Dear Resident Theists

[ignoramus]

Most things happen because of a cause.[...]

Well - if "most things" happen "because of a cause", that means not all things have a cause. Why can't Big Bang be one of those few things, that - as you claim - don't have a cause?

Dammit Nutter ...Leave the guys some wiggle room to shove God in somewhere at least! geez!

[robvalue]

Fallacy of composition: because things inside the universe "require a cause", that does not mean the universe as a whole requires a cause.

And in fact, everything in the universe requiring a cause is at best a tautology of definition and at worst plain wrong.

[Homeless Nutter]

Dammit Nutter ...Leave the guys some wiggle room to shove God in somewhere at least! geez!  

Oh, they'll always have a place to shove god in, although some of them may need to remove my foot from it first.

[robvalue]

Assumption: God created everything.

Evidence: There is stuff.

Conclusion: God created this stuff (using the assumption), thus confirming the assumption.

[ignoramus]

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's a slightly deceptive edit, Whateverist. I did not use the multiverse as the premise of a proof for God. The speculative theory of the multiverse is an argument of convenience for atheists who do not want to face-up to the obvious implications of a fine-tuned universe. My point was that the multiverse theory provides no such opportunity. The theory says that the particular fundamental forces and constants of our universe need not have been as they are. The natural laws governing an adjacent universe could be otherwise. The whole theory resolves into one of two positions, either 1) reality is absurd or 2) meta-laws govern the process of universe generation. If the atheist takes the first option then he undermines the very idea of rationality. If he takes the second, he must acknowledge that fine-tuning is a real aspect of, not only our universe, but of the multiverse as a whole.

Sorry I missed this, Chad.  (Been pretty busy on the home front.)

I'm surprised you would say "the multiverse is an argument of convenience for atheists who do not want to face-up to the obvious implications of a fine-tuned universe".  Personally, I am unable to imagine that there is not a larger frame of reference than a universe.  Obviously you think so too.  But for you the larger frame of reference involves the supernatural.  Surely though you don't really think the multiverse theory only exists as an atheist strategy.  That would really be quite a conspiracy.  I guess you mean that's why we like it.  But my sense on this forum is that multiversalists are not in the majority among atheists.

As to facing up to a well tuned universe, what is the comparison by which we are to conclude that ours is more or less well tuned than your average universe?  That again is information none of us may possess as far as I know.

I haven't a clue why you think anything I might believe which has to do with being an atheist obliges me to think reality is absurd.  I suppose one could look at it that way.  But I don't.  I'd rather say it is exquisite.

Any fine tuning argument is always at best an inference which is why I very rarely find myself defending them. If you take the apparent design of the universe as a brute fact you may certainly do so . My issue is with those who recognize the apparent design and go further to justify their opinion using a speculative Multiverse theory. Once you appeal to causes outside the known universe and the natural laws to which it conforms you have already given up the game. Any such cause is by definition supernatural. I find it either disingenuous or downright stupid to ridicule people who openly accept the possibility of the supernatural when they themselves tacitly accept it.

[Kingpin]

Sorry I missed this, Chad.  (Been pretty busy on the home front.)

I'm surprised you would say "the multiverse is an argument of convenience for atheists who do not want to face-up to the obvious implications of a fine-tuned universe".  Personally, I am unable to imagine that there is not a larger frame of reference than a universe.  Obviously you think so too.  But for you the larger frame of reference involves the supernatural.  Surely though you don't really think the multiverse theory only exists as an atheist strategy.  That would really be quite a conspiracy.  I guess you mean that's why we like it.  But my sense on this forum is that multiversalists are not in the majority among atheists.

As to facing up to a well tuned universe, what is the comparison by which we are to conclude that ours is more or less well tuned than your average universe?  That again is information none of us may possess as far as I know.

I haven't a clue why you think anything I might believe which has to do with being an atheist obliges me to think reality is absurd.  I suppose one could look at it that way.  But I don't.  I'd rather say it is exquisite.

Any fine tuning argument is always at best an inference which is why I very rarely find myself defending them. If you take the apparent design of the universe as a brute fact you may certainly do so . My issue is with those who recognize the apparent design and go further to justify their opinion using a speculative Multiverse theory. Once you appeal to causes outside the known universe and the natural laws to which it conforms you have already given up the game. Any such cause is by definition supernatural. I find it either disingenuous or downright stupid to ridicule people who openly accept the possibility of the supernatural when they themselves tacitly accept it.

Yes Chad, this was my point earlier.  Those who hold to a naturalistic framework, though they may not realize it, their explanation for the beginning of the universe is also supernatural (if they choose to give one, must just say they don't know).  In Hawkings latest book he says the singularity is where the laws of physics necessarily break down, so what caused the singularity was not limited by the laws of physics, it was outside natural law, i.e. supernatural.  The issue arises where theists identify that supernatural 'thing' as a personal God.  Some atheists here have even stated, a decent case can be made for Deism, it's when it turns to Theism that issues arise.  To me that shows that's where emotions take over.  The objections to theism are by and large moral ones, "why would a God create this?", "why would a God allow this?", etc.  When we say there is a non-personal, non-identifiable deity, there is far less issue, but alas we don't believe in a non-personal Deity.

[Whateverist]

Once you appeal to causes outside the known universe and the natural laws to which it conforms you have already given up the game.

So if we were flatland'ers confounded by a robbery that happened without any apparent break in, you would say anyone who claimed to see a '3-D hand' just before the disappearance of the treasure had given up any serious attempt to understand what had happened?

I hate reasoning involving extra dimensions but what I really mean to say has more to do with scale. Haven't people continually had to expand the scale of what they took to be the ultimate? The sky as an outer sphere - too small. 'The' galaxy - too small. 'The' universe - at least possibly too small. Once we understood that there were a multitude of galaxies and that they all seemed to be accelerating from a common point, then 'our' universe began to make sense.

But just as galaxies are enormously distant from one another so might other universes with their own centers. We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however.

Any such cause is by definition supernatural. I find it either disingenuous or downright stupid to ridicule people who openly accept the possibility of the supernatural when they themselves tacitly accept it.

If there is a structure to a multiverse, very likely we will never know what it is. But that doesn't mean it is supernatural. What is really disingenuous is to assert that speculation on the structure of the cosmos implies acceptance of anything supernatural. It is only those who appeal to the supernatural that have given up the game.

[Kingpin]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

[Lucanus]

"We will never be in a position to detect another universe nor to rule them out. Doesn't mean they're not there however."

How does this acceptance of other universes differ from accepting the possibility of a Deity?  It can easily be argued that we will never be in a position to detect God or rule God out, doesn't mean God isn't there however.  I'm not talking a personal God at this point, just the possibility of a Deity, by using the same logic you provided here.

The fact that we have evidence of the existence of at least one universe is a big difference