Total Posts:75|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Multiverse and fine-tuning

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 8:07:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Do most Atheists believe that the multi-verse theory rebuts the fine-tuning argument in a satisfactory mannor? In reality, it seems like a cop out to me. I believe there are more sophisticated angles one could take to rebut the fine-tuning argument, rather than just being intellectually lazy by positing an infinite number of universes to demonstrate that a universe with our constants is inevitable. Basically, I would like to know if most Atheists on this site:

(i) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory refutes the fine-tuning argument sufficiently.

or

(ii) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory is an intellectual cop out.

I would fall in the (ii) category.
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:05:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
(ii)
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/18/2012 9:12:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Multi-universel theory is false. Why would I say this?
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Magicr
Posts: 135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 6:52:42 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
2, because at the present we have no way of proving the mulitiverse theory beyond saying that a lot of math works out correctly.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:05:59 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
(i) when coupled with the anthropic principle, and (ii) anyway. There are differing solutions, and the MWH is a possible one. And anyway, I don't know any people sufficiently self-interested enough to believe in the MWH due to the fine tuning problem, but rather the solutions it gives to quantum theory (though many apologetics hold themselves in high enough regard to believe it was created purely because of them).
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Microsuck
Posts: 1,562
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:11:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:07:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do most Atheists believe that the multi-verse theory rebuts the fine-tuning argument in a satisfactory mannor? In reality, it seems like a cop out to me. I believe there are more sophisticated angles one could take to rebut the fine-tuning argument, rather than just being intellectually lazy by positing an infinite number of universes to demonstrate that a universe with our constants is inevitable. Basically, I would like to know if most Atheists on this site:

(i) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory refutes the fine-tuning argument sufficiently.

or

(ii) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory is an intellectual cop out.

I would fall in the (ii) category.

(ii) I think it begs the question and doesn't refute the fine tuning argument or the first cause argument.
Wall of Fail

Devil worship much? - SD
Newsflash: Atheists do not believe in the Devil! - Me
Newsflash: I doesnt matter if you think you do or not.....You do - SD

"you [imabench] are very naive and so i do not consider your opinions as having any merit. you must still be in highschool" - falconduler
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:20:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think the multiverse theory has anything to do with the fine-tuning argument.

In fact, even as a Christian, I find the multiverse theory to be probable. What's to say God didn't create multiple universes? How does that affect our own fine tuned universe?
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:42:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:20:55 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't think the multiverse theory has anything to do with the fine-tuning argument.

In fact, even as a Christian, I find the multiverse theory to be probable. What's to say God didn't create multiple universes? How does that affect our own fine tuned universe?

The multiverse theory would inevitably lead to existence of a life-supporting universe.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 8:59:53 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:42:53 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:20:55 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't think the multiverse theory has anything to do with the fine-tuning argument.

In fact, even as a Christian, I find the multiverse theory to be probable. What's to say God didn't create multiple universes? How does that affect our own fine tuned universe?

The multiverse theory would inevitably lead to existence of a life-supporting universe.

Multiverse as in infiniteverse? Like there are infinite other universes out there? I was thinking more along the lines of a number more but not infinite.

Yes that would be an intellectual cop out.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:15:13 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:05:59 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
(i) when coupled with the anthropic principle, and (ii) anyway. There are differing solutions, and the MWH is a possible one. And anyway, I don't know any people sufficiently self-interested enough to believe in the MWH due to the fine tuning problem, but rather the solutions it gives to quantum theory (though many apologetics hold themselves in high enough regard to believe it was created purely because of them).

Of course the multi-verse theory's origins had nothing to do with the fine-tuning problem. I'm just saying, I see a lot of Atheists use the argument that if there a multiple universes, finding ourselves in one that allows life isn't all that shocking. While it may be true, I think it's a cop out.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:28:52 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: Who here actually believes the multi-verse theory makes sense??
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheBossToss
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 9:49:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 9:28:52 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Who here actually believes the multi-verse theory makes sense??

Um, well, if the math works out quantum mechanically, then it does make sense to me. I don't think the number of universes is infinite, I think the number was 10^580 (which is pretty close to infinite), but it's a finite number. I forget where I read that.... some magazine at the hospital where I work, but it was written by a string theorist or quantum physicist. So, to me, it's just an explanation that works out mathematically and explains the anthropic principle on the side.
Cats. I like cats.
-Me

Pro hasn't upheld his BOP. He forfeited last round. I did stuff.
-Wallstreetatheist

That was real intellectual property theft. They used her idea for their own profit and fame. When I pirate, I am usually downloading textbooks that I cannot afford to purchase on my own and that I do not want my parents to spend money on.
-royalpaladin
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/19/2012 10:47:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/18/2012 8:07:39 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
Do most Atheists believe that the multi-verse theory rebuts the fine-tuning argument in a satisfactory mannor? In reality, it seems like a cop out to me. I believe there are more sophisticated angles one could take to rebut the fine-tuning argument, rather than just being intellectually lazy by positing an infinite number of universes to demonstrate that a universe with our constants is inevitable. Basically, I would like to know if most Atheists on this site:

(i) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory refutes the fine-tuning argument sufficiently.

or

(ii) Believe that positing the multi-verse theory is an intellectual cop out.

I would fall in the (ii) category.

Tell us.. Was existence fine tuned so a conscious state can exist? The fine tuning argument is bogus, and any state of reality is going to look fine tuned to its own state.. Saying it requires a magic man is a bit laughable :/
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 1:50:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities' falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 2:00:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I tend to like disregarding the fine-tuning argument at least partially in support of the multi-verse theory. Besides, it makes the case for God stronger by far.

Considering the multiverse comprises everything that exists and can exist, the only way to rule out a God is to make it a logical impossibility. The PoE in logical form isn't brilliant, although the evidential one can be nasty. Fortunately, the multiverse theory precludes any evidential theories from having effect as something has to be logically impossible...

Not that's what one might call a cop out, even if it's perfectly legitimate.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 9:38:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
I believe in the Multiverse and it has nothing whatsoever to do with creating a theory to refute fine-tuning. All evidence points to the existence of a Multiverse, it is not a mere hypothesis or conjecture.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:08:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool vs Multi-verse

Argument from existence

p1 what is IS
p2What is not does not exist
C1 Therefore there is only existence

Let The Absolute Universe is Absolutly All That Exist(Original definition of universe)

Argument of sub-universes

P1[if=if] there exist other universes [then] they are sub-universe sub-verses in the Absoute Universe
P2 Lets grant that they exist
C1 Therefore they can only be subverses

Argument from Hypothetical

It is a hypothesis that there exist and infinite universes.
[If and only If] there exist in infinite amount of universes [then] there exist an infinite universes.
But and infinite can never be reached
But that which could never be true is my necessity False.
Therefore there does not exist an infinite universes.

Argument from Annilihilation.
[IF=IF] there exist and infinite universes [then] we are one in an infinite.
but if we are one in and infinite then we are zerp Aka we don't exist.
but that absurd
Therefore it is false that there exist an infinite universes.

Straight from the hill!<(8J)

PS. the Jackal licks Balls!
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:17:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: But enough about all the licking.

Fine tuning/Intellegent design
[R.I.P.]

"If the conclusion that a god exists is to be demonstrated, the premises must be certain; for, as the conclusion of a deductive argument is already contained in the premises, any uncertainty there may be about the truth of the premises is necessarily shared by it. But we know that no empirical proposition can ever be anything more than probable. It is only a priori propositions that are logically certain. But we cannot deduce the existence of a god from an a priori proposition. However if the existence of such a god were probable, then the proposition that he existed would be an empirical hypothesis. But in fact this is not possible. It is sometimes claimed, indeed, that the existence of a certain sort of regularity in nature constitutes sufficient evidence for the existence of a god. But if the sentence "God exists" entails no more than that certain types of phenomena occur in certain sequences, then to assert the existence of a god will be simply equivalent to asserting that there is the requisite regularity in nature; and no religious man would admit that this was all he intended to assert in asserting the existence of a god. He would say that in talking about God, he was talking about a transcendent being who might be known through certain empirical manifestations, but certainly could not be defined in terms of those manifestations." Alfred Jules Ayer
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:24:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: hhhmmmmmmmm
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:46:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:08:12 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool vs Multi-verse

Argument from existence

p1 what is IS
p2What is not does not exist
C1 Therefore there is only existence

That proves nothing. All youre saying is existence exists.

Let The Absolute Universe is Absolutly All That Exist(Original definition of universe)

Argument of sub-universes

P1[if=if] there exist other universes [then] they are sub-universe sub-verses in the Absoute Universe

Terrible wording but ok.

P2 Lets grant that they exist
C1 Therefore they can only be subverses

Argument from Hypothetical

It is a hypothesis that there exist and infinite universes.
[If and only If] there exist in infinite amount of universes [then] there exist an infinite universes.
But and infinite can never be reached

Unsubstantiated claim.

But that which could never be true is my necessity False.
Therefore there does not exist an infinite universes.

Conclusion is false coinciding with the fact that one of your premises is false.

Argument from Annilihilation.
[IF=IF] there exist and infinite universes [then] we are one in an infinite.
but if we are one in and infinite then we are zerp Aka we don't exist.

More unsubstantiated premises asserted as if accepted as true when no such case has been made.

but that absurd
Therefore it is false that there exist an infinite universes.

False. Unsound reasoning.

.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 10:48:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 9:40:48 AM, ScottyDouglas wrote:
How can anyone deny multiple universes? We can see them....Can we not? Are you refering to dimensions?

No, generally Multiverse refers to multiple Hubblespheres, expanded singularity points. Sometimes it refers to multiple parallel universes/dimensions, but not the geometric dimensions of (2D, 3D, 4D, etc.)
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:07:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:46:00 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 8/20/2012 10:08:12 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool vs Multi-verse

Argument from existence

p1 what is IS
p2What is not does not exist
C1 Therefore there is only existence
Let The Absolute Universe is Absolutly All That Exist(Original definition of universe)



Argument of sub-universes

P1[if=if] there exist other universes [then] they are sub-universe sub-verses in the Absoute Universe
P2 Lets grant that they exist
C1 Therefore they can only be subverses


Argument from Hypothetical

It is a hypothesis that there exist and infinite universes.
[If and only If] there exist in infinite amount of universes [then] there exist an infinite universes.
But that which could never be true is my necessity False.
Therefore there does not exist an infinite universes.
But and infinite can never be reached

Argument from Annilihilation.
[IF=IF] there exist and infinite universes [then] we are one in an infinite. mbut if we are one in and infinite then we are zerp Aka we don't exist.
but that absurd
Therefore it is false that there exist an infinite universes.

The Fool: If an infinite was reachable it would be an infinite now would it?
GeoLaureate8: Unsubstantiated claim.
GeoLaureate8: More unsubstantiated premises asserted as if accepted as true when :GeoLaureate8: no such case has been made.
GeoLaureate8: Conclusion is false coinciding with the fact that one of your premises is false.
False. Unsound reasoning.

GeoLaureate8: That proves nothing. All youre saying is existence exists.

The Fool: Why are you saying anything??????

GeoLaureate8: Terrible wording but ok.

The Fool: ??????

The Fool: I am not argueing within a Buddist Religious context Geo.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:14:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 1:50:41 AM, stubs wrote:
"Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of our universe's low entropy condition obtaining by chance alone are on the order of 1:1010(123), an inconceivable number. If our universe were but one member of a multiverse of randomly ordered worlds, then it is vastly more probable that we should be observing a much smaller universe. For example, the odds of our solar system's being formed instantly by the random collision of particles is about 1:1010(60), a vast number, but inconceivably smaller than 1010(123). (Penrose calls it "utter chicken feed" by comparison [The Road to Reality (Knopf, 2005), pp. 762-5]). Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses' popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature's constants and quantities' falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse."

http://www.reasonablefaith.org...

It's a load of crap, and it's a self-invented nonsesne.. And with infinite time scales, such odds are meaningless. And there is no such thing as "random" as random is only a measurement of predictability.. Everything is force driven and energy interferes with itself and is a force to itself. The fine tuning argument and odds argument is a laughable joke. Worst yet, you're quoting a lawyer to whom has no education on the subject what-so-ever.

Why do creationists get laughed at when they quote such nonsense? :
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:17:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Fool: That is an infinite cannot be reach so it can't happen.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:25:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 10:08:12 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool vs Multi-verse

Argument from existence

p1 what is IS
p2What is not does not exist
C1 Therefore there is only existence

Let The Absolute Universe is Absolutly All That Exist(Original definition of universe)

Argument of sub-universes

P1[if=if] there exist other universes [then] they are sub-universe sub-verses in the Absoute Universe
P2 Lets grant that they exist
C1 Therefore they can only be subverses

Argument from Hypothetical

It is a hypothesis that there exist and infinite universes.
[If and only If] there exist in infinite amount of universes [then] there exist an infinite universes.
But and infinite can never be reached
But that which could never be true is my necessity False.
Therefore there does not exist an infinite universes.

Argument from Annilihilation.
[IF=IF] there exist and infinite universes [then] we are one in an infinite.
but if we are one in and infinite then we are zerp Aka we don't exist.
but that absurd
Therefore it is false that there exist an infinite universes.

Straight from the hill!<(8J)


PS. the Jackal licks Balls!

Umm sorry buddy, your argument doesn't invalidate P1.. P1 is supported in terms of infinite simply due to capacity and volume can not have a zero value. And existence can not be contained or sustained in a zero volume or a supposed container that has a zero capacity. In fact zero capacity or volume can't actually exist to represent a barrier for the same reason nothing or non-existence can not ever be an existing person, place, object, substance or thing. Worse yet, you failed utterly at addressing my question and decided to troll the fora. Thus you are reported for violating the TOS.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:28:38 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/20/2012 11:07:50 AM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
If an infinite was reachable it would be an infinite now would it?

You are demanding that infinity be something that must be "reached."

Infinity just IS, it exists, not something to be reached. It has no end so why impose an end on it that is unreachable? It is unreachable, yes, because it has no end, that's infinity, do you not understand?

The Fool: Why are you saying anything??????

I rejected all your arguments and explained why. You submitted arguments with faulty premises and thus they are unsound.

The Fool: I am not argueing within a Buddist Religious context Geo.

Irrelevant. I believed in Multiverse before Buddhism. Why can't you just address my concerns directly.

You have failed to prove these assertions:

"But and infinite can never be reached

there exist and infinite universes [then] we are one in an infinite.
but if we are one in and infinite then we are zerp Aka we don't exist."

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:45:44 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Geo, he's trolling the fora.. He has no coherency in any of his arguments and simply can't grasp basic definitions of words such as "infinity", or even in the Klam discussion regarding the definition of "nothing" and how the related to immateriality.. Its like watching a 2 year old try and discuss physics, it comes out cute, but it's an incoherent mess. :/
TheJackel
Posts: 508
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/20/2012 11:48:09 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/19/2012 8:59:53 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:42:53 AM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 8/19/2012 8:20:55 AM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I don't think the multiverse theory has anything to do with the fine-tuning argument.

In fact, even as a Christian, I find the multiverse theory to be probable. What's to say God didn't create multiple universes? How does that affect our own fine tuned universe?

The multiverse theory would inevitably lead to existence of a life-supporting universe.

Multiverse as in infiniteverse? Like there are infinite other universes out there? I was thinking more along the lines of a number more but not infinite.

Yes that would be an intellectual cop out.

Capacity and volume of existence would be infinite. How many universes are in existence is irrelevant. :)