Philosophy Now Forum

Perhaps you should go to the thread "where is here". It explains more in depth. I am tired of repeating myself.

Yeah, me too, pal.

"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"

Seems to me: believing in sumthin' (multiverse), when there's not a jot of evidence to support such a notion, is irrational, and really no better than sayin' 'god did it'.

Stalemate.

Take a math course.
And actually read posts and not skim over them. I have answered all your uninformed points *. Unfortunately, you keep repeating them.
* Once again, I am not endorsing a multiverse or the God hypothesis. I am saying that myself and the Discover magazine link (that you obviously did not read) have proven that there is a multiverse OR there is a God!

As Kilgore Trout might screech: Dumb Luck! Wake up! It's just Dumb Luck!

*shrug*

Done now.

henry quirk wrote:"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"

Seems to me: believing in sumthin' (multiverse), when there's not a jot of evidence to support such a notion, is irrational, and really no better than sayin' 'god did it'.

Stalemate.

So you are saying that since one cannot prove a negative (for example that Elvis is not alive) you believe that Elvis is alive!
I do not believe that he is alive because I know that the odds of him being alive are almost non existent.
Similarly, I do not believe (we will temporarily assume that there is no God) that there is only one universe because the odds of that are less then 1 in 100,000,000,000.

henry quirk wrote:As Kilgore Trout might screech: Dumb Luck! Wake up! It's just Dumb Luck!

*shrug*

Done now.

But why believe that something is true (that there is only one universe ) that has only a 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance of being true?

raw_thought wrote:But why believe that something is true (that there is only one universe ) that has only a 1 in 100,000,000,000 chance of being true?

Do you have any idea how improbable your own existence is? You can trace your direct line of ancestry down to the very first self-replicating organism which existed on this planet and not a single one of your ancestors in this direct line failed to produce viable offspring. Have you any idea how improbable this is in biology? You couldn't write enough zeros in a single lifetime to put a figure on it. Then there is the matter of your own conception in an act of love. Do you find it remarkable that of all the possible human beings who might have been created in this act it was you that turned up instead of some other bloke. Was this an outcome of such astonishing improbability that all the human beings who you are not must also exist somewhere or are you just no fucking good at logic?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what we are talking about. I am not talking about the odds that my characteristics will group together.
I am talking about the odds that a single universe will by chance have all its constants perfect for the creation of life. Those odds are less then 1 in 100,000,000,000. However, if there is a multiverse with trillions of universes the odds that one of those universes will have constants suitable for life rises almost to certainty.
If you throw a coin 100 times, it is VERY unlikely that it will be all heads. However, throw a coin 100,000,000,000 times, it is close to certainty that within those 100,000,000,000 tosses there will be 100 heads in a row.
Either you are trying to distract from your failed argument or you do not understand basic math.

Remember that when you accuse me of failing at logic you are also saying that you are better at logic then all the logic professors.
Simply, stop being so emotional and actually read the article I supplied. Perhaps, then you will understand it. So far you have been attacking strawmen. Perhaps you are being disingenuous but I think you simply do not understand the argument.

I did read your article and dozens more like it over the decades and the logic all proceeds from a single unsubstantiated premise. This reasoning all assumes that the universe was created by a causal agent external to it and all I ask is that you validate this a priori premise or otherwise your reasoning is circular. In circular reasoning you attempt to prove your case by assuming your conclusion as an a priori premise but if the universe had no beginning then there is no case for either god or multiverse and a universe with a beginning is a statement of faith and not one of logic.

How is your argument structurally different from the Kalam cosmological argument?

By the way you're quite right, henry. The multiverse argument and the god argument are the same argument in terms of their logical structure and are thus equally worthless. These are both faith-based positions.

I keep having to repeat myself. An infinite past (no creation) cannot explain why the constants are so perfect for life.
Remember the elephant metaphor????

Yes, both propositions are not certain. I have explained that many many many times. However, if there is no multiverse there has to be a God.
We do not know if it is A or not A. But we do know that either A or not A is true.

If the universe is self creating or not has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I explained that many many times. If you disagreed wiyh my explanations why didnt you explain why. Simply repeating the same proposition over and over again s pointless.