(July 15, 2014 at 12:36 am)DaFinchi Wrote: Hi all,
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.
The difference is, of course, the assumptions of multiverse carries with it neither the threat of hell, nor any other demand for us here in this universe to accept any intellectual constraint in its service or perform any action in its behalf. As it is untestable, so it does not cojole or browbeat, or make demands against your intellectual integrity, unlike creationism.
