DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST? (cover story). By: Ellis, George F. R. Scientific American. Aug 2011, Vol. 305 Issue 2, p38-43.]

A tidy explanation! Do you get the irony of the idea that 'the landscape' of 10 500
'universes' could be a 'tidy explanation' for anything? ;-) — Wayfarer

It would be a "tidy explanation" for the comment, "I do not know" which so many people seem to dread like small pox.

We humans do tend to human-chauvinists.

We probably are about as knowledgeable about ALL of what actually exists...as cockroaches are.

If we could just grok that, the world would probably be a better place.

That is indeed the crucial question. and the answer is 'no one'. It was an immaculate conception and no one gave a fuck, and that is why Jesus was born without sin. But he was born of woman and thus also fully human. As the op well knows.

But this is the triviality of such discussions, one takes a metaphor and a psychological insight as literal and then claims that magic is impossible. Not even stupid. — unenlightened

No one should care...

...BUT...the Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Jesus. (A common mistake made by non-Catholics and sometimes by Catholics also.)

It is a Catholic bit of dogma about the birth of Mary...mother of Jesus. SHE is the Immaculate Conception.

Not listening to it right at the moment, but there is a television theme that has haunted me from the very first time I heard it. Just gonna recommend it.

Agreed!

If anything...

...science is inherently AGNOSTIC.

That is the object of science...attempting to figure out what is going on here.

By the way...I worked in New York back in the late 1970's early 1980's...and knew three people who were in transition back then...way before it became a thing.

Great, great fun people. All three were men transitioning to women.

Never has been an issue with me.

Most decent people will, Sarah.

Be tolerant, that is...not hate you for any reason.

Thank, ssu.

Now that Les Parnas's testimony is a available, Mayor Giuliani and Trump will be further exposed. — Punshhh

The Rachel Maddow interview with Parnas last night was a scorcher. Parnas was very credible and forthcoming...and a hell of a lot more likable than I expected. Not sure why his lawyers allowed him to do the interview, but I am thankful that they did.

Either Trump throws Giuliani under the bus; Giuliani throws Trump under the bus; or the are both gonna do the throwing and landing under the bus. Others who belong under the bus are Barr and Pompeo.

This is the most disgusting administration in our nation's history. I hope we survive it.

If the Senate votes to exclude witness testimony, they will be collectively betraying their oaths of office. If witnesses are allowed they will either have to ignore the evidence, therefore losing any integrity they have, or if they accept it they will have to rule against Trump.

So very true.

↪Frank Apisa
So it was racist? Ok.
— frank

That was a bit too easy. According to my research, there's a good chance it wasn't deliberately racist. You'd have to believe in intentional career suicide over it being a stupid mistake. But it's a Roseanne-type issue, we'll probably never know. — Baden

Not sure of what your "research" entailed, Baden, but of course it may have been just a silly mistake. I do not know Danny Baker...and he may be a total ass. But I think anyone looking at the picture should have realized there was a racial implication in it. To put it in one's Twitter feed...is, if not racial, incredibly stupid.

I think the public reaction "it was racial" is a lot more understandable than "it was an innocent mistake." In any case, it would not surprise me to find that Harry, not Meghan, was the one who took the bull by the horns, so to speak. I think it quite possible he relived the death of his mother at the hands of out-of-control press...and decided to see if he could get his family away from the nonsense.

We may never know. But in my opinion, Baker got what he deserved whether because he was being evil or because he was being stupid.

I guess it's possible. No? — frank

It definitely is possible, Frank.

It also is possible that I will hit our states lottery tomorrow night...and win $6 to $8 million.

What I hear you saying is that a distorted version of events was presented by this CBS segment. The issue of racism wasn't there originally. It was fabricated and retrojected for the purpose of sensational news. The reason I'm pretty open to accepting that is that I witness on this forum distorted narratives about life in America, and there doesn't appear to be any way to correct it. Any attempt to give a counter view is brushed off as denial or delusion. IOW, news outlets don't help us understand one another, and our natural tendencies don't help either, which is interesting. — frank

Tell me...do you think Danny Baker was telling the truth when he said he did not realize his picture of a couple with a chimp in a tweet about Meghan and Harry leaving the hospital with their child...would be offensive?

"Sorry my gag pic of the little fella in the posh outfit has whipped some up," Baker wrote. "Never occurred to me because, well, mind not diseased.

You did not answer the question. The question is about whether it would be erroneous to equate death to not being born. Why or why not? — Riveting One

Oops. Sorry. I actually feel your opponents position is so untenable that it seems almost as though he/she is joking.

The difference between never having been in existence and having existed and dying...is like the difference between a fictional character and someone who is (has been) alive. It is the difference between Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Button; between Mickey Mantle and Mickey Mouse; between Nancy Pelosi and Nancy Drew; between Donald Trump and Donald Duck. (Well, maybe not that last one.)

If one cannot acknowledge the difference between the pie in Simple Simon (never existed) and the pie one is biting into (soon to stop existing as a pie), the problem is not one of communication...it is a problem of obstinacy.

One of the potentially useful side effects of this issue...is the way pronouns are getting increased attention.

Pronouns can be a pain-in-the-ass in Internet discussions, where the gender of many posters is not known. The can also be a pain when speaking generally about some things...and the male pronouns dominate.

Using "they" rather than "he" or "she"...and "their" rather than "him/his" or "her/hers"...may become standard. Then all we'd have to work on is the plural "you" which we in New Jersey handle with "youse."

I'm sure we can all agree that one thing everyone shares is: At one point, we've all been children. At one point we all were infants...then toddlers...and things moved on from there to where we are at the moment.

One other thing we share is that at one point, we were not in existence.

Not sure of the significance of that to this discussion...or even IF there is any significance, but it came to mind as I read the OP.

My apologies. — Qwex

Thank you, Qwex.

I was going to say, "Don't mention it" to lighten things up a bit...but instead, allow me to extend an apology of my own for getting worked up myself. Sorry!

This religion stuff does tend to bring out the worst in each of us.

I do want to go on record as seeing "religion" being used to good advantage to many decent, moral, and intelligent people. Of course it has a superstition element to it, but...so what.

As for the indoctrination of kids...I know many skeptics, agnostics, atheists, and in-general non-believers who were indoctrinated...and worked their ways through it. I'm one. Perhaps you are also.

"Working ones way through it" is a valuable experience...and taking away an opportunity to do that (by outlawing religion in some way) may be a greater impediment to maturity than allowing the indoctrination.

You said you didn't, and at the end you wrote a statement of how you did. — Qwex

I did no such thing.

So, before I continue, does Jesus exist?

No...Jesus does not exist. If such a person existed...he is long dead.

If are actually asking if Jesus EVER EXISTED...which is what you should have been asking if you were not so wound up...

...my answer would be: How the hell would I know?

It does seem that a philosophy was born somewhere in the Middle-East during the early years of the Roman Empire...and expanded to what is now known as Christianity (or Islam). Tradition has it that it was started by a single individual, Jesus of Nazareth. That may or may not be so...and there is no goddam way I know which. In any case, whether it was or wasn't...is not particularly important t me when discussing the philosophy. (We may speak about that more if you get under control.)

For now...I have answered your question.

So where do we go from there?

And when do I get an apology (or explanation) from you for your distortion of what I said earlier?

You use the pronoun 'He' in a stupid manner. — Qwex

No I do not. I use it exactly as it is supposed to be used.

I said Jesus didn't die on the cross - he doesn't exist.

You then said ' how do you know He didn't.' — Qwex

NO I DID NOT.

If you are suggesting that I capitalized the "H" in "he" when referring to Jesus...I DID NOT.

Skipping the argument of whether or not he exists, forcing religion down my throat. — Qwex

What are you talking about???

I am not a religious person in any way.

I am what you would term an "agnostic."

You first must prove he exists, merely assuming he did is stupid.

We both know whom I am speaking of when using the name Jesus here. If I were speaking of Harry Potter, we would both know whom I am speaking of. I would NOT have to "prove" he exists in order to speak of him.

Whether Jesus was one man or a combination of thinkers is not germane to what we were discussing.

Get under control...and let's have a friendly discussion. It is an interesting topic.

Not really, the man uses a strange method of communication.

He uses the pronoun 'He', in a strange way that assumes I must know the person (He calls Jesus) - I was merely addressing that. — Qwex

WHO does?

What the fuck does 'He' mean? - Je'sus — Qwex

What the fuck does "What the fuck does 'He' mean? - Je'sus?

What were you asking there...and to whom were you addressing the question?

Yeah, of course you can change sex. I do it all the time.

Sometimes on top, sometimes on the bottom, face to face or...uhhh, the other way. Kama Sutra comes up with some dandies.

And of course there's...uhhh...uhhh...

...jeez, just occurred to me that I may have misunderstood where you were going with this.

So...never mind.

Look at it through this lens:

During his lifetime, Vincent Van Gogh sold only one painting...and at a pittance.

The last Van Gogh sold was priced at $81 million.

Maybe your works are masterpieces...but the world is not yet ready for them.

He didn't die on the cross.
— Qwex

And you KNOW that...how?

Do you KNOW it the same way Christians KNOW that there is a GOD...that Jesus was its son...and that he died on a cross?

The Bible is a whimsical tale about a sky God. — Qwex

Interesting guess, Qwex.

As I see it, the best guess that can be made about the Bible is that it is a self-serving history of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...worshiped it...and incorporated it into that Bible.

But that is just my guess.

It has so many stupid fans who like the book so much they interfere with intellectual discussion and institutions; please stop Christianity. — Qwex

Wow.

Rather judgmental.

I understand, though. I feel that way about atheists.

I agree.

It is a favourite hobby of mine to try to prove the existence of God. Because it is difficult/impossible, it makes a great pastime. — Devans99

And it could lead to world fame. Imagine the accolades for having accomplished what the finest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have failed to do. (Aside: Ya gotta be careful when that element is part of an equation. It tends to become the most important element.)

In any case, I doubt the task is "difficult/impossible." More likely, it is just IMPOSSIBLE.

My bet...there is no way to arrive at "therefore there is at least one god" using logic, reason, science, or math. Same thing holds for "therefore there are NO gods."

In fact, every indication is that one cannot get to "therefore it is MORE LIKELY that there is at least one god...than that there are none" or "therefore it is MORE LIKELY that there are no gods...than that there is at least one"...using those things.

One only arrives at those conclusions by "faith"...which is to say, a combination of a blind guess (usually referred to as a "belief")...coupled with an insistence that the blind guess is correct.)

Glad to hear it (on both counts). — Devans99

Thanks, Dev. Happy you feel that way.

Glad we have that particular thing in common.

Yes, the MSM mood was, from the start, predominantly celebratory re the relationship. In a stupid patronising way, but, whatever, they were making money. Which seems to be the primary motivation for this piece too. The second that M and H announced the step back, there was an editor somewhere saying to himself "Can we get a race angle on this?" and another "Can we do a Meghan-the-man-eater thing here?" and another "How about the spoiled-ungrateful-brat take?" Whatever sells. There are enough factoids out there to piece together a narrative convincing enough for some media target market to swallow it. Which is not to say there's not an element of truth in any of the stories, just that they're consumer products parasitising a hapless couple who are themselves parasitising the British taxpayer, and sensibly (in my view) want a break from the whole sick shitshow. — Baden

Yep.

Meghan seems like a decent person to me...Harry seems like an up-right guy. He, understandably, is remembering how the British press hounded his mother...and is deploring the bullshit coming his and Meghan's way right now.

Yeah...they both knew it would happen...but that does not make it any more tolerable...not for him or for her.

Good for them for standing up to the crap.

Lot to digest here, Jam, and I'll take some time later to chew more thoroughly.

But one thing mentioned rang a bell that I have no interest in unringing.

I have mentioned on several occasions in other fora that American Libertarianism seems to be a slippery slope to anarchy. Freedom is great...but freedom leads to demands for greater freedom...and inexorably leads to demands for license. Civilization cannot function if everyone "can do what they want." Oddly enough, freedom demands that each of us give up significant areas of personal freedom in the interest of allowing civilization and society to function.

Anarchy, in any form (supposedly rational or not), can never be allowed to prevail. Government IS the moral collective...whether predominantly religiously motivated...or as a purely secular construct.

Just wanted to get that out of the way for now.

More later or tomorrow.

That leaves me as mostly deist and you as mostly atheist. That's your right. — Devans99

It may leave you as a deist...but it most assuredly does not leave me as mostly atheist. I'd sooner become a Trump supporter than an atheist...and I would not become a Trump supporter if you held a gun to my head.

Would be interested if you could break your calculation down. — Devins

Sure...I've got a good memory for someone my age.

First flip was a tails; second was a tails; third was a tails; fourth was a heads; and the final toss was a tails.

Hope that helped.

Biased in favour of the use of probability?

Most of what we know, we know only probabilistically. It think probability is an invaluable tool. Life is not certain and most questions can only be answered with probability estimates. All questions can ultimately be answered with probability estimates. I see no reason to not address important questions like the existence of a creator. We will probably never know the answer to such questions outright; probability is the best we can hope for. — Devans99

Okay...so let's take my estimate of probability into account.

I am saying that my estimate, as scientifically derived as yours, shows a probability of an intelligent designer to be only 20%. The probability that this is not intelligently designed is 80%.

I ask again: Where does that leave us?

Is the universe life supporting by chance? That seems very unlikely. A billion to one shot maybe. — Devans99

IF this existence ALL is the result of chance...and if existence if infinite and eternal..

...a billion to one shot amounts to dead certainty.

1. 0% chance of a creator. That would be bias towards there not being a creator
2. 100% chance of a creator. That would be bias towards there being a creator
3. 50% chance of there being a creator. Unbiased. — Devans99

To suppose one can refine those percentages logically...

...totally biased.

Here is my probability estimate for 'is there a creator of the universe?':

1. Start at 50%/50% for the unknown boolean question ‘is there a creator?’
2. Time has a start. 50% probability of a creator due to this gives: 50% + 50% * 50% = 75%
3. Universe is not in equilibrium. 25% probability of a creator giving: 75% + 25% * 25% = 81%
4. Causality based arguments. 25% probability of a creator giving: 81% + 19% * 25% = 85%
5. Fine tuning. 50% probability of a creator giving: 85% + 15% * 50% = 92%
6. Big Bang. 25% probability of a creator giving: 92% + 8% * 25% = 94%

So I said above 95% chance of a creator, when I run the numbers I get 94%. Not too bad. — Devans99

Not bad at all.

Here is my probability estimate for the same proposition.

4 to 1 that there is no "creator."

I flipped Mr. Coin (the coin I use to resolve football bets) 5 times...4 times it came up tails...and I had designated "tails" to be the "no" side.

Too much trouble to refine it any further...I was not in the mood to flip it even 10 times, let alone the 100 times that would have been necessary to refine it to what you did.

I submit that my method of "calculating" the probability is every bit as scientific as yours...and probably a less biased method.

Where does that leave us?

So your estimate for the question 'Is there an intelligent creator of the universe?' is 50%. — Devans99

No.

I am not making an estimate at all. I am giving a definitive answer.

I DO NOT KNOW.

Mine is more like 95%.

I understand that. There are at least five people in the other forum where I post who feel the percentage is even higher...IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION.

They...and you...are not actually doing any calculating. You are simply stating your individual biases...your blind guesses about the REALITY.

I am entitled to my own opinion, as are you...

Absolutely. Do not think I am attempting to deny you that opinion. I respect it.

...but I suggest that the evidence available should allow you to reach a more refined probability estimate than 50% (= 'I do not know').

Okay...but in which direction???

Here is my personal take:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Change the "gods" to "intelligent creator."

What on Earth do you see wrong, illogical, or unreasonable about that?

1. So you agree infinite causal regresses are impossible? (see the argument in the OP).
2. So all causal regresses in existence must be finite causal regresses
3. That implies the existence of at least one uncaused cause.
4. To be able to cause something without being effected in anyway requires intelligence

Then we have the start of time. Do you believe that a greater than any number of finite days have elapsed? — Devans99

I do not do "believing" on these kinds of issues, Devans.

They are beyond human understanding...and any "belief" would be nothing more than a blind guess.

I'd be more than willing to flip a coin on this...if you truly see any value to it.

If no then you must agree that a start of time is required. That also requires an intelligent, uncaused cause.

Then the fact the universe is not in equilibrium means the universe cannot just be a dumb mechanical system; there must be something intelligent and permanent in the universe that is and always has kept us out of equilibrium.

Then we have the fine tuning argument in the OP.

Then we have the huge, suspicious, looking explosion that is the Big Bang.

When these arguments are taken together, one has no choice but to assign a high probability that there is in fact an intelligent creator of the universe.

Anyone truly assessing the totality of the evidence for and against the notion of an "intelligent creator of the universe" should come away with a very loud, "I DO NOT KNOW."

To suppose that one "has no choice" but to conclude one way or the other...or that is is "highly probable" one way or the other...is absurd.

That is a tough one for people like you to accept...just as it is a very tough one for the atheists in my other forum to accept.

Both you and the others like you...and those atheists that I mentioned...would do well to get over it...and accept the "I DO NOT KNOW."

This reminds me so much of a guy I used to debate over in the old New York Times forum, ABUZZ.

The guy was absolutely positive that a god exists (the god he envisioned, of course) and was determined to present an argument that could be used to support, "Therefore there is a GOD."

The problem with his argument...which is the same as the problem with yours, is that he was trying to do what Aquinas did with his first argument...an ontological argument that depends completely on begging the question.

His didn't work...Aquinas' didn't...and yours doesn't.

One cannot get to "at least one god exists" using logic, reason, math, or science. It simply cannot be done. In fact, one cannot even get to "it is more likely that at least one god exists than tahat there are none" using those means.

The strong atheists essentially try to use your argument in reverse. They fail also.

BOTTOM LINE: If you want to assert that a GOD exists...do it. Just assert it...don't try to sell it. Same thing goes for the atheists. If they want to assert there are no gods...do it. Just don't try to sell it.

Everything works out so much better that way.

Question:

Any chance we can get a P1 and P2 that gets us to"

Therefore, the universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner? — Frank Apisa

I ask my question again...because your initial premise seems like nothing more than begging the question. You are essentially starting your argument with: There is a god.

The "Resurrection" was hugely important...and apparently still is, I grant that.

But Christianity today should spend a lot more time considering what Jesus taught before the crucifixion...than the fact that he was resurrected.

The "Resurrection" supposedly confirms that he has special status. So it seems logical to suppose that paying homage to that special status should involve observing and following the dictates/suggestions/injunctions of his teachings.

The "Resurrection" should be little more than an antecedent to following his philosophy.

One of the most difficult decisions I've ever had to make is:

Is Pascal's Wager or Occum's Razor the most useless philosophical concept of all times.

Fact is, I cannot resolve it. They both qualify in spades.

I hope I get some insights into the issue here that can help me.

You?

Wow...still at this kind of thing, Devans.

Okay...I admire your tenacity.

Question:

Any chance we can get a P1 and P2 that gets us to"

Therefore, the universe is fine tuned for life so there must be a fine tuner?

I cannot see how you got there.