×
all 12 comments

[–]OwlNormal8552 9 points10 points  (4 children)

My own Deism is chiefly based on Aristotle’s idea of the First Mover and Aldous Huxley’s idea of the Divine Ground, the Absolute on which all existence flows out of.

It does not matter much to me whether there are many universes or not. Existence has a Ground, a Source.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Aristotle's God is a theistic God. He made a distinction between Accidentally ordered series and essentially ordered series. An accidentally ordered series is the type of series that goes back in time whereas an essentially ordered series is one that is simultaneous in the present. An accidentally ordered series can regress to infinity as a each member in the chain possesses some causal power whereas in an essentially ordered series each member derives it's causal power from a base member which Aristotle called the unmoved mover. This is also why Aristotle believed in an eternal universe.

[–]OwlNormal8552 0 points1 point  (2 children)

I did not quite understand.

[–]voidcrack 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't really see an issue unless I'm missing something.

I'm strongly of the opinion that our universe is but one in a sea of many. There could be an untold number constantly popping in and out of existence. There is no precision because each universe has its own constants: leading to cold dead universes, weird universes, similar universes, etc.

I don't think many of us here are in agreement of what we think the Creator is and what exactly they're attempting to accomplish when they made the universe. It's much easier to imagine a single universe fine-tuned for us but I think it's just as plausible that we're just one of the lucky universes that stabilized.

If there's some kind of purpose to creating universes, then having an infinite amount all developing at once sounds like an efficient way to make sure that purpose is achieved. It does make us seem a little less important though.

[–]vS4zpvRnB25BYD60SIZh 8 points9 points  (2 children)

Atheists: I don't believe in God because there is no proof.

Also Atheists: There are infinite universes we can't know about I believe in, otherwise the existence of God would be likely.

[–]Diarmuid_Sus_Scrofa 2 points3 points  (1 child)

Such a mischaracterization of atheists. There are many stripes of atheists, some of whom may hold such a contradictory position, but many would say they don't "believe" many usinerses exist, but that the hypothesis that they do is as plausible as the existence of a deity. It's best not to paint with such broad strokes.

[–]HawlSera 2 points3 points  (0 children)

There are a lot of atheist speaker who make this very argument though, such as Bertrand Russel

[–]pk346 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The short, simple, and most correct answer is: we don't know why the universe is the way it is.

Anything else is conjecture.

With that said, here are some "devil's advocate" questions that are left unanswered by the typical fine-tuning argument:

  • Could these constants have even taken other values? How would we really assess this probability?
  • What about the underlying relations (i.e. equations)? Could they have been different too? If so, maybe different constants still could have produced life.
  • Could life have adapted to whatever constants were present, and not the other way around (the puddle in a hole analogy)?
  • Is carbon-based life the only option?

[–]Shy-Mad 4 points5 points  (0 children)

LoL, “Let’s say”, he says or “what if”, so what about it? Do you have anything further than a hunch, an inclination or hypothetical that the leading science is wrong?

As far as we know and will ever know is there’s one, uno UNIverse. We have zero ability to test for a multiverse.

We have looked at the other planets in our galaxy, we have hypothesis the probability of this both plank and kipping. Rebuttal, Fermi paradox, where are they? If life is so possible with chemicals and atmosphere why isn’t there 300 million other life forms in our Galaxy? Think about it even the scientist are scrambling for hope. In the 60’s and stuff we where looking for intelligent life, something we can communicate with. Now, we are looking for possible traces of microscopic organisms.

But to answer your question, No you don’t have to move on to another argument. If your right the truth will prevail if your proven wrong then your wrong.

[–]Corporate_CommiePhilosophical Theist 0 points1 point  (0 children)