Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

JasonChin But you are assuming that the existence of a universe neccesitates life.If any other universe was in place of this one there would still be a universe.Just because life would not be a part of it does not mean that that universe would not go on in an existence of whatever sort.
That we are here to argue such matters seems miraculous only because we have no benchmark by which to compare.You say that if the expansion rate were any faster or slower life would not exist.Why is the expansion rate of the universe neccesarily the speed it is? Could it have expanded at any other rate given the initial conditions?
If we were not here to argue the existence of the universe would it be just as miraculous?

quote:

---

Because any metaphysical force is, by definition, impossible to explain by means of physics.

---

It has nothing to do with physics. You are simply replacing an unexplained physical universe with an unexplained supernatural entity. In other words, you've solved nothing. What I don't see is how anyone can find any explanatory power in that.

You are simply replacing an unexplained physical universe with an unexplained supernatural entity.>>No, Collins is proposing that, even ASSUMING the legitimacy of every materialistic theory, the our universe is still INEXPLICABLE.........not UNEXPLAINED, but INEXPLICABLE.........And anything that is completely inexplicable by natural means is or has an origin in what is by definition super-natural.

It's impossible, logically, to distinguish between that that is inexplicable, and that that is merely unexplained.If he thinks he can, he's overstepping his epistomological bounds.

I don't see that it's in any way analogous. You're comparing something that is true in every observed case - that universes can support life - with something that is never ever observed. How is that an appropriate analogy?

If that was true, we'd hardly find any significance in the existence of F-18's, now would we? No more significant than the existence of stones.The analogy doesn't make sense. In a world full of F-18's, or anything else, their existence is not significant. The only reason life is at all significant to us is because our observable universe has so little of it.

But you are assuming that the existence of a universe neccesitates life.If any other universe was in place of this one there would still be a universe.Just because life would not be a part of it does not mean that that universe would not go on in an existence of whatever sort.
That we are here to argue such matters seems miraculous only because we have no benchmark by which to compare.You say that if the expansion rate were any faster or slower life would not exist.Why is the expansion rate of the universe neccesarily the speed it is? Could it have expanded at any other rate given the initial conditions?
If we were not here to argue the existence of the universe would it be just as miraculous?>>Ok, ok, look...........all of you are making arguments against the non-materialistic origins of our universe........and Collins wouldn't argue with you. What Collins says is that, pre-supposing that our universe with all of its perfect conditions for life had a materialistic origin, that STILL leaves a lot of proof for the existance of God.If you assume that mysterious quantum forces necessitate that a life-supporting universe is the only kind that CAN exist.......well, that's no less miraculous than if geological forces necessitated that working f-18s were the only type of geological formations that COULD exist.If you assume that an inifinity of universes exists, and that therefore a universe capable of supporting life MUST exist just like someone MUST win the lottery even though the odds against it are astronomical, that still doesn't explain why the background of the entire universe just happened to be (using the inflationary model) an inflation field. If there was no inflation field, there'd be no us. If the laws of relativity didn't happen to interact the way they do in the presence of an inflation field, there'd be no us. If there wasn't a as-of-yet-undiscovered mechanism that took the energy of the inflation field and turned it into the kind of mass energy we see in out universe, there'd be no us. Is space didn't happen to consist of exactly 10 or 11 dimensions, no more no less, there'd be no us. If there wasn't a universal attractive force like gravity, there'd be no us. If the Pauli exclusion principle and the principle of quantization didn't act in conjunction with gravity to allow for the possibility of the emergence of complex matter, there'd be no us.And none of these things are variables which exist at different levels in different universes and that can, therefore, be explained away as the inevitable product of an infinity of universes.Please, from no on, everyone be sure that they have a grasp on this hypothesis (which many of you clearly haven't) before telling me why it's full of crap. ;o)

If that was true, we'd hardly find any significance in the existence of F-18's, now would we? No more significant than the existence of stones.>>Please......if that were true, the existance of an intelligent designer would be a universally ackowledged FACT.

But that wouldn't be miraculous in the least. That would be commonplace.You only think it would be miraculous because it doesn't happen.This is seriously the worst analogy you could come up with. You're right. And we wouldn't be here to find that particularly significant. We've had a grasp on it from the beginning. What we can't seem to get you to see is why it's an intellectually bankrupt excercise. Just because you can imagine non-existent universes where the conditions won't support life doesn't mean that those universes can exist. If they can't exist, then the universe we do have isn't fine-tuned at all; it's inevitable.

And THIS is making the pre-supposition that there IS a multiverse........if there isn't (and there's no proof that there is) then clearly our universe was directly or indirectly designed.

Why? In fact, the opposite would be true - the ability of mere natural processes to give rise to complicated machines would be incontrovertable; it would be observed everywhere you look.Again, you assume what you are trying to prove - design proves intelligence to you, no matter how natural it appears, because you've already assumed that intelligence is the only source of design. That's circular reasoning.

You only think it would be miraculous because it doesn't happen.>>I think the opposite is true.........you think OUR existance is common place because it HAS happened.........

Clearly no such thing. Again with the circular reasoning - order "proves" intelligent design, no matter how natural it appears, because order is already assumed to be soley the product of intelligent design.

Let's put it like this........the odds of the forces of quantum mechanics BY COINCIDENCE pre-destining our existance are significantly worse than geological forces BY COINCIDENCE pre-destining the creation of f-18s...........and THAT'S why we don't see any geological f-18s; because the odds are against them.Therefore, the odds against us existing BY COINCIDENCE are, outside of the framework of a multiverse, much worse.......yet we DO exist. That seems to clearly say that we aren't here BY COINCIDENCE.

Again with the circular reasoning - order "proves" intelligent design, no matter how natural it appears>>Order, on a grand scale, NEVER appears natural.........which is why no ancients assumed they were here by coincidence.