Soleron said:
Slimebeast said:
You've read Dawkins too much. He doesn't address the problem of the first cause (as much as he should for a person that attacks theism as much as he does). The fallacy of tribe religions throughout history in this world doesn't disqualify God.
It boils down to something very simple though - the first cause. Stuff don't come out of nothing without a reason. I'm sure you as a former zealot has asked many times - where did we come from? Why and how is there anything - there shouldn't be any stuff! And by all logic there must be a reason.
Multiverse is a horrible invention to address that problem. It's insulting. But it's the only explanation if you can't accept a God as an explanation. (because just like the guy in the article argued, multiverse is the only plausible natural mechanistic cause to explain why the universe came to being 13.5 billion years ago and not 13.500000000000000000000001 years ago or any other number you can come up with)
|
The fact that science does not currently have an explanation for how the universe began doesn't mean God is a default, or even plausible explanation. Any believer still has to show that God is a sound, testable hypothesis.
The multiverse is not the only possible scientific theory that would explain how the universe began. A single large-scale quantum fluctuation (see vacuum energy*) would fulfil the 'something from nothing' criterion.
*Simple explanation: Because we can't measure the energy of the vacuum precisely, it could have any energy value at all. With a very large amount of time to work with, it will eventually have an energy value large enough to create the universe. This energy is then converted into particles, etc. in a Big Bang event.
|
I fail to see how this quantum fluctuation explanation is plausible.
It's still a timed event that needs a cause.
