Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

[Guy Threepwood]

Some of the early proponents of multiple universes (think Reformation era) were religious. There is nothing about the concept that is inherently atheistic.

As above, touting a multiverse's imaginary capacity to account for reality without ID,- a great lotto tumbler- is inherently atheistic- and that's exactly what it's primary proponents and most adherents do.

I take your point as a technicality, but on a Venn diagram- don't you think there'd be a pretty distinct overlap?!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

can you quote it?

read the book

OK this is the last time though!

Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

• Interview with The Guardian (15 May 2011).

 

[Noa]

As above, touting a multiverse's imaginary capacity to account for reality without ID,- a great lotto tumbler- is inherently atheistic- and that's exactly what it's primary proponents and most adherents do.

I take your point as a technicality, but on a Venn diagram- don't you think there'd be a pretty distinct overlap?!

You can take my point however you wish. It simply seems that you do not like Hawkins and Greene (I have no idea who the second guy is) and have broadened that dislike to include any mention of a multiverse.

And for the record, I could not care less about the multiverse concept.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Yes, but really that would only provide an explanation for the fine-tuning principle. It wouldn't answer the first cause question.

yup. it's just shifting that burden- but brings up the problem- of an infinite probability machine that is endowed with an infinite capacity to create anything *

*Except God of course!

 

[Parsimony]

yup. it's just shifting that burden- but brings up the problem- of an infinite probability machine that is endowed with an infinite capacity to create anything *

*Except God of course!

Why would God be excluded? If anything, an infinite probability machine, whatever that is, should create an infinite number of gods with an infinite array of characteristics.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

You can take my point however you wish. It simply seems that you do not like Hawkins and Greene (I have no idea who the second guy is) and have broadened that dislike to include any mention of a multiverse.

And for the record, I could not care less about the multiverse concept.

Not at all, I have nothing against them, I much admire Hawking for what seems to be a genuinely positive attitude despite his condition, and a good writer with a great sense of humor.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why would God be excluded? If anything, an infinite probability machine, whatever that is, should create an infinite number of gods with an infinite array of characteristics.

Well exactly, that's where it shoots itself in the foot. Greene already considers it feasible that we could create our own universe.

So the atheist stance must assume we are the rare immaculate conception, the virgin birth universe, rather than what would be an inevitably far greater number of designed ones.

None of this solves the 1st casue paradox though as you say. i.e. it doesn't explain the universe at all, it only expands it

 

[Parsimony]

Well exactly, that's where it shoots itself in the foot. Greene already considers it feasible that we could create our own universe.

So the atheist stance must assume we are the rare immaculate conception, the virgin birth universe, rather than what would be an inevitably far greater number of designed ones.

None of this solves the 1st casue paradox though as you say. i.e. it doesn't explain the universe at all, it only expands it

That still doesn't do anything to make the multiverse an atheistic concept. If it allows for God/gods, how can it be considered atheistic?

 

[Noa]

Not at all, I have nothing against them, I much admire Hawking for what seems to be a genuinely positive attitude despite his condition, and a good writer with a great sense of humor.

Then why do you insist on claiming that the multiverse idea is somehow atheistic? Perhaps for those two fellows it is part of the appeal (I have no idea, I have no read much of Hawkings or any of Greene) but it does not follow that the concept itself is somehow directly attached to atheism.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

That still doesn't do anything to make the multiverse an atheistic concept. If it allows for God/gods, how can it be considered atheistic?

We agree, we'd have to argue that with Hawking and Greene- they consider it to have atheistic implications.

Must run though, this forum always gets interesting when I have to leave!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Then why do you insist on claiming that the multiverse idea is somehow atheistic? Perhaps for those two fellows it is part of the appeal (I have no idea, I have no read much of Hawkings or any of Greene) but it does not follow that the concept itself is somehow directly attached to atheism.

As above they were formulated explicitly by self professed atheist to make God 'redundant' in Hawking's own words. And obviously very popular wit atheists for this reason, cmon you take my point here!

You, I agree - it does not. Must run tho, appreciate civil debate

 

[Noa]

What I am saying is that you are limiting the multiverse concept to Hawking's version of it. All we are saying is that the concept is much broader than that and so it cannot be described as inherently atheistic. Hawking did not invent the concept. He invented a particular form of it.

 

[Monk Of Reason]

read the book

OK this is the last time though!

Science predicts that many different kinds of universe will be spontaneously created out of nothing. It is a matter of chance which we are in.

• Interview with The Guardian (15 May 2011).

I didn't see the part where it made god irrelevant or even mentions god. I also don't see the part where the basis of the theory was that it was an infinite probability machine.

 

[leibowde84]

As above, they are atheist theories because they were thought up by people who expressly believed in atheism, AND explicitly linked their atheist theory to it's atheist implications- not all that confusing really!



This took about 3 seconds to find
http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

Here are the five most plausible scientific theories suggesting we live in a multiverse:
1. Infinite Universes
2. Bubble Universes
3. Parallel Universes
4. Daughter Universes
5. Mathematical Universes

This is something we DO agree on, 'scientific' has more than one meaning

they are obviously not scientific theories in the sense of the method, no atheist theory of cosmogony ever was.

Only in the sense of academic opinion of 'scientific' institutions, these are so often diametrically opposed.

I see the issue. You don't understand the very specific meaning of the term "scientific theory". Here it is (from dictionary.com). It is a very specific term that is extremely demanding in terms of suporting evidence.

scientific theory
noun
1. a coherent group of propositions formulatedto explain a group of facts or phenomena inthe natural world and repeatedly confirmedthrough experiment or observation.

 

[leibowde84]

well OK, static, steady state, big crunch were debunked. Multiverses, M Theory etc are of course inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation.

Hawking, Greene are principle proponents of multiverse and both atheists. Hawking always insists his theories make God redundant- Greene has talked about the possibility of our universe being intelligently designed by some alien intelligence (but not God of course!)- but this latest atheism of the gaps argument against God is becoming increasingly pedantic/ semantic.

The origins of parallel universes goes back beyond recorded history, so looking for a record of their indented implications of it, is about as practical as looking for multiverses themselves.

But obviously a multiverse is the latest atheist explanation de-jour - and probably also the last. An infinite improbability machine was always going to be the last resort after anything remotely testable had failed

It is impossible for a hypothesis that is outside the realm of testing to be considered a scientific theory. They are mere scientific hypotheses.

 

[leibowde84]

Here are the five most plausible scientific theories suggesting we live in a multiverse:
1. Infinite Universes
2. Bubble Universes
3. Parallel Universes
4. Daughter Universes
5. Mathematical Universes

I'm sorry, But I have to call you out on this yet again. These scientific hypotheses in no way meet the extremely demanding level of being "scientific theories". THE TERM DOES NOT MERELY MEAN "THEORIES ABOUT THE NATURAL WORLD". Again, here is what the classification "scientific theory" absolutely demands:

scientific theory
noun
1. a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation.

 

[leibowde84]

As above, touting a multiverse's imaginary capacity to account for reality without ID,- a great lotto tumbler- is inherently atheistic- and that's exactly what it's primary proponents and most adherents do.

I take your point as a technicality, but on a Venn diagram- don't you think there'd be a pretty distinct overlap?!

This is just flat out wrong. The multiverse hypothesis in no way disallows the existence of God. Maybe your specific notion of god, but it is ludicrous to claim that God in general is even spoken to. We shouldn't limit God to the concepts understood by our feable human minds.

 

[McBell]

You are looking from the point of view of a non-believer. The fact is, (if we look at it from the believers point of view) if there is a God, then you do "know"... you just can't prove it to others. I know that probably annoys the hell out of you, and you will not accept it as an answer, because if you do, you have no argument.

ROTFLMAO

Fact is...IF...

ROTFLMAO

 

[McBell]

Didn't look at the vid.
Like I say, if no intelligence is involved, then it is luck, whatever it is, it has to be....unless you can give me something that slots in between intelligence and luck. So far you have not done so

Like I said, false dichotomy.
You can justify it all you like.
It is still a false dichotomy.

 

[McBell]

I prefer the term debunked atheist creation myths!

Of course you do.
But then, you have repeatedly shown you prefer your beliefs over truth, facts, and reality.