The Instigator
Purushadasa
Pro (for)
The Contender
Unstobbaple
Con (against)

If a So-called "Multiverse" Existed, Then It Would Be Proof of God

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Debate Round Forfeited
Unstobbaple has forfeited round #1.
Our system has not yet updated this debate. Please check back in a few minutes for more options.
Time Remaining
00days00hours00minutes00seconds
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 8/6/2017 Category: Philosophy
Updated: 11 months ago Status: Debating Period
Viewed: 379 times Debate No: 103419
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (17)
Votes (0)

 

Purushadasa

Pro

The believer in atheist Dogma digs himself into a much deeper hole when he posits a multitude of universes, each one as finely-tuned as this one is, but each one finely-tuned in different ways from all the others (a multitude of universes for which there is no empirical evidence). Such an imaginary "multiverse" if it even existed, would still require an explanation for its inconceivably complex and exquisitely finely-tuned existence, and if the multiverse existed at all, then God would be the only rational explanation for it. This bizarre position of the believer in atheist Dogma exposes the great lengths to which he's willing to go, in his vain attempt to deny God's factual existence.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 1
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 2
This round has not been posted yet.
This round has not been posted yet.
Debate Round No. 3
17 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

"Randomness does not exist. Agreed. But simulations of it do."

Simulations of things are never the actual things in question:

You can't (legally) pay for a car, a house, or a sandwich with a simulation of money because it is not money, and you can't survive on a simulation of food and water because it is not food and water. An ovum cannot be impregnated by a simulation of sperm because it is not sperm, and you cannot fly around in a simulation of an airplane because it is not an airplane.

Similarly, simulations of randomness are not randomness, and they are not random.

Actually, randomness and "random things" do not exist in reality, as you already admitted, above.

"Also, probability."

That is not a sentence.

"When I say "there would be a lot of 35s" I mean there would *probably* be a lot of 35s."

If you could make an accurate estimate the number of 35's in the sample, then the sample in question would not be random.

"If every possible universe existed (a total of 10^500 in string theory) then life would be in several of them"

Not necessarily, no.

"Asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that 2^3=8."

...and yet I did ask you for evidence to back up your wild, ignorant, and infantile claims, but you provided exactly zero evidence for them because you have exactly zero evidence for any of them. Therefore you lost the debate -- thanks for your time! =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
Randomness does not exist. Agreed. But simulations of it do. Also, probability. When I say "there would be a lot of 35s" I mean there would *probably* be a lot of 35s.
If every possible universe existed (a total of 10^500 in string theory) then life would be in several of them, because it is possible for life to exist. That was my argument.
Asking for evidence for that is like asking for evidence that 2^3=8.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Someone wrote:

""No it wouldn't, and you provided zero evidence for that claim, so the claim is nothing but your own faith-based religious belief, not observable science."
OK, imagine this. Someone generates 10^500 random numbers between 1 and 256."

It is not possible to generate random numbers because random numbers do not exist in reality.

"There will probably be a lot of 35s."

No, there would be none, because nobody can generate random numbers at all. Also, if you can predict or even estimate how many 35's there would be, then the sample in question would not be random.

"Now imagine 10^500 random universes."

There is no such thing as a "random universe" because randomness does not exist in reality.

"Same thing - a lot of a certain circumstances - in this case life."

If you could predict or even estimate how many "certain circumstances" there would be in such a scenario, then it would not be random.

"Asking for evidence in this case is like asking for evidence that e~=2.71828."

...and yet I did ask for evidence for your position, and you provided exactly none because you have exactly none: Again -- it is nothing but your own personal faith-based religious belief, not observable science. Therefore you lost the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by platoandaristotle 11 months ago
platoandaristotle
"No it wouldn't, and you provided zero evidence for that claim, so the claim is nothing but your own faith-based religious belief, not observable science."
OK, imagine this. Someone generates 10^500 random numbers between 1 and 256. There will probably be a lot of 35s.
Now imagine 10^500 random universes. Same thing - a lot of a certain circumstances - in this case life.
Asking for evidence in this case is like asking for evidence that e~=2.71828.
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
Yep, I won see ya!
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
We're done here -- goodbye!
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
No, I won, sorry that you are too ignorant to understand.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Again: Other than God, what is the supposed source for objective distinctions between right and wrong? There is none, other than God, so I won the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
Posted by Shanor 11 months ago
Shanor
No you did not, I did.
Posted by Purushadasa 11 months ago
Purushadasa
Other than God, what is the supposed source for objective distinctions between right and wrong? There is none, other than God, so I won the debate: Thanks for your time! =)
This debate has 4 more rounds before the voting begins. If you want to receive email updates for this debate, click the Add to My Favorites link at the top of the page.