Quote:
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
*Clears his throat*
Well... Physics usually point to six universal constants (The force that binds atomic nuclei together, the binding strength of forces that hold atoms together divided by gravitational attraction, the density of matter in the universe, the strength of the cosmic antigravity that controls the expansion of the universe, the size of the ripples in the expanding universe and the number of dimensions in our space) which make life possible. If, say, gravitational attraction was off by 1/1,000,000,000,000 then life wouldn't exist. You can either believe that 1.) things happened by chance or 2.) that there are various multi-verses and that our universe is simply part of that chain or 3.) that there is a Divine Creator. Occam's razor states that in the event of three conflicting theories that you should pick the simplest and most straight-forward method.
So you have a choice of things simply falling into place, multi-verses or a Divine Creator. Nothing happens "By accident", so we can rule out number 1. That leaves us with either there being various multi-verses or a Divine creator. Personally, I lean towards a Divine Creator as the odds of there being various multiverses which we can't observe is much, much lower than the existence of an omnipotent being (Plus, the more multiverses which exist the smaller the chance of there being life in each one). Then again, there could be a fourth option which is bigger and more incomprehensible than we could imagine (Though, I'd call that God, but that's just me).
|
Do you know what a
false dichotomy is?
Your argument makes some dubious assumptions. For instance, I don't like quoting
Einstein but I do like this quote: "Did God have a choice in creating the universe?" You're assuming that those physical constants can vary; that they could have been anything but we don't know that.
As a mild aside, I write software. When people run the software that I write, they often say things like my software "tries" to do this or it "wants" to do that. I find this funny 'cause, obviously, it's just a
turing machine. It doesn't try or want to do anything any more than a ball tries or wants to roll down a hill... It's an example of how much people project themselves onto things they observe...
Another assumption that this argument makes is that there's something special about its current state to attribute to God. Obviously, we're partial to life, as we know it, but that's just us being egocentric. Oh my God, look at us! We're so special that the entire Universe must have contrived itself to make us possible! Therefore, there is a god...
I don't understand why you think "nothing happens by accident." Unless you believe in fate, a lot of things happen by accident...
Your characterization of the
multiverse is also strange. Why would the chances of life happening in a multiverse universe (for lack of a better term) diminish as the number of universes increase? That makes no sense. Are you assuming some sort of conservation of life probability across the various universes?