How? I can see it providing an alternate explanation, but I don’t see how that would mean refutation.
Are you really a science teacher?
For an example, in a subset of those alternate universes, God shows up and denies having anything to do with designing biological features on organisms
But then surely intelligent design would only be refuted in those universes?
That assumes that God is possible, and real somewhere, and that there’s a reason to take his word for it, or for being a god at all.
What, that’s not enough for you?
It’s a pretty safe assumption that God is possible in an alternate universe. Alternate Universes do not necessarily have to have the same constants or governing principles as ours. It’s not that tough, it just requires a little imagination.
For example, in a universe where God evolved into God after he created the universe and set it into motion, it works just fine.
Well, it doesn’t really help *us *out much. By the same token, there would presumably be universes where God turns up and takes total credit. So it would be just as correct to say that those infinite universes would conclusively support intelligent design, too.
Not really; God as typically portrayed isn’t logically possible; and in many cases probably impossible within any plausible set of physical laws.
They certainly are limited by logic, which rules out many people’s version of God. And we don’t know the limits of possible of physical laws, but God as most people see him is sufficiently out there that it’s unlikely he can exist anywhere. That infinity of other universes could have a much less than infinite range of variation in physical laws as well.
Most people wouldn’t call that God. And that sort of “God” would be an “It” not a “He”, since there would be nothing for a “Him” to be male with. And that sort of “God” would still be quite limited. And it would also still beg the question of where God came from.
God is sufficiently implausible that it’s unlikely he exists in any universe.
I really enjoyed this and wish to declare my intention to steal it.
Yes they would.
Sorry it doesn’t satisfy you. I’ve done all the hard work. All you have to do is determine whether we inhabit a universe that refutes, supports, or one that is inconclusive concening ID.
Fuck “plausible.” I don’t need that, just “possible.” Positing infinity, plausible is meaningless.
Only in that subset of universes wherein logic valid.
Looks like a Scotsman fallacy, but I’ll play along for a little.
So you say. Since you didn’t like my example of “God,” why don’t we test your hypothesis in your terms:
You define “God,” and I’ll define a universe wherein “God” is consistent. Fair?
Simply put, the Creator hypotheses is not required whether there is one universe or an infinite number of them.
Our universe could simply be a bounce from a previous universe. And if so, where does it end? Or rather, begin?
Stephen Hawking’s proposal of the no boundary conditions carries some weight in certain circles. Maybe there was no beginning. Maybe the universe always existed.
We don’t know if that’s true, but this idea shows that a creator is not required.
And if multiple universes exist, I see no reason why this implies a creator.
Neither are carrots.
Incorrect; an infinite number of universes doesn’t mean an infinite range of physical laws.
Meaning all of them.
No, since I’m not the one claiming that god is possible in the first place.
Carrots, however provably exist. And even if they didn’t, they violate no physical laws nor do they violate logic.
Hey, hold on a sec.
**Scylla ** might be right about the carrots.
At least I hope he is.
Multiple universes don’t refute Intelligent Design, because Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, unscientific, and therefore a colossal waste of everyone’s time.
Multiple Universes also don’t refute the notion that human thought is actually the byproduct of tiny invisible newts or dwarves that fly around our heads invisibly and sing thoughts into our brains. I think that when you have a really bad headache, it’s actually a newt/dwarf fight. Those bastards are mean, I’ll bet. You can read about it in my Book of Tiny Amphibia, related to me by a burning shrubbery while I was on the way home from the bar one night.
At least I think it was a burning shrubbery. Come to think of it, I might have been trying to make a large bong out of a garbage can and a garden hose. But still, you must believe in the holy newts, or my friends and I will hunt you down. Besides, it’s good for the children.
Sam, we’re having a serious discussion here.
If you don’t want to touch on the carrot thing, fine.
But don’t derail this thread with stupid, irrefutable logic.
We take a dim view of that.
Prove it
This is not the same as what you said earlier. The first statement implies intent, whereas this statement could be true without causality.
“Common sense” proves nothing. “Common sense” tells you the Earth is flat, the sun really rises and sets, and heavier things fall faster than lighter things. This is just the argument from incredulity fallacy rephrased.
What would convince you? And why do you cherry-pick the arguments you are not convinced by, and ignore the Quantum argument others have mentioned?
You have yet to prove fine-tuning. I declare there is no such thing. Argument from incredulity combined with the anthropic tautology doesn’t a proof make. To quote the Uncyclopedia, it amounts to “I think, therefore I think I’m the best”. But this puts Descartes before the horse - the Universe isn’t fine-tuned to produce us. We are fine-tuned to fit the available Universe, which is not the same thing at all.
MrDibble , your post is brilliant and I wish I wrote it.
You followed the three C’s of effective communication.
-
You were Concise.
-
You were Correct.
-
And you were Correct.
A tip of the hat to you, sir.