deciding a principle, not as a positive fact). As it happens, it's a fact that the computer is designed. But if we didn't know that, and we had to just figure it out, it would always be possible for someone to claim that the computer is not designed. The problem is that this is incorrect. If we were in that situation, we'd be getting it wrong.

Now: I do not claim that the universe is necessarily designed. I agree there's no test we can make that will tell us. But that's the whole point. In such a situation, if we stick to only what tests may tell us, we run a risk of getting it wrong, and having no idea whether we've gotten it wrong or not.

This is why talk of probabilities is so important. Again, if we're trying to figure out the computer, we might be able to calculate the probabilities it could come together without design. If the probability is very, very low, we might reasonably conclude it is designed.

The multiverse theory weighs on the actual probabilities. If the universe is a one-off, then it looks very probable that it was designed. Not certain, but I think it's a good bet. On the other hand, if the universe we have is the result of a nearly infinite sequence of previous trials, then probability becomes much less of a factor. It's extemely improbable that I'll win the lottery, but if I buy enough tickets, likely as not I'll win eventually.

The point the article seems to want to make is that the probability argument came up again from recent observations, and that the multiverse response is merely ad hoc. I'm not convinced it is. There may be other reasons to think there are multiverses, but I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the subject. Of course, if it is ad hoc, then that seems like bad philosophy to me.
 
Perhaps, but whether or not the multiverse is limited by science is not fully understood yet.

Agree.

I also would be careful to declare the multiverse is a "preconceived notion."

Actually, I was thinking about the typical atheist's tendency to unwittingly impose metaphysical naturalism on reality. There would be nothing preconceived about the notion of a multiverse. Agree. The apprehension of this potentiality arises from real considerations on this side of the horizon.

Yes, the conditions support life but does that require "fine-tuning?"

Agree.

Too, why are you saying they are hostile to abiogenetic processes?

Well, it's a long read, mostly a review of the current research, but also a theological treatise of sorts, but. . . .

http://michaeldavidrawlings1.blogspot.com/2011/03/years-of-experience-have-shown-me-that_06.html

How do you know it was created to accomidate human life from the Word of "god?" Are you sure you don't mean believe?

Know. Believe. Same thing. I know God exists. I had a personal encounter with Him, and the one and only true God of reality is the God of the Bible.

Finally, I'd probably agree that a universe or multiverse has no bearing on "god's" existance, but, an infinite number would seem to show that universe arise and are destroyed.

Agree.
 
Last edited:
Know. Believe. Same thing.

Knowing and believing are in fact two different thing. Your a gnostic theist, claiming knowledge of your belief. Lots of those guys around. But knowledge and belief are not interchangeable.
 
I find that many atheists (not all, certainly) get their science from science journalism, which really doesn't do a good job, on the whole, of appreciating its subject matter. I did finally prevail in the aforementioned thread--or at least, I finally got a few of the respondents to the thread to go look at the abstract and come back and admit that they were wrong. What this experience demonstrated to me, with startling clarity, is that the truism that people believe what they want to believe doesn't stop being true for atheists as a group (though again, as with some theists, I'm sure it's not true for some individual atheists).

Like this. . . .

In 1951, the American Miller succeeded to form organic matter out of a mixture of ammonia (NH3), methane (CH4), hydrogen (H2) and water (H2O) by exposing this mixture to an electric current. During the experiments different organic mixtures were formed, among them amino acids and nucleic acids. These acids are essential for the building of proteins and chromosomes. —ORACLE ThinkQuest

Nucleic acids?!

The above is from my article in which I made essentially the same observation: Prufrock's Lair: Abiogenesis: The Unholy Grail of Atheism
 
Knowing and believing are in fact two different thing. Your a gnostic theist, claiming knowledge of your belief. Lots of those guys around. But knowledge and belief are not interchangeable.

Actually, the term gnostic has some very negative connotations for the Christian. I didn't say that knowledge and belief as such were the same thing. In this instance, I said that what I know about God's actions and what I believe about His actions are the same thing.
 
I think we're close to being on the same page with regard to the above. I became more convinced that materialism (note that I do not equate this with atheism, though I do think they make good bedfellows) is a very weak position after I stopped reading science journalism as a means of attaining reliable information, and started wading through the actual science. It seems to me that science journalists vastly overblow the implications of neuroscience--though they are partly encouraged by a small but vocal group of brain scientists who are great at neuroscience but who are, importantly, lousy at philosophy. I can expand and provide examples on request. I decided to go the philosophy route because it seemed to me that's still where the real issues are to be found.



I'm not sure the distinct is quite that clear. Philosophy that had nothing to do with reality (depending on what we mean by that word) probably won't get much traction. On the other hand, it's not clear to me that science is capable of deciding some fundamental questions about the nature of reality. Do we live in Russell's universe, or Berkeley's? Both have the same observational consequences, but they're definitely not the same universe. We have to decide which account to prefer on philosophical grounds.

The reason I think philosophy creeps into the picture when we admit that there's no definitive test to tell whether a thing is designed or not is because that implies no observation we could make will decide the question for us. Atheists, for example, will then try to bring in principles of parsimony (Occam's razor, for instance)...but the claim that a principle of parsimony should be employed is a philosophical one. It may be good philosophy (or it may not be), but it's still philosophy.



Well, this is just to rework the same question. We know there are things that are designed. It's a fact, for example, that the computer I'm typing on is designed. But if it's not impossible for it to have just come together via unguided processes, then...

Here's the point: take this computer as an analogy for the universe, just conditionally speaking (i.e. for the sake of deciding a principle, not as a positive fact). As it happens, it's a fact that the computer is designed. But if we didn't know that, and we had to just figure it out, it would always be possible for someone to claim that the computer is not designed. The problem is that this is incorrect. If we were in that situation, we'd be getting it wrong.

Now: I do not claim that the universe is necessarily designed. I agree there's no test we can make that will tell us. But that's the whole point. In such a situation, if we stick to only what tests may tell us, we run a risk of getting it wrong, and having no idea whether we've gotten it wrong or not.

This is why talk of probabilities is so important. Again, if we're trying to figure out the computer, we might be able to calculate the probabilities it could come together without design. If the probability is very, very low, we might reasonably conclude it is designed.

The multiverse theory weighs on the actual probabilities. If the universe is a one-off, then it looks very probable that it was designed. Not certain, but I think it's a good bet. On the other hand, if the universe we have is the result of a nearly infinite sequence of previous trials, then probability becomes much less of a factor. It's extemely improbable that I'll win the lottery, but if I buy enough tickets, likely as not I'll win eventually.

The point the article seems to want to make is that the probability argument came up again from recent observations, and that the multiverse response is merely ad hoc. I'm not convinced it is. There may be other reasons to think there are multiverses, but I have to admit I'm not well-versed in the subject. Of course, if it is ad hoc, then that seems like bad philosophy to me.


A very fine and reasonable post.
 
Actually, the term gnostic has some very negative connotations for the Christian. I didn't say that knowledge and belief as such were the same thing. In this instance, I said that what I know about God's actions and what I believe about His actions are the same thing.

Ahh, ok. I know there was specifically a form of gnostic Christianity; but in terms of agnostic/gnostic it's a reference to knowledge. Atheism/theism is a reference to belief. And those two classes of terms speak to different things.
 
Back
Top Bottom