Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

The multiverse rebuttal to fine-tuning

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:13:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Many theists argue that the apparent fine-tuning of the universe points to intelligence somehow. Lets say we grant that for the sake of argument. One way around this, seems to be that if enough universes are born, one with ours is inevitable, so the apparent need for an intelligent creator goes down the toilet. Problem solved. However, this line of reasoning seems quit puzzling, Foe one, it seems to violate Occam's Razor like crazy. The idea that we need all these universes just to explain one seems rather, well, messy to say the least. Secondly, it seems to infer an infinite past, which is illogical if time is linear. Now, I have my own reasons for why I don't adhere to the fine-tuning line of reasoning, but I'm wondering if multiverse theory advocates really believe this multiverse theory takes care of the fine-tuning issue in a clean fashion, and if so, why?
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:32:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.

It's a matter of epistemological justification. My granddaughter says, "Just because," too.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:42:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Try again.

I said somewhere else, "Some forms of theism believe in a God "out there" and this is the god atheism attacks or denies. Other forms say there is no "out there" out there and this is the kind of God QM can be interpreted as supporting though not necessarily proving." The "entirely new category of things" you're talking about belongs to the former.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:32:21 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.

It's a matter of epistemological justification. My granddaughter says, "Just because," too.

I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:52:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

What I'm saying is, we don't know the answer yet - but the odds are against it turning out to be god.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:52:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:32:21 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.

It's a matter of epistemological justification. My granddaughter says, "Just because," too.

I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

Actually, I was responding to a straw man.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:53:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:42:06 PM, Radar wrote:
I said somewhere else, "Some forms of theism believe in a God "out there" and this is the god atheism attacks or denies. Other forms say there is no "out there" out there and this is the kind of God QM can be interpreted as supporting though not necessarily proving." The "entirely new category of things" you're talking about belongs to the former.

Yes, I was attacking a supernatural kind of god. If you have some other conception then I wasn't talking about you.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 1:53:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:52:39 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:32:21 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.

It's a matter of epistemological justification. My granddaughter says, "Just because," too.

I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

Actually, I was responding to a straw man.

Do elaborate.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:53:07 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:42:06 PM, Radar wrote:
I said somewhere else, "Some forms of theism believe in a God "out there" and this is the god atheism attacks or denies. Other forms say there is no "out there" out there and this is the kind of God QM can be interpreted as supporting though not necessarily proving." The "entirely new category of things" you're talking about belongs to the former.

Yes, I was attacking a supernatural kind of god. If you have some other conception then I wasn't talking about you.

Then your comment was moot.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 2:09:31 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:53:56 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:52:39 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:32:21 PM, Radar wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:25:05 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I don't see why atheists need give any explanation of fine tuning. Considering the vast number of seemingly designed things that have turned out to have scientific explanations, opting for god is like betting on the horse that loses every single race over the horse that has won 9999 races in a row.

It's a matter of epistemological justification. My granddaughter says, "Just because," too.

I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

Actually, I was responding to a straw man.

Do elaborate.

What has betting on a losing horse horse to do with anything, especially since the winning hose seems to support some conceptions of God?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists, so any other universe is a supernatural entity. If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 4:04:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

True, but at this time there is no evidence for it.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.

If other realities can exist, then wouldn't that make God just as possible as another universe??
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 4:07:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 4:04:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

True, but at this time there is no evidence for it.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.

If other realities can exist, then wouldn't that make God just as possible as another universe??

Not necessarily. God could just be one option, and the multiverse theory could just be one option, in a sea of options. It's not required for it to be a 50/50 thing.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 4:12:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 4:07:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:04:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

True, but at this time there is no evidence for it.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.

If other realities can exist, then wouldn't that make God just as possible as another universe??

Not necessarily. God could just be one option, and the multiverse theory could just be one option, in a sea of options. It's not required for it to be a 50/50 thing.

I was just commenting on his statement that the multiverse is a better position. I don't think it is because they both can be claimed to be supernatural, at least at this point in our knowledge.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 4:13:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
If things were slightly different, and life could only arise in other galaxies, could sentient life in those galaxies claim fine tuning proves the universe was created for them?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2013 4:22:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 4:12:11 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:07:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:04:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

True, but at this time there is no evidence for it.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.

If other realities can exist, then wouldn't that make God just as possible as another universe??

Not necessarily. God could just be one option, and the multiverse theory could just be one option, in a sea of options. It's not required for it to be a 50/50 thing.

I was just commenting on his statement that the multiverse is a better position. I don't think it is because they both can be claimed to be supernatural, at least at this point in our knowledge.

If there is another universe that follows physical laws, then it is natural. However, I agree that there is nothing that makes the God hypothesis less likely that the multiverse hypothesis. Maybe there is a God who created a multiverse, we don't know for sure.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:29:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 1:52:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

What I'm saying is, we don't know the answer yet - but the odds are against it turning out to be god.

Really??? Please provide evidence of even 1 single universe other than our own....Then I might consider an infinite amount of universes exist........instead of the only thing we know for sure really does exist....our own universe.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:31:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/31/2013 4:22:48 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:12:11 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:07:19 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 4:04:15 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:56:43 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 3:53:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:27:59 PM, Kinesis wrote:
btw there's another way to look at occam's razor w/regards to the multiverse. Yeah it posits countless universes, but they're all fundamentally the same kind of physical thing as our own universe. God, on the other hand, introduces an entirely new category of things: 'supernatural' things. So on that basis god is worse from the perspective of simplicity than the multiverse.

Not really. There is no evidence in our natural universe to show that any other universe exists

Agreed.

, so any other universe is a supernatural entity.

Not necessarily. It could just be an extension of nature, that we are not currently aware of.

True, but at this time there is no evidence for it.

If it exists, it exists outside our natural universe.

Our natural universe, isn't necessarily the only nature that can exist.

If other realities can exist, then wouldn't that make God just as possible as another universe??

Not necessarily. God could just be one option, and the multiverse theory could just be one option, in a sea of options. It's not required for it to be a 50/50 thing.

I was just commenting on his statement that the multiverse is a better position. I don't think it is because they both can be claimed to be supernatural, at least at this point in our knowledge.

If there is another universe that follows physical laws, then it is natural. However, I agree that there is nothing that makes the God hypothesis less likely that the multiverse hypothesis. Maybe there is a God who created a multiverse, we don't know for sure.

According to the Vedas, The Supreme beings like Krisna, Vishnu, ect ect, all have the ability to create an infinite amount of universe simply by will.
muzebreak
Posts: 2,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 12:33:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:29:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:52:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

What I'm saying is, we don't know the answer yet - but the odds are against it turning out to be god.

Really??? Please provide evidence of even 1 single universe other than our own....Then I might consider an infinite amount of universes exist........instead of the only thing we know for sure really does exist....our own universe.

Prove our universe does exist.....
"Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for science intact." - Carl Sagan

This is the response of the defenders of Sparta to the Commander of the Roman Army: "If you are a god, you will not hurt those who have never injured you. If you are a man, advance - you will find men equal to yourself. And women.
Radar
Posts: 424
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/1/2013 1:46:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 4/1/2013 12:33:29 PM, muzebreak wrote:
At 4/1/2013 12:29:24 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:52:11 PM, Kinesis wrote:
At 3/31/2013 1:50:10 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I'm not saying 'just because'. You just invented that strawman right then.

What I'm saying is, we don't know the answer yet - but the odds are against it turning out to be god.

Really??? Please provide evidence of even 1 single universe other than our own....Then I might consider an infinite amount of universes exist........instead of the only thing we know for sure really does exist....our own universe.

Prove our universe does exist.....

The burden is on you, muze. Isn't that what atheists like to say when it comes to God?