Re:Response to Richard Dawkins and Lee Smolin on the anthropic principle

Response to this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZKWFIVrBkc

I really fail to see how the god that is posited by christian(or any) theism can qualify as simple.
The video I mention that I would like you to take a look at, in some sense tries to explain why god would have to be extremely complex, at least in terms that can be coherent within the context of human epistemology:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gp-RybRRGdY

Also, while reading the comments on Jake's video I saw this comment by Kabane:
"God is a simple being, with only two parts, essence and energies. Billions of universes have billions of parts, and are thus much, much more complex than God."

Can somebody please explain this to me?
What does Kabane mean when he says "essence"?
And if the other part is "energies", what kind of energy? Surely it is not any kind of energy we can conceive of, as that would bring god into a material realm.

Neither of these are positive qualities being ascribed to god, because as I said, if we could say god is energy, we would limit god to a material conception. God is said to be immaterial.
And if Kabane is trying to argue that these qualities of god are beyond human understanding and are without limitations....then as Goerge H Smith puts it in his book: "Atheism, The case against god":

"What concept could express existence without limitations, when limits are entailed by the concept of existence itself?......The illusion of qualities without limitations relies on the cloak of negation.....an unlimited attribute is a contradiction in terms"

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Lee
• Smolin
• Multiverse
• God
• Atheism
• Theism
• Reason
• Science
• Jesus
• Religion
• Catholicism
• Christianity
• Islam
• Judaism
• Monotheism
• Faith
• Bible
• Koran
• Quran
• Skepticism
• Fundamentalism
• Moderate
• Agnosticism
• Superstition
• Spirituality
• Freethought

[philhunter2005]

Great response, i enjoyed listening and agree with ur rebuttals. Thanks.

[djosephallen]

@philhunter2005

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed.

[Sqrtinfinity]

Great response! Unlike the original video, you make some good points. I love how people think there is no evidence for the multi-verse. I would guarantee that 99% or more of people who watch these videos are not theoretical physicists.

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Where is the modesty? I hear religious preaching too often, but you don't even follow your own damn scripture.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Yup, I stand by my assertion. It's NOT science, Those so called "world renown physicists" can 'study' they problem all they like, it will get hem nowhere in the end, because it's NOT science ! And you are exactly right, the idea of 'God' and the idea of the MV are equally religious notions.

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

Nice cherry picking. Read what is in between those 2 statements, I was making a point that if people like you claim its such an impossibility..then in that respect its no different than god.

But you know, you are clearly some kind of PHD physics professor, since you so confidently claim that it has no place in science, and all these world renown physicists who are seriously studying the problem are clowns. So be it. This video was not a staunch defense of the MV anyways.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen No, there is NO more evidence for the multi-vverse than there is for GOD. Appeal to Occam's razor all that you want, but it won't help you, because Occam's razor isn't proof either. Your multi-verse notion rests of your own personal 'faith' in it, and your own personal preference for it. Nothing else.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen 1) Nobody says heaven is immaterial, who knows what heaven is ? 2) Call it arrogant if that helps you dismiss my point in your mind, but I'm sorry to inform you that there isn't any evidence for it, It s philosophical specualtion at best. 3) Theories are NOT evidence of anything.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen Neither the idea of a god or the idea of a multi-verse can be call either plausible or implausible, because they are both religion, completely and forever inaccessible to science and scientific investigation.

[tracygonecrazy1]

@djosephallen But don't you see the illogic of what you just said ? Two quotes: "It is most certainly a scientific hypothesis" and  "it would certainly not be any different than the idea of a god". Don't you see the contradiction ? Neither it nor the idea of God are scientific hypothesis. They are both religious notions totally outside of science. There can never be proof of either proposition.

[djosephallen]

@tracygonecrazy1

I dont have to throw it away because I dont hold it near and dear. Its simply an interesting and fun hypothesis to entertain, and Im not holding my breath for "proof" of it.

It is most certainly a scientific hypothesis. And all great ideas have started a such.

Maybe its a longshot. Maybe it seems absurd. But in that respect, it would certainly not be any different than the idea of a god.