JGL53

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...mber=1&catID=2


My understanding of all this is that we now have indirect scientific evidence indicating our observable universe is just part of an infinite universe (designated by the term 'multiverse'). There seems to be indirect evidence for Levels One, Two, and Three Multiverses, at least.

Ergo, everything that can happen must happen. Or, if time is an illusion, then everything that can exist must exist.

Ergo, god is dead. His throat has been cut by Occam's Razor.

Paperstreet

I don't see how this proves, or even suggests God does not exist...

Jet Grind

If there really is a multiverse, then the intelligent design and fine tuning arguments are out the window as they rely on their being only one intelligently designed universe. Those two are the only real fromidible arguments for God's existence, and with them gone no one has any other justification for believing in God. Note that this is only my understanding of the issue, cosmology/astronomy has never been my strong point.

Wounded King

Intelligent design isn't a good argument for anything. And as for 'fine tuning', by which I assume you mean a god of the gaps type scenario for why things are the way they are, the entire argument is based on ignorance, never a strong starting position.

Seeker196

I thought the god of gaps was pretty much buried by modern physics?

Where are the 'gaps' supposed to be nowadays?

On-Topic: I also don't see what the multiverse has to do with First Cause arguments.

The theist can just say your playing semantic games and that in the 'watch* found in the woods' argument, the 'watch' is now the multiverse instead of the universe.

Oh, and I do believe that there is nothing wrong with an infinite chain of causes and effects, with nothing first**, but try convincing a theist of that...

*for most ag/aths, the problem is that there is no analog for universe. The universe is not like a watch, or painting, or any other dependent system. It's a unique, analog-less closed system, as far as we can tell.

**but...but...what caused that? the one before. and before that? the ONE BEFORE. But what was first? there was no 'first'.

Mecha_Dude

Try not to make the same mistake of those before you and assume that your generation has little more to learn about the universe. We've only scratched the surface.

eh

The mutliverse takes care of the anthropic coincidences, but theists would still be able to cling to the first cause argument. After all, even the multiverse has a beginning, following the Sci American article.

Seeker196

That was an honest question.

I really want to know where the current god of the gaps theory puts them, I'm not just trying to say 'there are no gaps' in a 'clever' way.

JGL53

The multiverse idea does not prove that god does not exist. I'm not sure how one would prove such a negative claim. Waste of time to even try.

The multiverse idea does not suggest that god does not exist.
As stated in my title, I would suggest the multiverse idea merely makes god useless, i.e., superfluous or supererogatory. As Jet Grind posted "If there really is a multiverse, then the intelligent design and fine tuning arguments are out the window as they rely on their being only one intelligently designed universe. Those two are the only real formidable arguments for God's existence, and with them gone no one has any other justification for believing in God." Couldn't have said it better myself.

Regarding the First Cause argument, I have never regarded it as anything other than an obvious fallacy. Something must either be eternal, or perhaps timeless. Why not the universe (or multiverse)? Why does god get a pass, but nothing else is allowed eternality? No one has every been able to explain this to me.

Seraphim

I find it ODD that people will use an UNPROVEN concept to prove another unproven concept as well (as God is to an Atheists).

It is beneficial for an argument IF people can proof that Multiverse do exist before using them in an argument.