Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Esquilax]

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

Are you seriously so completely lacking in self awareness that you'll tell other people they can't propose things that don't jive with the scientific method, mister "god is outside the universe!"

What the fuck is wrong with you?

[Foxaèr]

What the fuck is wrong with you?

The same thing that is wrong with all theists.

[Ksa]

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

So you don't want to talk about the multiverse theory because it is speculative and unscientific, but, you'll talk about how and when to pray in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

That's why I say snowtracks is being a bit disingenious in his analysis.

[Angrboda]

Snowtracks, I have a problem with this design hypothesis.

---

To say that a god caused it is analogous to saying that the dice were loaded. Suppose I roll two dice, and I roll an 8 as the sum of the two dice numbers. This event isn't technically random. A physicist could do a complicated analysis of their motion to explain how they landed 8. On the other hand, I could accuse John of loading the dice on 8 such that they probably would have rolled 8 regardless of the precise mechanics of their motion. Either explanation would be sufficient. After all, the right explanation doesn't have to be the simplest one.
Okay, but the physicist's explanation would be so complicated that it would still appear "random" to you. You're looking for a simple explanation, an explanation that you can appeal to in the absence of such complicated information. So how do you support the hypothesis that the dice were loaded? Here are the variables we have to consider.

P(L) = the probability that the dice were loaded
P(E) = the (unconditional) probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8
P(E|L) = the probability that the dice were loaded to roll an 8 under the condition that they were loaded

You want to argue that P(L) is high, that is, that the dice were probably loaded.
The fact that you rolled an 8 increases P(E|L). That is, having rolled an 8, you can say that they were more likely to be loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded.
While increasing P(E|L) does increase P(E), it does not increase P(L). That is, with an increased probability that they were loaded on 8 under the condition that they were loaded, there is also an increase in the unconditional probability that they were loaded on 8. But this tells us nothing about the probability that the dice were loaded. To support the claim that the dice were loaded, you need to give a separate argument for why you think loaded dice would have been more likely to be loaded on 8. Maybe John wanted me to roll 8 so that my Monopoly piece would land on his hotel. That argument would work. I'm not convinced that there is a similar argument for a god loading the dice on the Big Bang.
It's no wonder that people think a god loaded the dice on 8. After all, if the god hadn't loaded them on 8, it wouldn't have rolled an 8. Hence us 8-like beings fashioned our gods after us. But that seems to be the only reason for why we have fashioned our gods as we did. If there is a god, it must be like us--If the dice were loaded, they must have been loaded on 8. So what?

---

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

You didn't understand a word he said, did you?

[Coffee Jesus]

You didn't understand a word he said, did you?

Yeeaaah, my post had absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse hypothesis. I was merely accusing the theistic explanation of circularity.

Why would a god necessarily want to make humans? Because the god thinks like humans do.
Why must the god think like a human? Because otherwise the god wouldn't have made people.

[snowtracks]

You didn't understand a word he said, did you?

Yeeaaah, my post had absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse hypothesis. I was merely accusing the theistic explanation of circularity.

Why would a god necessarily want to make humans? Because the god thinks like humans do.
Why must the god think like a human? Because otherwise the god wouldn't have made people.

so he must be stating that one universe with a zillion chances to get it wrong, and one chance to get right; and it just happened that one chance came up which would mean time, space, energy, matter and the 4 forces of nature: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravity hit the right combination. okay, go with that then.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Yeeaaah, my post had absolutely nothing to do with the multiverse hypothesis. I was merely accusing the theistic explanation of circularity.

Why would a god necessarily want to make humans? Because the god thinks like humans do.
Why must the god think like a human? Because otherwise the god wouldn't have made people.

so he must be stating that one universe with a zillion chances to get it wrong, and one chance to get right; and it just happened that one chance came up which would mean time, space, energy, matter and the 4 forces of nature: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravity hit the right combination. okay, go with that then.

4 forces of nature? Are we talking elemental?

What the hell?

Strong, weak, elementary, gravity?

Are you drunk?

[Coffee Jesus]

so he must be stating that one universe with a zillion chances to get it wrong, and one chance to get right; and it just happened that one chance came up which would mean time, space, energy, matter and the 4 forces of nature: strong, electromagnetic, weak, and gravity hit the right combination. okay, go with that then.

It just so happens that I'm tired of this conversation.

That's not actually an explanation, is it.

I'm tired of this conversation because Ares introduced impatience.

[snowtracks]

---

the universe has a measurable sample size of one. appeal to some form of multiverse is metaphysics speculation and doesn't uphold the scientific method. the only reason to wonder over to a non-measurable speculation is an priori position that a Supreme Being can't be supra dimensional to time, space, energy, and matter; and as such is not subject to the principle of cause and effect that would require that Being to have a beginning.

---

So you don't want to talk about the multiverse theory because it is speculative and unscientific, but, you'll talk about how and when to pray in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

That's why I say snowtracks is being a bit disingenious in his analysis.

"you'll talk about how and when to pray in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?" wasn't me that posted that.

[Esquilax]

So you don't want to talk about the multiverse theory because it is speculative and unscientific, but, you'll talk about how and when to pray in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?

That's why I say snowtracks is being a bit disingenious in his analysis.

"you'll talk about how and when to pray in order to enter the kingdom of heaven?" wasn't me that posted that.

And yet you'll conveniently skip over my post, which does have an example of something you said transposed into the same argument?

Could it be that you don't actually have an answer to this blatant hypocrisy on your part?