RE: Isn't the fine tuning argument ad hoc?
July 26, 2013 at 11:00 am
(This post was last modified: July 26, 2013 at 11:03 am by MindForgedManacle.)
(July 26, 2013 at 10:52 am)Chuck Wrote: No, you misunderstand occum's razor. Redundancy per se is irrelevant to occum's razor. The parsimony referred to in occum's razor pertains to minimization of probabilistically multiplicative assumptions. It does not refer to single assumption containing probabilistically indifferent, or cumulative redundancies.
The multiverse hypothesis is a 'probablistically multiplicative assumption', and a massive one at that.
(July 26, 2013 at 10:42 am)teaearlgreyhot Wrote: God is said to be an infinite all powerful, all knowing, personal being. A multiverse doesn't know anything, it doesn't feel anything, it doesn't have self awareness, it doesnt act, etc. It is much simpler than God.
Apologists don't tend to say that God is infinite, but that he has those attributes (power, knowledge, moral character) to their maximum, hence the concept of "maximal greatness". Under that, God remains the less parsimonious explanation to Occam's razor. Not a good one, but that's never been my point.
