[resiros]

The author makes an interesting point, if the hypothesis of multiverse is unprovable (due to lack of observations of the other universes), then it is exactly as sound as a the hypothesis of a creator who chose our universe parameters.

[drakaal]

Not even close.

Intelligent design requires another proof of the origin of a creator. Or a proof the design changed at some point. Or a visit by the guy.

Multiverse only requires a proof of Matter/Antimatter interaction. If matter can be nullified then the sum of the universe is zero and that proves that there can be infinite Zero-Sum universes.

Your statement is kind of like saying since we can't prove the center of the sun is not made of Marshmallows the hypothesis that it is is as valid as a hypothesis that it is hyper-dense hydrogen in a state of fusion.

We can't go see, so they are both equally valid.

[waps]

That's kinda weird that you say that ... suppose God would visit. He comes down, shows beyond a doubt that he created us, that he takes care of stuff, heaven and hell, the works ... Then what would we do ? Well, we'd write something down of course. Like the New Testament, for example. We'd use a bit more modern stuff, probably involving cameras, but that'd be pretty much it. Suppose he convinced you completely ... then life continues, you marry, you have kids, they grow up ...

And then one day one of your kids (or anybody who wasn't there in general) would say :

"Intelligent design requires another proof of the origin of a creator. Or a proof the design changed at some point. Or a visit by the guy."

And you wouldn't have the slightest shred of a chance of convincing them (by your standard).

Furthermore I would say that early cosmology theories pretty blatantly point to the idea that the design changed at some point. That very statement made me think of inflation, which does sort of look like it might be a deity saying "whoops, let's just quickly change this for a while". Or at least, that's about as good an explanation for what happened as any other we have (suddenly the speed of light changed by a couple dozen orders of magnitude for a few milliseconds up to a few seconds, and then slowed down again. Without that change, the universe would not have formed). It is also known that the laws of nature today are not identical to the ones in force 10 billion years ago. So there were massive changes in the laws of nature early on, then subtler changes later.

(Also a pet peeve of mine : please stop using the word "multiverse" or "universes" it's a contradiction in itself. The whole point of having a word like "universe" is that it's everything, and that means only one. If there were multiple "universe" there would still be only one. Given the size of the visible universe, the chances are pretty fucking huge that it is in fact bigger than we will ever know, assuming Einstein is right, and that of course also means that the big bang theory is a load of crock, even when "corrected" by inflation. We just don't have anything better (yet ?))

It is known that the universe is not zero-sum, and that this is normal (which means that there is in fact no natural law of conservation of energy+matter either. We already knew that conservation of matter was flawed, since nuclear power, and that conservation of energy is also not happening. Now, thanks to the LHC we know it's possible to violate conservation of matter + energy too). We currently do not know of any law of conservation that is valid "in the large", no matter how solid they appear to be on our little blue ball down here.

[drakaal]

God didn't come. New testament says he sent his son.

God supposedly walked with Noah's Grandfather, much better "biblical proof" especially since old testament has more acceptance on earth than the new testament.

Your physics sucks: Multiverse theories make two assumptions: 1. There is as much Matter as anti-matter, and thus you could nullify the entire universe. 2. Every coefficient of Gravity/Time/Magnetism/Universal force is represented in a multiverse and those verses don't interact.

The universe's size is "larger than observable but not infinite". The Universe expands at the rate of the maximum traversable speed. So even if you started towards the edge at the moment of the bang you can't ever reach the edge. That is different than infinite. But as humans we tend to say infinite for anything that is bigger than fits in our head. Just like in Algebra when you say a function approaches infinity. X divided by 0 is never actually infinite.

Your Religion Studies sucks. As pointed out "God" sent an emissary and didn't show up in both Christian and Muslim religions. Disproving the "Proof" that is the written history of God's visits on Earth is as simple as pointing out contradictions. There are 2 creation stories in the old testament, so which one is right? If Jesus was the son of God, why did he say washing your hands wouldn't prevent you from getting sick? (Mathew 15:11) Did he not know about Germs?

[waps]

Heh. Sorry for misunderstanding scripture. Not my strong point.

> The universe's size is "larger than observable but not infinite". The Universe expands at the rate of the maximum traversable speed.

Really ? 1) Then how did it get larger than observable ?

Either by being infinite in the first place, or by expanding faster than the "maximum traversable speed". Assuming Einstein is right, it's the first one. Choosing the second option requires explaining a lot of coincidences : we know through observation the edge of the universe (the point beyond which we can't detect matter) lies within ~2 million light years of the "event horizon" from the perspective of earth. Are you seriously saying that's just a coincidence ? Note the corollary, answering yes, means that the earth is the center of the universe +- 2 million light years (and if you accept somewhat more iffy measurements, you'd conclude that the center of the universe lies within our solar system and it's moving). What are the chances of that ?

2) how do you know it is finite ? Can you point to even a single measurement that makes it even just somewhat unlikely ?

> Your Religion Studies sucks. As pointed out "God" sent an emissary and didn't show up in both Christian and Muslim religions

Jee ... I truly wonder why God's son didn't stroll through muslim regions in 0 AD ... despite muslims claiming otherwise, there weren't any muslims back then. So this is not an inconsistency.

The two genesis, have you actually read how they arrive at that. They pull a single text apart (sentence 1 -> text 1, sentence 2 -> text 2), see a weird pattern (the stories make sense if you split out the sentences like that), declare them 2 separate stories and find them contradictory. First of all, this process is pretty farfetched, and if you don't split up the sentences, they still make sense (granted, there are some hard questions that have no good answers, but certainly not enough to declare them inconsistent).

Second, assuming they did originate as separate stories, this was obviously an attempt to reconcile them logically, which was the whole point I was making : Christianity attempts to be consistent, I did not claim it succeeds 100%, just that it's pretty good compared to the competition. I gave the example that islam does not claim to be consistent at all. If you talk to muslims about that, inconsistencies are, first of all, not a problem, second if you need an explanation, they're just allah's mood swings. The God of Judaism and Christianity is good, and consistently good (he does not randomly attack people unless they deserve it somehow). Allah, on the other hand, is what might be termed "generally merciful to the good", nothing more. No matter how good a muslim you are, you cannot count on allah's help for anything, they're pretty clear on that. When it comes to world religions, the islamic case is "normal" : most religions have gods that mass-murder for fun, or simply because they're angry or even just because they're bored.