What about Multiverses and Parallel Universes due to Chance?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org - William Lane Craig answers if the fine-tuning of the universe is due to chance.

Links:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qd-xixKnJ0Y
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3Qq8STojec
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=814871BC18C91770

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• William
• Lane
• Craig
• World
• Ensemble
• Parallel
• Universe
• Multiverse
• Fine
• Tuning
• Chance
• Design
• Necessity
• God
• Religion
• Science
• Atheism
• Naturalism

[dragonlord174]

Religious people should just think of it in this way and ignore anything to do with chance:

If the universe wasn't the way it is, and if it wasn't finely tuned, then we wouldn't be here to say that it isn't.

[drcraigvideos]

@dragonlord174 LOL! God only knows how many times I've heard that. That's begging the question.

[dragonlord174]

@drcraigvideos Religion uses begging the question all the time.

One of the examples on many sites of this very fallacy is:

Bill: "God must exist."

Jill: "How do you know."

Bill: "Because the Bible says so."

Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"

Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."

And I guess this response is the fallacy "Tu Quoque" but regardless, there is no logical proof.

[drcraigvideos]

@dragonlord174 LOL! God only knows how many times I've heart that. That's knocking down a strawman. Craig never entered a debate, held up a Bible, and said, "Ya see this? Good. Now, believe in God!" He gives evidence and arguments for God. The best thing to do is not plug your ears when you hear him give evidence, okay?

[jazzinnature081]

What drives me nuts about materialists sometimes is that they will readily admit that they don't know everything about reality, consciousness, the universe, etc. because there is simply not enough data/evidence out there to prove/disprove certain things; AND they are even willing to entertain concepts that they have NO evidence for (i.e. the multiverse)...YET, they'll reject the idea of a creator faster than they can say "string theory".

[PrinceWalter]

Denying the Consequent (valid)

If multiverse theory is false (P), then the Lord's Kingdom EXISTS FINITELY in THIS KOSMOS. (Q)

John 18:36. "My kingdom is NOT of THIS (Gr.) KOSMOS." (Not Q)

Therefore, multiverse theory is NOT FALSE. (Not P).

[libalchris]

@libalchris cont... and it logically extrapolates from what we already know: We have never observed an incident that didn't, in the end, turn out to have a logical naturalistic explanation, therefore the possibility of a multiverse is a far better an explanation than a creator. What bugs me about theists is that they won't admit that they don't know everything and they will INSIST that God is real when he has just as little evidence as a multiverse, except he violates Occam's razor.

[libalchris]

@jazzinnature081 I object to the idea of a creator for things inside our universe, and for life on this planet, because the evidence strongly suggests we all evolved. I don't object to the possibility of a creator who set the universe in motion though, since I don't know enough. However a multiverse explains the fine tuning just as well as a creator, except the multiverse is simpler, therefore following Occam's razor... cont...

[ubaid88]

Do you have any lecture on string theory or m theory.

[DrErnst]

You can replace the dart (in his analogy) he describs for life or proteins containing potential for life.. the chance is even far less that those proteins would occur on such a life allowing envoirment on earth..

[TheLivirus]

@drcraigvideos The word "atheist" is derived from "theist" where the prefix "a-" which is a negative that practically means "not".

Theist: one who belive in at least one diety.

Atheist: "not" one who belives in at least one diety.

Not beliving Santa exist is not the same as belivning santa does not exist. A good analogy can be found in our legalsystem where the caurt finding the accused "not guilty" does not mean they find him "innocent".