Thoughts On Robin Collins and the Many Universe Generator

Primordial Egg How is that an answer to anything? With a given like god with properties that we construct to specifically answer that which we cannot or rather have not yet there is no explanation but rather a deflection of investigation.We can invoke fairies and any other creature at all and the explanation is just as valid.
This is non-explanation of the universe not an explantion.

This is pretty much a question of personal preference. The fact that our models of the behaviour of fundamental particles are probabilistic does not preclude the possiblility that the actual mechanisms underlying their behaviour are deterministic.TTFN,WK

Bingo. Faith is what you have Hangdawg, something of which I lack. I can not will myself faith, I can not compel myself faith, I can not squint my eyes and grunt and make myself have faith. I understand why you believe in God. It is essential to preserve the fabric of your existance. I on the other hand have resigned myself to believing that everything that exist is here "just cuz". Thats all the information I have. If by some chance more information comes to light I will be the first to acknowlege it. Have a great day and remember the "bird is you".

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche

This is true, but I gather from your posts that you believe that if we could somehow set up a laboratory to learn about the supernatural which this natural universe has nucleated from that we would find mathematical equations and laws and theories to describe it much like we have done with our natural universe. There is no reason to believe that in a set of ininite possibilities anything would resemble what we now know of our possibility that was realized.

Thank you for your reply. Point taken. Yep, that was basically my point. I'm glad you understand what I'm trying to say.I was also trying to defeat the argument used by atheists that the idea of anything being supernatural is as stupid as "flying pink pixie whatevers." I'm trying to show that beyond this universe where natural laws prevail must exist a whole realm of "supernatural" possibilities not the least of which includes a personal God. My personal experience greatly helps confirm what I believe, but it is not the source of my belief. I trust in the words of the prophets and the words of Christ and hold on to the faith that the supernatural realm of infinite possibility is a personal God who cares and did this for a purpose. And that is due to the logical fallacy of composition, which I now understand as well.Thanks very much for your thoughts on this.

I think you missed something I said earlier. Time and space exist within this universe. It is in this realm that cause and effect applies. If there is no set direction of time and no defined objects to act upon, there can be no rule of cause and effect.To ask "why does God exist?" is a meaningless question because there need not be a cause in a realm not governed by cause and effect. Only this universe is necessarily governed by cause and effect. Where t

I admit to not paying attention to it, otherwise I would have pointed it out as direct proof that you DID use "just cuz" as the ultimate answer.Simply phrasing it as you have doesn't change the nature of the statement.No, your argument is just special pleading which leaves the answer you prefer as the only answer you allow.

Thank you for your reply, 1.61803, and I admire your candidness in this discussion. I know how all atheists detest the Bible, but that is the information that I place my trust in.I believe before your time is up, you'll get what you need. You too

Please explain how cause and effect applies where there is no boundary of time and space in which events occur.

That is not what I saad. I said that you are making a "just cux" argument. If something exists for no reason what is that other than "just cuz" ?In fact if anyone is proposing cause and effect with "no boundary of time and space" it is you. You are the one who said that we had to trace causation beyond the natural. So the problem is all yours.

Perhaps we are at an impasse. I cannot address your point if you cannot explain it. Still, I will make one more attempt.There is a theory that describes all events, from the largest structure events down to the quantum level. From this theory, we can predict how the universe is formed and a test of it is possible, and our theory is supported. We can also predict and describe the formation of planets, and again we are proved right. The pattern continues; abiogeneisis is described and explained, evolution, weather, human development, intelligence, communication, right down the line. Our theory works each and every time on everything. We take the time to consider the development of theories in light of our own and realize that the theory complies with itself, as it must.In what way is the above circular? Remember that a circular argument is one where one of it's premises matches the conclusion. Why would "this theory exists" be an essential premise?

Hi Sidelined, I agree - its not an explanation at all - more an affirmation of a pre-existing belief. But in a multiverse where all possibilities are actualised (the "just cuz" multiverse), then the probability of something godlike in a particular Universe existing must be 1.Now the probability of God existing for this Universe is pretty small, I'd say. But it may be that we are in that Universe which does have a godlike deity running the roost over it, because the people who are in that Universe where "God" presides would likely have much the same arguments as the arguments we're having on this thread. Kind of a bastardised anthropic argument.You're quite right that this is all complete supposition, and that this equally paves the way of galactic elves and the like and I'm not sure whether there's a good argument against them existing as well. Check out this link which gives a run down of the types of multiverses* being postulated amongst some physicists. At Level IV, the entire multiverse becomes a set of abstract mathematical structures. I've no idea what that means in practice (I'm not well read enough on the concept myself, but it seems to me the upshot of a Level IV multiverse is that there's a Universe where, say, Road Runner (of 'beep beep' fame), could actually exist!!)So yes, once you open the door to the "just cuz" goblin, you unleash a torrent of unwelcome possibilities into your house, without really any way of evaluating their relative likelihoods. Sure, Ockham's razor is a handy tool, but there's no reason for believing it must always hold - its just a glorified hunch really, (which has proven extremely successful in the past). Basically its a consequence of extending the argument: "the Universe exists because it could exist", to other things which could exist.PE* the first and last time I will ever be pluralising the word 'multiverse', I hope.This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 10-14-2004 06:54 PM

Hangdawg13 Let me get this straight.If the set of infinite possibilties,like the ultimate lottery,allows each of those possibilities to have the same likelihood of being realized you say that somehow our universe {that was realized} could not have occured?Can you please clarify how such a conclusion is reached?

No, what I'm saying is that there is no guarantee that what is "outside" our natural universe behaves according to any sort of natural law as we know it. There's no reason to believe there is even such a thing as the probabilities or lottery that you speak of because probabilities are actualized in an event which requires time and space.

And I'm saying that there is no "cuz" or law of cause and effect without time and space. It is a meaningless question to ask why does God exist if he is not subject to cause and effect. He is who He is, or as He put it, "I am who I am." And I retracted my argument about the "first cause" after PE pointed out the fallacy of composition, but this led me to this new argument: that if you acknowledge cause and effect as well as all other natural laws do not apply "outside" this universe, then you've acknowledged the supernatural. You are saying God must have a cause, but you acknowledge that the laws of this universe do not apply "outside" this universe. You can't have it both ways.