I will prove to you that God exists

[Sheldon]

Hypothesis such as multiverse or cosmic inflation are thought of as an explanation for an observed phenomenon. Of course even if the hypothesis is disproven, the observation that led to the hypothesis is still persists...why wouldn't it? I do agree that multiverse is a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps argument.

Nope the  multiverse is not a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps. There is no naturalism of the gaps it's valid hypothesis and if it's disproven all that happens is it's disproven and nothing else. This projecting the god of the gaps onto something that's nothing like it

Exactly, a scientific hypothesis is a starting point, and even if there is some evidence to support it, it is not an established or accepted scientific theory. this is just Drew' misunderstanding or misrepresenting how scientific ideas are validated. Another straw man as well...just as when he misrepresent what fine tuning means in the scientific sense, as "scientific evidence for a supernatural cause, and a deity," neither of which is true.

[Drew_2013]

@Sheldon

My 'bias' is the result of 'the astonishingly narrow parameters of certain characteristics of the universe, and that if they altered even a vanishingly small amount, then the carbon life we know of, could not have emerged'.

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary?  (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope there is no need the universe to have narrow perimeters that's an imposition your making on the universe not one the cosmos must abide by

[The Architect Of Fate]

Nope the  multiverse is not a 'just so' time and chance naturalism in the gaps. There is no naturalism of the gaps it's valid hypothesis and if it's disproven all that happens is it's disproven and nothing else. This projecting the god of the gaps onto something that's nothing like it

Exactly, a scientific hypothesis is a starting point, and even if there is some evidence to support it, it is not an established or accepted scientific theory. this is just Drew' misunderstanding or misrepresenting how scientific ideas are validated. Another straw man as well...just as when he misrepresent what fine tuning means in the scientific sense, as "scientific evidence for a supernatural cause, and a deity," neither of which is true.

Yup he's keeps confusing his incredulity for the universe

[Angrboda]

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary?  (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

I will summarize for your benefit. It does not matter whether I have a natural explanation. We still need evidence that these characteristics could vary. Do you have any?

Let's assume for the sake of argument that I don't possess a natural explanation for why they are as they are. Is it your contention that my being absent a natural explanation makes the probability of a non-natural explanation higher? As far as I can see, the possession or lack thereof of such a natural explanation does not in itself say anything about the probability that a natural explanation, albeit unknown, exists. The question is not whether we know that such an explanation exists, but rather whether such an explanation exists. If the constants indeed cannot vary, and we simply do not know the explanation, we cannot on that basis alone conclude that there is no such explanation. Since we cannot conclude that no such explanation exists, we cannot on that basis alone conclude that some other explanation is needed.

Regardless, your whataboutism concerning natural explanations isn't itself evidence that these constants could vary in some hypothetical universe. It's simply mute on that question. The explanation you present, that it evinces design, requires that there be a fact that needs to be explained. If you can't point to a reason for thinking that these constants could vary, then you have no fact requiring exp[lanation, and any argument for design then simply collapses.

I am of the opinion that you do not recognize your argument as being, ostensibly, an appeal to ignorance. So let me offer a concrete example. Let's suppose that we are walking in the forest and we come upon a patch of mushrooms which is arranged in a ring around an empty center. Not knowing much about fungi, I don't have a natural explanation at hand. Is it reasonable for me to conclude then that this ring of mushrooms is the product of design?

It is my position that, a natural explanation or no, any argument which depends upon the constants potentially varying must necessarily provide evidence that they can vary.

Do you have any such evidence?

ps. I'm not commenting on Rees' speculations concerning a multiverse. I had no knowledge that he had made such speculations when I formed my question. I was simply being charitable and granting you a lower bar, that if you couldn't support your evident belief that these characteristics could vary from the primary literature, that I would accept a suitable citation from the secondary literature. As far as I am aware, you haven't provided any evidence that these characteristics could vary. If you have then I would appreciate a link to such, or at least a link to what thread you presented it in.

pps. Motherboards are identical for numerous reasons, some natural, some not. If we visited an uninhabited planet and discovered numerous identically shaped rock structures, we'd still need to show that there is a reason these formations couldn't naturally occur. Not simply that we don't know. The only thing that follows from that is that we don't know one way or another. The same is true for motherboards, ignoring the problems with the analogy for a moment. This is because the supposed cause of the motherboards, humans, may itself have a natural explanation. If that were the case, then we would have turtles all the way down. The motherboards would be a product of human intention, yet the humans themselves and their intentions have natural explanations. In order to show that the motherboards require something above and beyond the laws of nature, you would have to show that, say, the mind is not itself an example of natural laws simply doing what nature does, or that humans did not evolve from dirt or whatever. In short, if you're going to argue that something unnatural exists in the chain from dirt to monkeys to humans to motherboards, then you actually have to give us a reason for thinking that the entire chain isn't completely natural. I don't see that you have done so.

[Sheldon]

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary?  (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? 

I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it? 
Lets try larger letters, see if that helps?

It is irrational / fallacious, to claim something is or might be true, because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence. 

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? 

You don't, I have never claimed, or even implied you do, I have no interest whatsoever in what they believe, only what science validates. Again I explained this to you already, and explained why, and explained this is an appeal to authority fallacy. Lets try large letters again:

Sir Isaac Newton believed in alchemy, does this fact influence your decision to believe in alchemy at all? Please explain why it does, or does not, so I can  try and understand why you keep rehashing the same fallacious arguments. 

You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

You don't seem to read very well, since this is another dishonest straw man, so lets try big letters again then:

On the contrary I don't believe the multiverse hypothesis evidences anything supernatural, or any deity, and I have already stated this fact, more than once. I don't care who believes in multiverses, and I don't care what their reasons are, only what the methods of science can and has validated. 

Whilst theoretical scientific hypothesis are both essential to advance our knowledge, and no doubt fascinating and edifying in any number of ways, they are not established or accepted scientific theories, and this has also been explained already. Multiverse is an hypothesis, it is not a scientific theory. Do you understand this, and what it means?

Now Drew, do try and answer that last question without using the same argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again. As I have explained I cannot base belief on irrational arguments. 

We once had no natural explanation for lightning, and so people insisted it had a supernatural cause. Their reasoning like yours here was fallacious / poor, and they were wrong. 

Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over. 

[Alan V]

I am amazed that so many people seem desperate to link religious ideas to cutting-edge scientific hypotheses. The many books written linking science and mysticism are embarrassing.

Do the people involved in these efforts even ask themselves if religion and mysticism can add anything useful to science, or do they just want to muddy the waters?

[arewethereyet]

Can you cite a scientific result showing that any of these characteristics could vary?  (Rees' book is a popularization, but if you can quote where he claims that they could vary and backs it up with citations, that at least would be a start.)

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? If it were so and we could observe other universes with the same properties, laws of physics, stars, planets solar systems it would only leave us to believe universes are caused to exist to produce life. It would be the same explanation why motherboards are identical, because they are intentionally caused to be identical.

Lastly, why would I have to prove Martin Ree's (and many other scientists) belief in multiverse theory? You don't seem to realize this is a naturalistic theory to explain how the universe we live in hit the right properties for life to exist.

Administrator Notice
Drew you may want to read over our rules.  Your changing of Angrboda's name in this quote is dangerously close to breaking rule 18 and also verging on breaking rule 15. This is your only free pass.

[Angrboda]

What would be your explanation that if a universe comes into existence unintentionally by mindless natural forces, that it 'has' to be in the same exacting narrow configuration that allowed life to occur in our universe? 

I keep explaining this is an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, yet you keep using it? 

On another forum, I pointed out a fallacy in one of his replies. His response was to suggest that he could find fallacies in my posts, too. I think rhetoric is a more telling master for him than logic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

@Sheldon

Not having a natural explanation, does not mean there is no natural explanation, that's the fallacy you keep using over and over. 

And yet he can’t admit that he’s invoking magic. That’s what magic is - a natural phenomenon that we haven’t yet found the explanation for.

Boru