This would be the as-of-yet unresponded to post.
I'll take a shot at this.Sara wrote:Quote:Why do you draw this arbitrary line between the universe with all of its contents and God? (. . .) A multiverse can simply "be" with no anthropomorphic qualities or consciousness whatsoever.
The reason why I draw the line between the universe and all of its contents and God is because it would be illogical for anything to create itself. If God were somehow contained within the material, then He would have to have created Himself (which is impossible). Nor could the universe have formed itself.
It still comes back to the horrible loop of 'where did this complicated being come from that created everything?' On the other hand, it seems more likely that all the energy we know of has always been around somewhere if not in this universe then in another. Multiverse begets multiverse, and since all things are is insubstantial information configured in various ways it also fits into probability.
One way to see how this works is through the infinite hotel thought experiment. In an infinite hotel with infinite guests, you can never run out of rooms even though the rooms are full. If you want to add an infinite number of guests to the infinite hotel, you simply have every guest move into the room number equal to double their current room number. Nevermind that there are so many impossibilities in this (time, space, etc.), probabalistically there is always room in infinity for jello.
On an infinite time scale (being that in the "beginning" there is no time), the probability of something happening is 1. Since time is simply the sequence of events it is just another informational value created by the illusion that things are happening in order when in fact things happening here occur at a different rate than elsewhere.Sara wrote:
Multiverses are just as ad hoc as you claim God is. I know that you like that explanation better because you feel it is simpler from a materialist's view. But I think that God is a simpler and more thorough explanation for the formation of the universe.
God - Omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent.
Multiverse - Hypothetical explanation for some of the phenomena related to wave-function collapse.
God - Untestable.
Multiverse - Testable via very complicated experiments, one of which is starting up in November.
God is pretty complicated. Complication usually refers to the difficulty in trying to figure out how something works. Since "God works in mysterious (and blindingly inefficient) ways," I would say that God is more complicated than even the most convoluded quantum physics paper.Sara wrote:
For example, pure materialism cannot explain how the universe arose from nothing by itself and formed personal beings. That makes less sense to me than believing that a Personal God made humans in His image.
The universe, to me, likely arose from another universe. As a whole, the multiverse did not arise any more going north of the north pole takes you further north. Another way to look at it would be like this: there always has been "something," even counting nothing since nothing is still a quantifiable "thing." So if you have less than nothing, you still have something.
You mention the existance of personal beings as evidence. By the very same logic, there must be a prime decider who moves cards around in a deck so that you choose precisely the right one since the chances of you drawing any particular hand are so small that you will never in your lifetime draw the same order of cards twice.
Sara wrote:Quote:The scientist need not assert anything. (. . .) I see no reason for anyone to buy this, however, since it is a completely unnecessary and unhelpful idea.
Well, if you were trying to explain the origin of snot, your explanation makes more sense than saying snot came from nothing by its own power and is eternal (which is analogous to the materialists' explanation for the origin of the universe).
It's an oversimplification, but you're more or less right. In essence, everything is made of information. There can never be an absence of information, since that would still be a form of information. Anything you can express is information. Further refined, all things exist including those things which you cannot imagine. That infinitely more things exist which cannot be represented in material is still not evidence of god, only more information. If there were a god, things would be much simpler.Sara wrote:Quote:I'm afraid I cannot see that as equally plausible. My theory is a predictable outcome of evolution. (. . .) But even then we would have to look at our natural desire to persist after death and see if that impulse would logically lead to the commonality of belief.
Yes, it is the predicable outcome of evolution. But you again, must begin with the premise that materialism is true from the onset and then go on to make theories based on that premise. Evolution is the best theory that fits within this paradigm.
I, obviously, don't see materialism as the sole plausible theory for the origin of the universe, so pardon me if I reject some of those theories that heavily rely on it.
What would you propose in opposition to the idea that everything is made of something (materialism)?Sara wrote:Quote:My arguments are based on what we can know. (. . .) So the burden is on you to prove that the universe cannot make sense without adding this additional complication.
That's a very convenient position for the materialist. However, it may be entirely inaccurate to assume that the universe is all there is, ever was or will be.
We're not assuming that, you are. You're saying that this universe begins and ends, and that's all there is as far as we can know from realistic observation.Sara wrote:
As I already stated, it seems illogical to maintain that the impersonal universe produced personal beings. Materialism cannot begin to explain why we seek to relate to eachother without reducing our relationships to meaningless interactions. I doubt you tell your loved ones that your interactions with them are nothing more than biological impulses that are necessary for your survival. Most people want to think that there is more meaning to life than materialism provides.
Personal and impersonal are labels we created. We seek to interrelate based on what our genes have learned, which is survival and replication. Comeradery makes a more fit beast than lone survival. However, what we have become because of the machine that produced us is more than the machine itself. Individually we can imagine whole worlds of fantasy, something which only a few other species we know of can do and not nearly as well as we. Cats cannot imagine flight, even though they know of the concept. The meaning of life is a personal thing, something to be decided by the individual and not some sadistic father figure.
Again, thank you for the interesting points. It's been nice chatting with you. I'm done for now, but will be back tomorrow.
Looking forward to it.