solja247 Wrote:People like Dawkins argue that something less complicated could of created the universe, because if God created the universe, then you have something even more compliacted than the universe...Thats what I mean with Occam's razor...
No I don't believe you understand Dawkins point. In essence Occam's Razor states that the hypothesis with the fewest number of assumptions is usually superior, most other things being equal. What Dawkins was arguing was that given the enormous number of assumptions you have to make for the God hypothesis (That he exists in a realm without what we call existence, that the realm itself exists, that he is an intelligence, that there is a mechanism which drives that intelligence - some sort of divine brain - that he is omnipotent, that there is a mechanism which allows omnipotence, that he is omniscient, that there is a mechanism which allowed omniscience, that omniscience and omnipotence can exist together, that there are other unknown laws which govern this realm, even without getting to the assumptions you need to make for Yahweh and Jesus the list could be a page long), applying Occam's Razor virtually any other hypothesis becomes superior. God by his very nature would be infinitely complex and thus infinitely unlikely.
Compare the god hypothesis to one where the Big Bang was caused by quantum fluctuations within the singularity which was the foetal universe. Considering the big bang's trigger mechanism would be found in a well known physical theory, Quantum Mechanics, the number of assumptions you need are far fewer and thus the probability of this answer being correct increases compared to "god did it". Dawkins wasn't arguing that something which is more complex than the universe cannot exist, or rather something more complex than out current understanding of the universe cannot exist, but that given the unfathomable complexity of god he is far more unlikely than any of the "natural" explanations.
Occam's razor does not exclude a multiverse hypothesis because there is real mathematical evidence which points to its existence.
Quote: Fine tuned not only for life but also elements, galaxies and stars. What would happen, if the universe consisted of the Sun, Earth and the moon? We shouldnt take a reductionists approach to the cosmos...
Again, if there are multiple universes, each one with its own laws of physics, its a virtual certainty that this exact universe with these exact laws of physics occurred. The reason we are in this one, observing it, is because we couldn't exist in one of the universes which wasn't conducive to life. No need to invoke god.
