10 Jan '09 12:35>
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOh😵
lol, funniest thing Ive heard in ages, giggled away almost as much as when Andrew Hamilton tried to palm off the peppered moth as viable and concrete proof of the process of evolution!
Originally posted by epiphinehasOne good reason is this: There are several theories saying many universes exist and just like millions of people playing the lottery which has only one in ten million chance of winning, but win they do because so many people play.
How would you account for the initial conditions being as they are? What established the cosmological constant?
Originally posted by epiphinehasAnd supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible. ( Some supernaturalists wisely make an exception for laws of logic, in order to avoid having an incoherent God.) With supernaturalism, there is just no real need for any epistemic justification for anything, and any system based on supernaturalistic premises can simply be rendered indefeasible by fiat. How nice.
Monism is compatible with naturalism.
Originally posted by sonhouseLet me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
One good reason is this: There are several theories saying many universes exist and just like millions of people playing the lottery which has only one in ten million chance of winning, but win they do because so many people play.
In a multiverse, with quadrillions of universes, ours is the flat universe lottery winner, there are other universes out there ...[text shortened]... chance, we come along in this universe because we won a universal lottery. Oops, no god needed.
Originally posted by vistesdAnd supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible.
And supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible. ( Some supernaturalists wisely make an exception for laws of logic, in order to avoid having an incoherent God.) With supernaturalism, there is just no real need for any epistemic justification for anything, and an ...[text shortened]... need resort to a supernatural category. Neither secular atheists nor religious non-dualists do.
Originally posted by epiphinehasWe know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
Let me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
Originally posted by epiphinehas(1) You didn’t mention non-dualist beliefs. 😉
[b]And supernaturalism allows one to by-pass empirical observation, and reasonable inference therefrom, and just assert that anything is possible.
The supernaturalist's beliefs regarding the known universe are looking more and more rational every day, i.e., the notion that the universe was "fine-tuned" by a Creator seems much more plausible than, they did, there's really no reason not to explore every possibility thoroughly.[/b]
Originally posted by FabianFnasI understand your reasoning, but the fine-tuning problem posed by the cosmological constant doesn't have anything to do with whether we are here or not, as far as I know. It is regarding the initial conditions of our universe; the unalterable laws that govern the cosmos. The degree to which these laws needed to be "fine-tuned" in order to give rise to a flat universe is so infinitesimally precise (1 part in 10 to the 120th power) that physicists are at a loss to explain how such precision came about "naturally".
We know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
But because we don't know doesn't prove the existance of another universe, nor the non-existance of another universe. We simply don't know anything about it.
But we can speculate, make more or less trustworthy hypoth at we live in a universe with life doesn't prove that someone has to be the creator of it.
Originally posted by vistesdIn a sense, wouldn't the multiverse theory be a form of supernaturalism? If our entire definition of what is natural is derived only from the known universe, and we have absolutely no evidence of any other universes besides our own, then the proposed existence of other universes is by definition a supernatural explanation, is it not? Yet scientists are seriously considering the multiverse theory.
(1) You didn’t mention non-dualist beliefs. 😉
(2) I am now arguing that supernaturalism means that no beliefs can be justified in any way—no beliefs that admit the supernatural (not just these or those beliefs, or beliefs just about the supernatural). The supernaturalist cannot even validly justify her beliefs to herself.
That is, that th ...[text shortened]... ced that dualistic theism per se requires supernaturalism, certain theistic claims might.
Originally posted by epiphinehasOf course, scientists develop and test theories. Sometimes that testing may take decades. Any “theory” that is per se unfalsifiable is not a valid theory. Some scientists think that string theory, for example, is not a valid scientific theory because it is per se unfalsifiable. Time will tell… I am not a scientist and I don’t know anything about manifold universes, one way or the other.
In a sense, wouldn't the multiverse theory be a form of supernaturalism? If our entire definition of what is natural is derived only from the known universe, and we have absolutely no evidence of any other universes besides our own, then the proposed existence of other universes is by definition a supernatural explanation, is it not? Yet scienti ...[text shortened]... for a different door and begins to knock? Or will he be shipwrecked forever by his naturalism?
Originally posted by epiphinehas…Let me get this straight: you've INVENTED a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe,
Let me get this straight: you've invented a quadrillion universes to explain the eccentricities of the one known universe, and this strikes you as a rational solution?
Originally posted by epiphinehas…The degree to which these laws needed to be “FINE-TUNED” in order to give rise to a flat universe is so infinitesimally precise
I understand your reasoning, but the fine-tuning problem posed by the cosmological constant doesn't have anything to do with whether we are here or not, as far as I know. It is regarding the initial conditions of our universe; the unalterable laws that govern the cosmos. The degree to which these laws needed to be "fine-tuned" in order to give r ...[text shortened]... power) that physicists are at a loss to explain how such precision came about "naturally".
Originally posted by FabianFnasEdit:
We know for a fact that there is one universe with life. We don't know at all if that there are another universes, with or without life.
But because we don't know doesn't prove the existance of another universe, nor the non-existance of another universe. We simply don't know anything about it.
But we can speculate, make more or less trustworthy hypoth ...[text shortened]... at we live in a universe with life doesn't prove that someone has to be the creator of it.
Originally posted by rwingettI didn't realise I conversing with the spokesperson for generations of scientists, whose own capacity for scientific comprehension should be measured by the plethora of ground-breaking books and papers he must have had published.
With such a primitive understanding of science, its not difficult to see why you lapsed into Christianity. Scientists aren't trying to disprove creation. I don't think such a thing could be done. What they're doing is demonstrating that life could arise naturally by simulating the conditions of an early earth. The byproduct of that would be that a supernatu e doing the Miller-Urey experiment, from 1952, which did produce a number of amino acids.