This Is Why The Multiverse Must Exist

Conversation Side Conversation
,
41

Good afternoon. You are the one who immediately invoked a God or non-God in this discussion and you seem intent on having your way. However, I am afraid that your argument against his existence in discussions of a multiverse will play against you. You see, in a universe, God is a possibility. But in a multiverse, we find the infinite, and there, God moves from a possibility to a reality.

If you are invoking an actual infinite, then you are affirming the existence of God.

Question: in your support of a multiverse, are you in fact, invoking an actual infinite?

42

Nope.

43

Good answer on your part. However, with quantum fluctuations involved, you cannot be sure of your answer. In fact, infinite universes may exist in the multiverse. You will always be left guessing if you are possibly wrong.

Edit: Let’s put it this way. Your inviting and embracing of a multiverse has invited the reality of God and you are not able to prevent it.

44

But there is a scarier version. With all the “God-tracks” in this universe, you may have ended up in the universe that God is in.

45

Like I said. The multiverse is the end of reason. There is no necessity.
Everything and anything is possible… God, god’s, aliens making planets, Jedi’s playing star wars…

Its meaningless.

2 Likes
46

Outstanding! Remember, I did answer your question. You seem to have ignored mine:

You have suggested that, because a theoretical mechanism that poofs out universes, so easily, that “it is no surprise to see one particular universe display a given set of features.” Why must this hypothetical infinite universe poofer create ones that are uniquely different such that any particular universe would be the result? How could one even know that the unknown mechanism would possess the properties that would achieve these kinds of results?

I’m curious why you seem to be so certain about something that 1) may not exist, and 2) cannot be observed, such that you scoff at an astrophysicist from UCLA. I’ll try to see if I can invite him in to chat. I’m sure he will have better answers for you than I.

1 Like
47

Wrong. The multiverse does not mean that logic no longer exists. Concepts like possibility and necessity still apply.

48

You don’t seem to understand what is involved in “answering a question”. Just quoting some guy who does not know what he is talking about doesn’t fit the bill.

I have already answered: It does not have to be that way. There is just no reason that it cannot be that way. And the “fine tuning argument” requires that it cannot be that way. Again, burden of proof. it’s so important to be clear on that concept.

49

Apologist: “The universe is fine tuned to produce (x). This could only happen if a god existed to do the fine tuning.”

Other guy: “What if there were a whole lot of other universes, maybe even an infinite number, that each have different sets of parameters. That could also explain why there is one particular universe with the set of parameters observed in our universe, with no need to posit a god to set those parameter.”

Apologist (if he’s honest and intelligent); “Good point. I guess my argument doesn’t really work.”

50

That’s silly and insulting. Unnecessarily so. You seem to be especially abrasive and I don’t know why. I’ve really tried to be patient to see if it would go away, but it does not. Please try to be more civil.

It has to be that way in order to solve the apparent fine-tuning problem. If we have a just-so universe, and you expect the multiverse to be the reason why one lucky universe is just so, then you need for the multiverse to be this way.

No one said that it cannot be that way. Jeff Zweerink did not say that it could not be that way.

I never disagreed with you, never suggested that the multiverse did not exist. You are fighting a fight that doesn’t exist. You are assuming something that is not so.

Yes, everyone agrees that this is a potential rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument. It does not, however, invalidate that argument. It simply provides a potential response to it.

3 Likes
51

Is there an estimate of the probability of the multiverse with infinite multiverses?

52

No, AFAIK. So when religious apologists make arguments based on the presumption that our universe is the only sort of universe that is likely to exist, they are just blowing a bunch of hot air.

53

That is not required at all. For the multiverse to be an effective argument there has to be enormous quantities of them to over come the probabilistic barriers of a random accident accounting for what we are observing.

2 Likes
54

But we know this must be the case because how else did we get the Kelvin timeline in Star Trek?

4 Likes
55

(Invoking fiction is appropriate when referring to the knowability of multiverse conjectures. :slightly_smiling_face:)

2 Likes
56

And anti-theistic apologists aren’t, pretending to know that other universes exist?

Christians so much, however. Not that God didn’t, couldn’t or doesn’t still create other universes, but some Christians pretend to know why he created this one, and have an impeccable source of information.

57

No. It merely needs to be a possibility in order to rule out God being the only possible explanation of the alleged “Fine Tuning.”

58

And anti-theists are absolutely compelled to do that, aren’t they. :slightly_smiling_face: They shouldn’t be. (The existence of a Beginner in big bang cosmology really is a reasonable inference, you know… Ockham and all.)

59

Are you saying the multiverse is not possible?

60

Not at all. But neither am I compelled to believe in it because of the obvious theistic implications if it doesn’t. (And there are theistic implications if it does, as well.):

1 Like