RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 7, 2025 at 11:33 am
(This post was last modified: April 7, 2025 at 11:42 am by Sheldon.)
(April 7, 2025 at 10:07 am)arewethereyet Wrote:(April 7, 2025 at 10:05 am)Drew_2013 Wrote: You mean hokum. Multiverse increases entities to infinity and beyond, Occam would turn over in his grave. A corollary to Occam's razor is to offer explanations that are too simple. Like the notion the universe popped into existence, uncaused out of nothing.
Multiverse is a plausible explanation for how we find ourselves in a universe with the exacting characteristics to cause life to exist. However minus direct evidence of other universes, the fact we don't know how this one came about its an hypothesis at best.
Its not an assumption and it does need an explanation and it is connected to multiverse.
That's really sweet.![]()
Nonsense...name one scientist who thinks that.
That's a very tall drink of water and that's why even non-religious people think our existence was intentionally caused. Including a lot of scientists.
According to the poll, just over half of scientists (51%) believe in some form of deity or higher power; specifically, 33% of scientists say they believe in God, while 18% believe in a universal spirit or higher power.
Quote:The number of people who believe in a thing is not proof of anything other than that a certain number of people believe in something. The fact that they are scientists means nothing without the appropriate testing and the ability to recreate the same results time and again.You beat me to it, his argument is both an argumentum ad populum fallacy, and an appeal to authority fallacy. FWIW atheism rises sharply among scientists in the US, and among elite bodies of scientists, like the National Academy of Science atheism and agnosticism is almost universal, perhaps they haven't heard of fine tuning?
Larson and Witham's 1998 survey found that 93% of NAS members are agnostics or atheists, with only 7% believing in a personal God. This is hard to reconcile with Drew's claims that fine tuning is a) supported by sufficient scientific evidence to lend it some credence, and b) that were it so, it would evidence a creator deity.