I don't know if those incredible improbabilities of finely-tuned constants and other vast, next to impossible probabilities of the kind asserted by the atheists John Barrow and Frank Tipler* in regard to human intelligence are accurate, the little I've been able to understand looks like enough of them know what they're talking about. Are you saying I shouldn't believe what so many, very eminent physicists and cosmologists tell me about their subject area? Many if not most of the cosmologists coming up with those stupendously huge improbabilities of life supporting, intelligence permitting universes are atheists or agnostics. The creation of the multiverse faith was largely a reaction to the idea that in our one, observable universe such improbabilities in the universe that produced us gives a rather compelling argument for a Creator, in short, someone like the God of the monotheistic faiths.
Have you ever asked yourself if, as I believe is likely, the multiverse conjectures in all their various versions and contradictions are all wrong and the product of atheist hope are a delusion, doesn't that compel an admission that a belief in God is rather justified?
I think in the multiverse religions we see exactly the kind of creative faith product that atheists discount as religious delusion, that it's a product of a fear of God, a phobic, visceral and controlling hatred of God, or the god that such atheists imagine would have to be the one and only possible god. You know, the one that tells old geezers in physics and math and biology departments that they shouldn't try to screw their young, nubile undergrad students.
Why, if there are no other universes or even if there's no actual physical proof of even one other universe, nevermind the jillions to the jillions power necessary for this atheist dodge to do what you need it to, isn't it far more rational and parsimonious and just plain convincing to believe in God?
You should understand that this multiverse stuff doesn't even do what the atheists want it to do. For one the improbabilities, when looked at hard, don't necessarily work the way they want them to. We have no idea what other conditions might give rise to intelligent observers (or even the kind who make up such conjectures to make God go away) in other conditions and we have no idea if the Creator who created our one universe might have some reason for creating other universes that we're not in on. I don't know if it's true, as I've read, that the fine tuning of any multiverse system would have to be ever more exquisitely fine-tuned, depending on the size of the ensemble, but I'd certainly want to ask about it if you happen to find even one other universe.
You'd, of course, have to confirm that that universe didn't give rise to intelligent observers of a kind that you might not even be able to imagine based on our one and only model to imagine from. And, good luck with that. Some have criticized the attempt of Earth based scientists who imagine what "other life" would be like, inevitably coming up with something like Earth based life when the only way to know that would be to directly observe "other life" to find out what it was like. Physicists, which most cosmologists are, so often seem to fail to understand the complexity and unpredictability of even Earth bound life.
I think the whole thing is a product of wishful thinking by atheists in exactly the same way they claim that God is a figment of wishful thought, even though the monotheistic God is always telling us to do things we don't want to and to not do things we really want to, like Bertrand Russell screwing around.
And a second point, if those vast improbabilities of even our, one, line of what we like to believe is intelligent life are accurate, wouldn't the existence of "other life" in our universe not grow in improbability with every independent line of life on other worlds? Instead of being, what Carl Sagan claimed, a nail in the coffin of God, wouldn't the improbability of it happening twice or however many times (up to whatever power of ten the optimists like to speculate), rise based on how many times life arose in this universe finely tuned against the possibility of it happening once? If you answer that, show your work. Maybe God does favor life and, despite the improbabilities, created it all over creation. And if that improbability is shattered in this universe, why expect it to hold in other universes we have no real idea of?
* I do think it's interesting that when Frank Tipler went a number of bubbles out of level and wrote some atheist-materialist physics tripe about the inevitability of people being able to raise the dead or attain immortality without God that it was the Christian physicist John Polkinghorne and the Christian cosmologist, George Ellis who the secularist scientists turned to to write negative reviews of his book.
"Have you ever asked yourself if, as I believe is likely, the
ReplyDeletemultiverse conjectures in all their various versions and contradictions
are all wrong and the product of atheist hope are a delusion, doesn't
that compel an admission that a belief in God is rather justified?"
No, not really.
Now let me ask you a question -- do you think it's possible that you can catch a fart and paint it green? Makes about as much sense, even if it was based on a haiku by Yoko Ono. :-)
I was addressing people who think Simps. Don't worry, I wasn't going to go through the futile exercise of trying to get you to think.
Delete"a haiku by Yoko Ono"
Simel, the gumball machine that spits out cliches. Only they've already been chewed before.
Please seek professional help. Your inane scribblings not only make no sense, they expose you to have a deeply disturbed mind. Stop now and get help.
ReplyDeleteAtheism really is a symptom of stupidity, that's something I learned at Eschaton and the Science Blog comment threads.
DeleteSomeone who calls him self "General Zod" is telling me I need professional help. Like I said a symptom of stupidity.
Grow up.