OK. I'm not trying to start an argument. I believe in evolution. But the bolded statement...is not true. It's not fact. Honestly I believe it takes about the same amount of faith that religion does.  Keep an open mind. 

I'm agnostic, so I tend to believe that there is no proof of god, but I try to live my life as if there was.  Because there is no proof there is no god.  None. BUT the whole concept of any religion is to treat every person as good as you can.  Live your life as good as you can.  Be the greatest person you can be. Such a great notion. Such a great idea. BUT, the follow through is often pretentious/catastrophic.  Darwinism usually is as well. But that's our nature.

It comes down to:

"You don't think the way I do?"

"You're stupid" or "You're going to hell"

I wish that I could say that I live a life according to principals and morals that never waver. Never sway.  But I don't. And they do. But I try. I'm a good person, and I treat people accordingly. I don't know if there's a god, but if there is... i hope he can forgive.  And if there isn't I lived a good life. And I tried to be good.

I think evolution is the best theory we have, and the only scientific one. Scientific theories make bold predictions (in this case about the fossil record and the internal similarity of all life) which can then be tested; i.e. scientific theories can be disproved.

Intelligent design doesn't make any bold predictions, and can be rapidly adapted to still be true in the face of new evidence, therefore it is not a scientific theory.

 Are you mocking him just for the sake of it, or you really don't understand the essence of the problem?

The essence of the problem is the question of first cause - stuff don't come out of nothing.

Meanwhile you are actually willing to believe (it seems you're even leaning towards that belief) in the crazy idea that there exists an infinite number of universes?

I understand that people can buy this multiverse theory at a first glance, but people that really have given thought about it - if they still believe in such thing, I can't take them seriously. Also I know then what it comes down to, they don't want to believe in a God. No matter the spin, they will take anything else for an explanation.

The multiverse theory is physically sound. I'm not going to say whether I think it is correct or what bearing it has on the validity of evolution/ID, but know that many interpretations of Quantum Mechanics (and ALL of them are valid and equally justified) postulate either multiple universes with different physical constants, or many-worlds with wavefunction collapse creating perpendicular realities. None of this is weird, an there is far weider stuff in QM that is 100% certain, like time travel, entanglement, the uncertainty principle and the violation of Bell's inequality.

Actually, multiple universes are the best way to get around much worse problems. The main alternative to it is that the human mind is special and retroactively causes the universe to exist by collapsing the wavefunction backwards in time. And some well-respected physicists believe that.

I don't like replies like this, I've seen them so many times. Use of scientific tech speech that's mostly confusing and spins off the subject and with the undertone of making it sound like it's perfectly believable (perhaps it wasn't your intention, and you felt you had to be specific to avoid misunderstandings, so no offence).

I started by saying or hinting (to The_vagabond7) that the multiverse theory is an invention to solve the problem of the first cause of our universe. With bizarre implications - and that is indeed weird.

Soleron, by your post you only added that the multiverse theory is also used to address the problem of materia on the quantum level not behaving as it "should be", as expected in classical theory.

Can't you really see the spin in both cases? The essence of the problem is the same.

And how on earth can you say "None of this is weird, and there is far weider stuff in QM that is 100% certain"? It's circular reasoning - the observations are weird (that materia doesn't behave as expected) but by inventing a weird theory to explain it (multiverse) it ain't weird anymore.

Ok

1. Anybody saying that evolution is not blatantly true with an abundance of evidence to back it up, go read "why evolution is true" by Jerry Coyne. The only reason evolution is not accepted in the way relativity or gravity are is because religious minded people fear it for no good reason. The evidence in it's favor is vast and overwhelming and it IS considered a fact by the scientific community and for good reason. It is not a possibility, it is reality. End of statement.

2. @slimebeast I don't believe solidly in a multiverse, I regard it merely as a possibility. Ignorance doesn't equal faith. (though this guy seems to think so) What happened to start the big bang? Not sure yet, but that doesn't mean a unicorn did it. It's not "god" I have a problem with. That is an unprovable position one way or another. It's the god of any religion that is clearly a relic of ancient civilizations and tribes. And if you take those gods out of the equation, if you think yahweh is a brutal dictator that lead a tribe that acts much like the vicious theocracies of today, That Jesus was the result of that brutal tribe no longer having military might preventing them from being able to commit mass genocide and instead decide to give peace a chance, once you take Allah, the hindu gods, ect ect out of the picture, why would I believe in a space man instead of a natural mechanistic cause?

You say the problem is the beginning, and that guy doesn't come up with a solution to it. He just claims he does by using grossly flawed logic. He says that God didn't need a beginning because he existed before the big bang and thusly before time so there is no concept of beginning. But that argument can apply to a non space man cause just as easily. A point he conveniently never comes to.

And yes I am frustrated.

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 intention of my reply was to show that the multiverse theory isn't "crazy" and is one of the leading theories in theoretical physics. I wasn't commenting on the 'first cause' debate so feel free to attack that.

I was being specific and technical to show why it is plausible (if you would like me to expand that explanation I will gladly do so). I'm not trying to 'spin' in any direction; I'm just trying to show it is acceptable to refer to it in an argument. I may or may not agree with what it is being used to argue for.

Ok, I understand what you're saying.

Anyway, I'm very well aware of that multiverse isn't regarded as "crazy", and it's currently the big thing of theoretical cosmologists and whatnot. It's really the "in" thing.

But IMO multiverse is crazy, and due to it being so hip and all I think people (atheists) buy it without thinking how unbelievable it really is, and they lack the self-chritizism to compare the multiverse theory to the God concept and realize that it's also a belief based on blind faith.

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.