Anthropic Principle vs Goddidit

[Ryantology]

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

An infinite number of universes requires a mechanism for generating those universes. How is this universe generating mechanism less parsimonious than God?

If a universe or multiverse requires a generation mechanism, so must a sentient creator God. I don't play special exception games. You can't proclaim that every effect must have a cause, and then violate your own dictum in an attempt to prove it.

Or even, how is a universe generating mechanism different from a deistic god?

A lack of sentience, intent, personality, or any other anthropic qualities some of us simply can't imagine not being qualities of meta-existence.

[Heywood]

What does a multiverse, quantum mechanics, and your powerful randomization get us?

Imagine a universe just like ours. In that universe is a man that some call Tim.

Now Tim wishes to explode a bush. So he points at the bush. In most universe nothing happens....But in a subset of universes....as a matter of pure happenstance, a quantum fluctuation happens at the same time and the bush is transformed into an exploding bush. Tim tries this again....and in most universes....nothing happens the second time he tries it...but in a subset of universes....as a matter of happenstance...a quantum fluctuation happens that transform the second bush into an exploding bush. There are going to be some universes that whenever Tim tries to cast a spell....as a matter of happenstance the effect of the spell he was casting comes to realization.

A problem I have with an infinite number of universes....is it leads to ridiculous worlds in which magic and sorcery exist.

Nice attempt at the reductio ad absurdum, but how do you know there aren't any universes in which this occurs? How do you know the conclusion is false?

I can't prove it false so it must be right?

[Coffee Jesus]

Nice attempt at the reductio ad absurdum, but how do you know there aren't any universes in which this occurs? How do you know the conclusion is false?

I can't prove it false so it must be right?

...

You have to prove it false otherwise your argument doesn't work...

[Rampant.A.I.]

I can't prove it false so it must be right?

This seems like strange to raise as an objection to claims with evidence. And yet it never seems to apply to claims with no evidence...

[Heywood]

If a universe or multiverse requires a generation mechanism, so must a sentient creator God. I don't play special exception games. You can't proclaim that every effect must have a cause, and then violate your own dictum in an attempt to prove it.

I didn't say a universe generating mechanism needed a cause. I said a universe generating mechanism needs to exist if multiverse models are true.

You committed a straw man fallacy.

[Coffee Jesus]

---

An infinite number of universes is less parsimonious than a single creator god because we can demonstrate, objectively, the existence of exactly one universe and zero creator gods.

An infinite number of universes requires a mechanism for generating those universes. How is this universe generating mechanism less parsimonious than God?

If a universe or multiverse requires a generation mechanism, so must a sentient creator God. I don't play special exception games. You can't proclaim that every effect must have a cause, and then violate your own dictum in an attempt to prove it.

---

I didn't say a universe generating mechanism needed a cause. I said a universe generating mechanism needs to exist if multiverse models are true.

You committed a straw man fallacy.

"I said a universe generating mechanism needs to exist if multiverse models are true. "

and he said a god generating mechanism needs to exist if there is a god.

[Ryantology]

If a universe or multiverse requires a generation mechanism, so must a sentient creator God. I don't play special exception games. You can't proclaim that every effect must have a cause, and then violate your own dictum in an attempt to prove it.

I didn't say a universe generating mechanism needed a cause. I said a universe generating mechanism needs to exist if multiverse models are true.

You committed a straw man fallacy.

I was addressing your assertion that universes must have a causative mechanism. If god doesn't need one, there's no reason to think a universe does.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I didn't say a universe generating mechanism needed a cause. I said a universe generating mechanism needs to exist if multiverse models are true.

You committed a straw man fallacy.

I was addressing your assertion that universes must have a causative mechanism. If god doesn't need one, there's no reason to think a universe does.

The reason the universe does is because as per the OP it is contingent and not fundamental.

[Chas]

Name one.

This discussion

How about actually answering the question.

[Ryantology]

I don't think the OP addresses whether or not universes are fundamental.