(July 26, 2013 at 2:48 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote: To the best of my knowledge, multiple universes were not originally propsed as a solution to fine-tuning, multiple universes would be a consequence if certain other physics hypotheses turn out to be true. In that case, multiple universes would be a simpler explanation than whatever would be needed to explain why the hypothesis is true but the logical consequences of it are not.
I didn't say that the multiverse hypothesis was originally proposed to explain fine-tuning, but that users here (and elsewhere) do so for that reason.
Quote:Occam's razor is only violated if you multiply entities unneccessarily. One of the problems with God as a hypothesis is that it doesn't actually explain anything, so it's always unnecessary.
I didn't say that Occam's Razor isn't applicable to God, just that the multiverse hypothesis being proposed for the explicit reason of voiding fine-tuning does so much more.
Quote:In the case of multiple universes, IF the constants could be much different than they are, we didn't beat the odds, there are so many universes that no matter how small the chance, some of them can allow life and we're in one of those.
I'd agree, but then it could still be levelled by theists (correctly, I think) that that solution is still susceptible to the razor.
Quote:In the case of an omnipotent God, the constants could be anything that God felt like and it could still support life, because an omnipotent being could have us live on the surface of black holes if it wanted. Only a universe in which life could arise naturally is a God-like power necessary as an explanation. Plus, multiple universes are still not unlikely in this scenario...why would this being only create one uinverse?
That's a better objection to the fine-tuning argument I think. However, I think the last bit is better used elsewhere, like asking why a perfect being would create anything at all.
Quote:A less-than-omnipotent God might be a more parsimonious explanation than multiple universes except...we have no basis to presume that the universe is singular. I'm not aware of ANY natural explanation for our universe where the physics entails that there be only one.
You lost me here. We don't assume more universes until we've solid evidence for them, we don't assume there are more because we don't have contrary evidence there aren't more.
Quote:If we live in an eternal cyclic universe, there could be others. If we live in a universe caused by a quantum fluctuation, universes could 'happen' all the time. We don't know if there are multiple universes, but we are justified in saying that we know that there could be.
The problem here is that you're invoking possibilities, and I've heard some physicists like Victor Stenger say that there are problems with cyclic models. I don't think invoking possibilities here helps much.
Quote: We know it's possible, that it doesn't violate what we know of the laws of physics. We aren't justified in saying we know there could be an ultrapowerful being that made only one universe and we have no physics that suggests such a being is possible.
I don't recall asserting that there were: I'm an atheist. My point is that it does seem to be a valid point that proposing the multiverse of an indefinite number of universes is contrary to parsimony. I repeat, that does not make it false, nor does it make God likely, it's just not parsimonious.
Quote:From this statement I must conclude that you're using a non-standard definition of God without ANY of the infinite properties usually ascribed to it
Actually I'm not. Apologists like William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga equate God's omni- attributes with "maximality" of those characteristics not an infinity (which Craig ostensibly believes cannot exist in reality), and even make use of them (ex: Plantinga's Ontological argument uses them).
Quote:...a multiverse with infinute universes has only two infinite properties: the number of universes and future time if they never cease to exist entirely, which they seem not to (I'll leave aside that the number of universes in a multiverse doesn't have to be infinite as an explanation for supposed fine-tuning, as many universes as there are planets in our universe should be plenty).
I have noted in several posts that regardless of if the multiverse is to contain an infinite amount of universes or just an immensely large number, it's still not a parsimonious answer to fine-tuning.
