(August 25, 2015 at 2:24 pm)Whateverist the White Wrote:Obj 1: Other universes would presumably be as 'natural' as this one, whereas the meta-laws governing the generation of them would be supernatural, because the prefix super means above.I.e a higher level of order.(August 25, 2015 at 11:55 am)lkingpinl Wrote: "We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."
How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity? It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however. I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.
Assuming you think a deity is something supernatural, there you go: difference #1.
Difference #2: there is no implications for our lives if no other universe exists or if they are infinite in number.
Difference #3: the existence of what is natural at a greater scale than that of which we are or can be aware is not at all a supernatural idea. The impossibility of knowing a thing is hardly reason to classify it as supernatural.
Obj 2: The presumption that people are biological robots in meaningless universe of randomly selected order...I would say that has profound implications for living.
Obj 3: Straw man. No one is claiming that what has an unknown cause proves a supernatural one. The a metaphysical first cause has already been deduced. It is only natural to associate it with the divine role of Creator.