Multiverse!

[raw_thought]

You will see that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life.

Have you ever heard of a bloke called Charles Darwin? Apparently the idea of life being the plan of a a creator is not so fashionable these days.

Strawman!
I did not say that our universe's constants are outrageously suited for the creation of life and that therefore they must have been designed for that purpose.
If you had read my posts and the Discover article you would have realized that!
I am saying that with a multiverse, most of the universes will have constants unsuitable for life. However, a tiny percentage will have constants suitable for life. Obviously we must be in one of those universes suitable for life. There is no design or purpose. Similarly, it is an error to say that something beyond random chance is happening when 100 heads turn up in a row during a coin toss somewhere during tossing the coin 100,000,000,000 times.

[raw_thought]

Give me an example of a law of physics and I'll show you something that will be regarded as a historical curiosity at some future date. You are presuming that which you're trying to argue for. What evidence do you have that our universe can only be modelled in the way that science is currently modelling it and in no other way?

So science is useless. I disagee.

[raw_thought]

What about your scientific theory that space does not exist and that time only exists? I guess that has a privileged status in your mind.

[raw_thought]

Give me an example of a law of physics and I'll show you something that will be regarded as a historical curiosity at some future date. You are presuming that which you're trying to argue for. What evidence do you have that our universe can only be modelled in the way that science is currently modelling it and in no other way?

Use that same argument on your own theories!

[raw_thought]

To argue that Relatively must be false because it is a scientific theory is silly.
Using that faulty reasoning results in the absurd conclusion that we do not know that the earth is not flat.

[Obvious Leo]

So science is useless. I disagee.

Where did I say that?

What about your scientific theory that space does not exist and that time only exists?

This is not a scientific theory. It is a statement of metaphysical first principle. However it is testable as I have shown.

To argue that Relatively must be false because it is a scientific theory is silly.

I never once said that relativity was false. I said that spacetime was not physically real, exactly like Albert Einstein did.

[raw_thought]

So you are saying that your model (that spacetime does not exist, that only time exists) is not physically real?

[henry quirk]

"It is the only explanation for the outrageously precise constants that make life possible, that doesnt require a God."

According to you: the choice is 'multiverse or god'.

I say there's a third option: dumb friggin' luck.

As there is no evidence of 'multiverse' or 'god(s)', I conclude there is only this amoral, purposeless, universe that just happens to allow for 'life' in certain places, in certain conditions. This universe also allows for stars (in fact, this universe seems outrageously suited for stars...the place is lousy with 'em).

Seems to me: you've fallen down the hole of 'only this or only that'.

You, without cause, discount dumb luck, which is, I think, a LARGE mistake.

However, as your mistake doesn't profit or wound me, I leave you to it.

I can't ride the merry go 'round forever.

[raw_thought]

OK, just dumb frigging luck
On the order of 1 in 100,000,000,000,000
Perhaps, but those odds make it highly unlikely that there is only one universe.

[raw_thought]

"
As there is no evidence of 'multiverse' or 'god(s)', I conclude there is only this amoral, purposeless, universe that just happens to allow for 'life' in certain places, in certain conditions. This universe also allows for stars (in fact, this universe seems outrageously suited for stars...the place is lousy with 'em).

Seems to me: you've fallen down the hole of 'only this or only that'."
Henry

There is no evidence for a multiverse. There is no evidence for a God. However, there is proof that one of those options must be true.
You keep getting universe confused with multiverse. If there is only this universe, it is outrageously unlikely that its constants would be perfectly suited for life. Constants apply to an entire universe. The multiverse is amoral and purposeless.

[henry quirk]

But not impossible. And: certainly more likely than 'god(s)' and 'multiverse'.

[raw_thought]

If this is the only universe the odds that it has constants perfectly suited for life is less then 1 in 100,000,000,000
I think that I can see why you are confused. Obviously, we must live in a universe with constants suitable for life. In that sense it is certain that we.live in such a universe. That is the anthropic principle. Central to my argument. However, the odds that if there is only one universe and that universe having constants perfectly suited for life is less then 1 in 100,000,000,000.

[henry quirk]

"Seems to me: you've fallen down the hole of 'only this or only that'."

As I say up-thread: my perspective, like yours, is skewed.

I just think I'm skewed in the right direction.

*shrug*

[henry quirk]

Improbable is not the same as impossible.

Gettin' off the merry go 'round now...

[raw_thought]

Improbable is not the same as impossible.

Gettin' off the merry go 'round now...

True,
But believing in something (that there is only one universe) that has les then a 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance of being true seems irrational to me.