Observations

Merely claiming that another possibility exists is not sufficient to defeat a premise which is otherwise shown to be logically sound.

Thus if one claims that one believes the universe is designed because the specificity of it’s necessary parameters combined with complexity of achieving those parameters demonstrate that an intelligence was or is at work in it’s construction, then the response ‘it is possible it only appears to be designed because it may be one of a virtually infinite number of other universes exist of which this is just one’ doesn’t defeat the first premise.

In short, possibility doesn’t imply viability.

Advertisements

5 Responses to Observations

  1. kenetiks says:

    Double edged sword.

    In short, possibility doesn’t imply viability.

    It is possible a diety exists but that doesn’t necessarily imply that this is the most viable answer either.

    In which case the possibility of each of the answers must be weighed out by the merits of their own evidence.

    The most fatal flaw in in observation is perception.

    The scientific method doesn’t have an ego.

  2. Justin says:

    The scientific method doesn’t have a lot to say about the existence of God, however. It can tell you how a Model T works, but cannot tell you if there really was a Henry Ford.

    And infinite universes is a tricky proposition from a logical standpoint. You can’t merely posit that there is an infinite trail of universes giving birth to new universes and that ours was bound to occur, because you run into the same problem with posing an infinite past. It’s logically incoherent. Borde, Guth, and Velenkin also have a bit to say about it, publishing a paper in 2003 that proves that inflationary universes have a cosmic beginning. Further they go on to say that even when applied to a multiverse, that it also would not escape the conclusion that those universes had a cosmic beginning as well.

    So it really seems that positing a mutliverse merely moves the creation up a level. Proposing a multiverse isn’t logically inconsistent with the existence of God, and it really doesn’t even qualify as a competing theory.

  3. kenetiks says:

    The scientific method doesn’t have a lot to say about the existence of God, however. It can tell you how a Model T works, but cannot tell you if there really was a Henry Ford.

    I meant only to state that the scientific method doesn’t feel anything about any subject. It also doesn’t care whether god exists or not.

    And infinite universes is a tricky proposition from a logical standpoint. You can’t merely posit that there is an infinite trail of universes giving birth to new universes and that ours was bound to occur, because you run into the same problem with posing an infinite past. It’s logically incoherent. Borde, Guth, and Velenkin also have a bit to say about it, publishing a paper in 2003 that proves that inflationary universes have a cosmic beginning. Further they go on to say that even when applied to a multiverse, that it also would not escape the conclusion that those universes had a cosmic beginning as well.

    I don’t think logic has anything to do with the physical laws that govern our universe. Most of what we currently know about our universe flies directly in the face of common logic. Of course it would seem that way to a species evolved to understand the goings-on in our minuscule cross section of the cosmos.

    So it really seems that positing a mutliverse merely moves the creation up a level. Proposing a multiverse isn’t logically inconsistent with the existence of God, and it really doesn’t even qualify as a competing theory.

    Because, obviously, positing one infinite regression with another is perfectly logical.

  4. Justin says:

    Well, logic certainly lets us deduce how the laws of physics relate to one another. And if that’s the case, then there must be sufficient order (logic) in the laws of physics so that our deductions can be valid.

    I think what we currently know about physics flies in the face of our intuition, not necessarily logic. This is especially true if you read a bit about quantum physics, for sure. But logic is how we arrived at those theories.

    Neither God nor a multiverse have to be an infinite regression. In fact, the Borde Guth Velenkin paper shows this concerning multiverses and I think William Lane Craig has done quite a bit of work showing this for God.

  5. Justin says:

    Oh, and that should be Vilenkin, not Velenkin, in case you wanted to search them.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: