Hi all,
This is a question that's been bothering me for a while. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
Don't the assumption that there's a multiverse in which all possible combinations of physical constraints exist, and the assumption that some form of timeless deity created the universe, both require the same number of unprovable assumptions?
I'm not talking about belief - by belief, I'm an atheist (I found the site intro's breakdown of atheists into agnostic and gnostic very useful) - but I'd like to think my perspective is based on logic and reason. And applying Occam's Razor, it's hard to pick the strong anthropic principle over creationism (specifically, I would hope it goes without saying, a creator that sets everything in motion then stands back and is entirely noninterventionist) because they both require an untestable assumption.
Without a logical preference for either option, I have to resign myself to agnostic atheism, which seems a poor option as it's as much based on belief as a theist's position (no offence, you theists).
So please, point out my logical fallacy...
Apologies if I've misunderstood the anthropic principle, or if this is a well-discussed topic - a quick search turned up a couple of general threads about universal origins with hundreds of posts.
All the best,
DF
This is a question that's been bothering me for a while. I'd be interested to read your thoughts.
Don't the assumption that there's a multiverse in which all possible combinations of physical constraints exist, and the assumption that some form of timeless deity created the universe, both require the same number of unprovable assumptions?
I'm not talking about belief - by belief, I'm an atheist (I found the site intro's breakdown of atheists into agnostic and gnostic very useful) - but I'd like to think my perspective is based on logic and reason. And applying Occam's Razor, it's hard to pick the strong anthropic principle over creationism (specifically, I would hope it goes without saying, a creator that sets everything in motion then stands back and is entirely noninterventionist) because they both require an untestable assumption.
Without a logical preference for either option, I have to resign myself to agnostic atheism, which seems a poor option as it's as much based on belief as a theist's position (no offence, you theists).
So please, point out my logical fallacy...
Apologies if I've misunderstood the anthropic principle, or if this is a well-discussed topic - a quick search turned up a couple of general threads about universal origins with hundreds of posts.
All the best,
DF
