Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH
Within a materialist paradigm, I see NO material evidence to suggest that multiverse theory is even remotely more plausible than the standard big bang model. The latter is backed up by observational evidence, thus if you apply Occam's razor, what seems more likely, just when discussing cosmology? The more complex theory (lacking true empirical evidence) of a multiverse, or the standard big bang model (which is backed by observational evidence)?
|
If there are multiple universes that does not replace the big bang theory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH
I would agree, I will admit the possibility of a multiverse, based on the same logic that I would admit the possibility of some notion of "God."
|
I think a multiverse is more of a possibility than a god. Some process created our universe. It is not a stretch to say that that same process has created other universes. God is different. There is no observational evidence of even one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH
As I said, I fear I may have offended you on the linguistic difficulties associated with words like "atheist" and "agnostic." If the word "atheist" is dissected to mean "opposed to theism," I ask on what grounds. I have never met an atheist that can definitively prove the non-existence of God, and one of the fall-back arguments for an atheist is that science does not seek to prove a negative. Burden of proof shifts to assertions. Much of the semantic debate then falls onto what the default position of this thing called "science" should be???
|
No offense taken. In the absence of evidence, science would be agnostic about a god. One could hypothesize about a god, but then they would have to formulate an experiment to test the hypothesis. I know why people believe there is a god. They saw the sun come up, earthquakes, storms, or babies being born, or whatever. They saw things that couldn't be explained with their knowledge so they hypothesized that there's a god. For me, there's no problem that prompts me to formulate an hypothesis that there's a god because I have the analytical tools to find other better possibilities to hypothesize.
My life isn't all science though. I interact with the rest of society, and to me it seems that the progression of society is hampered by society's belief in a god. Many refuse to accept things like evolution, or the fact that the earth is over 6,000 years old or the big bang when there is abundant scientific evidence to support these theories, while their own theistic approaches to these phenomenon fail scientific tests. In that sense I am "opposed to theism" and an atheist.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GRH
The hypothetical existence of "God" obviously adds degrees of complexity to our view...But does not the existence of a multiverse? Which is more complex? Which is more likely?
|
As I said above, we've seen one universe. It's not a big stretch to hypothesize that the process that created ours created other. As for a god, we haven't seen even one.