bobbyaxlrod

  • *
  • 1 Posts
    • View Profile
Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« on: October 26, 2020, 12:17:39 pm »
Hi all,
wondering what are your thought on the following replies from an atheist. My point of references are WCL on the "Who made God Book".
The numbered sentences are WCL thoughts, below each answer from my friend.
the multiverse theory has been dropped by most of scientist since its pseudo-science:
1)it is no more scientific and no less metaphysical than a "cosmic designer"

Whilst this is true, "multiverse" isn't a "multiplied cause". Rather, it's a natural implication of various physical theories that are well established by other evidence.
For example: quantum mechanics, and Schroedinger's equation, are incredibly effective at explaining how things work. If you take Schroedinger's equation alone, it actually implies that we do live in a multiverse of copies of ourselves, each differing by the outcome of some quantum experiment. To claim there is *no* multiverse, you have to tack on extra theory onto Schroedinger's equation about "waveform collapse". Occam's razor says "don't add extra stuff (waveform collapse) to this very effective theory" - but that implies that we live in a multiverse.


2) it is inferior to the design hypothesis because the design hypothesis is simpler

It *seems* simpler, but it's not. Consider these two explanations for what we see:
•   "The universe exists, and follows these mathematical laws"
•   "The universe exists, and follows these mathematical laws. Oh, and God set it up like that."
The latter explanation has "multiplied causes". Saying "God" doesn't simplify the explanation at all - you still need to specify the mathematical laws in just as much detail (they can't be derived from "God"). Ockham's razor suggests we leave God out of it. The simpler theory, that has equal predictive power, is to be preferred.

3)According to Ockham's razor, we should not multiply causes beyond what is necessary to explain the effect


4)there is no known way of generating a world ensemble, moreover any attempt to explain it would need a fine tuning universe (see Linde's chaotic inflationary theory)

You may be unfamiliar with the known ways to generate an ensemble, or you may personally reject them, but either way this statement is false.

5)Boltzmann's hypothesis disproven

is not required for this to be a multiverse. All it can do is distinguish between
•   multiverses in which literally everything happens in some universe somewhere
•   multiverses in which a whole lot of different things happen in different universes


6) according to the prevailing theory of biological evolution, intelligent life like ourselves it evolved at all will do so as late in the lifetime of the sun as possible. So if our is but one member of a world ensemble, it is more probable that we should observing an old sun rather than a relative young one of only a few billion years. So either we are not chance product of biological evolution or else we are not chance products of a world ensemble (either way we are led to a designer)

No doubt there are some theories about the evolution of intelligent life that suggest your point 6. However, since we have precisely one data point, nobody should claim it is known how easy or hard it is for intelligent life to evolve.
I will note that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and life on earth is expected to become impossible within only 1.1 billion years. So we are indeed in the final quarter of earth as a habitable planet. Your prediction that [I've paraphrased it] "under the multiverse hypothesis, we should find ourselves running out of time on our home planet" appears to be borne out.




1

ChristianInvestigator

  • **
  • 327 Posts
  • Never lose the joy of discovery
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« Reply #1 on: October 27, 2020, 09:18:15 am »
Interesting. I've thought along some of the same lines before. I wouldn't say a multiverse is simpler than God in an ockham's razor sense, but they do seem to be on relatively equal footing as hypotheses about the universe.
"This year, though I'm far from home
In Trench I'm not alone.
These faces facing me,
They know... what I mean."

|-/

2

noncontingent

  • **
  • 631 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« Reply #2 on: October 27, 2020, 09:21:08 am »
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dSua_PUyfM
Why the multiverse is religion, not science.

3

Harvey

  • *****
  • 24685 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« Reply #3 on: October 27, 2020, 09:41:51 am »
Those are so easy to refute that I'll let the atheists here debunk them which they'll do if they are so inclined.

4

Mammal

  • ***
  • 4822 Posts
  • De facto
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« Reply #4 on: October 27, 2020, 10:54:05 am »
Unfortunately there is little point in doing that as there will just be another YouTube video link coming. Just ignore.
Fact, Fiction or Superstition?
Thank God For Evolution
The Evolution Of God

5

noncontingent

  • **
  • 631 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: Multiverse Debate, Atheist reply to WCL comment
« Reply #5 on: October 27, 2020, 11:52:38 am »
Some people like the sound of their own voices more than learning anything.