RE: I will prove to you that God exists
April 9, 2025 at 9:16 am
(This post was last modified: April 9, 2025 at 10:46 am by Sheldon.)
(April 9, 2025 at 7:36 am)Alan V Wrote:(April 9, 2025 at 6:39 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: If the any of the multiverse theories are correct, I don’t see how this helps the fine tuning argument for deliberate creation. Couldn’t a Creator who had the goal of intelligent life in mind have done it with just one universe? It seems akin to building an infinite number of cars to make sure one of them will work.
Boru
Drew looks askance at multiverse cosmology because he thinks it is an overly-complicated way for naturalists to avoid confronting what look like unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about. Stephen Hawking acknowledged the problem, and maintained that such biofriendly properties needed their own explanation, though he attempted to do that through his quantum cosmology.
Both divine creation and anthropic multiverse cosmology share the idea that the laws of physics transcend the natural world. Hawking thought they evolved within the first split second of the big bang. What was important to him was not the time which had elapsed but the range of temperatures traversed. He pointed to such things as the electroweak force breaking into electromagnetism and the weak nuclear force, as well as the Higgs field coming into play to cause that transition only at a certain reduced temperature, as examples of what he envisioned. This is similar to other grand unified theories, but it incorporated elements of holographic cosmology as well, in which one natural constant influences another through quantum entanglement. It's the hypothesis he was working on when he died in 2018.
At least that is the sense I made of it. A lot no doubt depended on the math.
Quote:"unaccounted-for biofriendly properties in the only universe we know about."Surely this can only be true if the life we know exists, is the only type possible, what I mean to say, is how is Drew ruling out that other forms of life might have been possible even if those "biofriendly properties" were not how the universe had formed? He's just making assumptions to enable him to cling to theistic belief.
The inability to treat all ideas the same, without favour or prejudice, especially new ideas that challenge existing ones, is the definition of open minded. Having realised his Christian deity contained claims that can and have been falsified, instead of accepting what this meant, he is trying to set those facts aside, and create a new deity, that he can bend the facts to. The real question is why?
Despite his accusations, I am not an atheist because I want to be, I am an atheist for the same reason I don't believe in mermaids, unicorns and garden fairies, and for exactly the same reason, there is no objective evidence they are possible.