# Re: [asa] Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse

From: Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
Date: Thu Dec 04 2008 - 16:39:30 EST

Hi Merv,

Nothing in the below to disagree with.

Remember the entire point of the thread is that this issue ISN'T simple!!!!

My primary objection to invoking multiuniverses in favour of atheistic conclusions is that it seems to be done with a hand-waving, cavalier disregard for precisely the sort of considerations made in the below.

My secondary objection is that arguments intended to defend "highly improbable evolution" can't be selectively ignored when used to defend "a highly improbable deity".

My third objection is that even the multiverse hypothesis has to be seen as somewhat problematic - particularly for somebody like Dawkins who wants to argue "if you can't see it, it doesn't exist"

Maybe we should be asking atheists in which of these other universes the flying spaghetti monster lives, or in which one do we find an invisible orbiting teapot!!!

I'm just not convinced by the whole exercise. And even if I were, I think it clear that the atheists DON'T get it all their way.

Blessings,
Murray

mrb22667@kansas.net wrote:
> Quoting Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>:
>> But a vanishingly small probability tends to unity over an infinite number of
>> instances, therefore from 4 and 5.
>>
>> 6. God exists in some universe like ours.
>>
>
> It's a bit simplistic to assume that the product of an infinitesimal with an
> infinity produces unity (or any other finite value). It depends how fast either
> quantity approaches its asymptotic destination. E.g. (e^x)*(1/x) will approach
> infinity as x goes to infinity. But it's reciprocal goes to zero. Other limits
> will approach definable finite values.
>
> All this is to say that unless actual probability functions could be quantified,
> we still can't say an infinite # of universes necessarily makes just anything
> probable. Since such things probably can't be quantified, the whole
> "multiverse" appeal does (as others have noted) take on the desperate character
> of "anythingbutGodness". It fails just as the desperate gambits to "prove"
> theism always fail. The only difference is most thinking Christians have
>
> One other thing; isn't it a bit silly to postulate a God that exists for one
> universe but not another? In one sense, universe can be seen as the whole of
> all physical reality. Just because others may be in other dimensions of time or
> space wouldn't make them any less physical would it? It would just mean the
> universe has other parts not directly observable by us. Isn't the whole notion
> of multiple universes a bit of an oxymoron?
>
> --Merv
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 4 16:40:09 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Dec 04 2008 - 16:40:09 EST