yes- it seems that is what some of the scientists are saying... but if there was only one universe it would not form into the universe we have based on chance.... its why hawking and the other top guys are pitching the almost infinite universe -- multiverse conjecture.
I still would like to know, if there are indeed objective reasons for Man choosing the scientific worldview over the others, where those reasons are located. Sub-atomic level? Atomic? Molecular? Or... ?
Christian God or not , it fails for reasons already given. No rational response, now to Pascal's wager as well as Russell's Teapot . That clearly points toward you who is not understanding them not everyone else. Just like Ricter, all you guys really have in the end is a snide remark. You're merely more obnoxious about it.
I realize from your earlier posts you are not supporting religious faith. I agree the argument is interesting, but itâs very weak. Pascal discovered some amazing things perhaps thatâs why his Wager got some momentum , but it just doesnât bear scrutiny. The Christian God is a nasty piece of work so its quite possible it would get very pissed with anyone, especially perhaps those who like to call themselves agnostic, who would buy Pascalâs 'insurance' . Even if one accepts a possibility of a God, certainly in terms of the Wager, itâs just a likely it will treat people harshly for blindly accepting the existence of it by blind faith.
you raise a good question... but if enough man have a high enough I.Q. is not the scientific world view inevitable. on a philosophical side note... are not the two competing world views in life I am here to serve and love God vs... I am here to be God or be the God of myself?
I put a smiley after it. Don't be so touchy. If you make categorical assertions from the dubious use of a word like *meta*, you should expect some fairly vigorous responses. There is a reasonable argument for meta-data. You have not made one for what would be a supernatural meta-level.
No, you're just throwing quotes that agree with your point of at me. Nothing more, nothing less. And now childishly calling me names. Really?? I read your quotes. I disagree. Deal with it. I did but your only response is to reject my reasoning out of hand as a "sound bite". What's funny is, you're the one copy and pasting quotes which are essentially "sound bites". At least I'm constructing my own arguments. You just keep referring to scientists and your perception that they all believe in a fine-tuned universe, which by the way, they don't. If anything is fine-tuning the universe, it's evolution and physics. There is a difference between not understanding your argument and not agreeing it. Just because someone doesn't agree with your argument (which I'm sure you think is so well-thought out, that everyone just has to agree with you, doesn't mean they don't understand it. So if you could please, cut the "you don't get it" bullshit. I doubt most scientists believe that and honestly, I find it disingenuous for you claim such a thing. I know of plenty of scientists who believe the complete opposite, yet you keep claiming the scientific community are all of a sudden closet creationists or something. (The quotes I post below show your perception of what "most if not all scientists now accept" is naive at best and a flat out lie at worst. There is very likely an infinite number of universes, so given that, you'd be wrong. It looks to me like you're the one who needs to do some research.