(July 15, 2014 at 7:29 pm)Chuck Wrote:(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.
As a previous poster pointed out, the multiverse theory is at least theoretically falsifiable too, which makes it preferable.
But I just want to drive a wedge between the Judeo-Christian and other ideas of a creator and, as it were, a 'pure' creator. I'm not arguing that the existence of any deity described in various human religious texts could be real, nor that any creator would threaten hell or require service - so I'm really in no way saying one of the religions could be right.
I'm just saying that based on the (it would appear flawed) assumption that life supporting universes are extremely rare, deliberate creation by an entity (that afterwards has nothing to do with its creation) or multiverse are the most satisfying options, because they take account of the probability issue.
Virtually all religions are demonstrably wrong, internally inconsistent and clearly human constructs. I can't think of one that isn't, but there might be one out there.
