Tom Caylor writes:
>I just don't get how it can be rationally justified that you can get
>something out of nothing. To me, combining the multiverse with a selection
>principle does not explain anything. I see no reason why it is not
>mathematically equivalent to our universe appearing out of nothing. And I
>see the belief that our universe appeared out of nothing as just that, a
>belief. In fact, I believe that. But I don't see how it makes one iota
>more rational, "scientific" sense to try to explain it with a Plenitude and
>the Anthropic Principle. It's like a probability argument that poses the
>existence of as much unobservable stuff out there as we need, along with
>the well-behaved unobservable probability distribution we need, in order to
>give us a fuzzy feeling in terms of probability as we know it in our
>comfortable immediate surroundings. Sounds like blind faith to me.
What seems "rational" or "scientific" from our point of view need not apply
when considering the universe as a whole, its origin or its ultimate fate.
One argument for the existence of God is based on the observation that
everything in the universe has a cause - everything is "contingent" - so the
universe itself must also be contingent. Even if the universe consists of an
infinite series of contingent things, the series itself must be contingent,
because there must be a reason why there is any series at all. The only way
to satisfy this endless need for explanation is to postulate the existence
of a "necessary" (uncaused, or non-contingent) ultimate cause, the nature of
which must be utterly different from the contingent material universe, which
ultimate cause we call "God". Hopefully, the multiple flaws in this argument
should be obvious.
--Stathis Papaioannou
_________________________________________________________________
View 1000s of pictures, profiles and more now at Lavalife
http://lavalife.com.au
Received on Sun Oct 30 2005 - 05:00:18 PST