there are retarded bastardizations of them that are super prominent

1. and 4. do not seem controversial to me.

I might need to explain 2. and 3.. I just made them on the spot. The argument can probably be refined to at least ten premises.

all these fine tuning arguments are not valid proofs of god

in an infinitely vast multiverse the anthropic principle ensures we will only exist in areas that are finely tuned

Well, I am just arguing that whatever fine-tuned is the world is what we call God and not arguing for any feature other than he is out-side of the universe.

we already know from inflationary cosmology there are infinitely expanding universes, and each universe can have different natural laws/forces as the higgs breaks the electroweak symmetry in different ways

I do not think the multiverse response is a strong response.

why?

you don't think the universe is vast?

1. Well, there would need to be a mechanism making the multiverse. I could just say that is God.

the fact that we're alone in the universe is actually evidence in favor of anthropic principle

2. Do we have proof there is a multiverse?

yes we do

there are at least 4 different levels of multiverse

3. It is not likely that we are in the few universes that we live in the fine-tuned universe. (I can explain further.)

1. Well, there would need to be a mechanism making the multiverse. I could just say that is God.
2. Do we have proof there is a multiverse?
3. It is not likely that we are in the few universes that we live in the fine-tuned universe. (I can explain further.)

Here are my objections. I am very new to Christianity and especially apologetics.

Can we handle these one by one?

I think point 2. would be a good start.

i would call anything outside out observable universe a multiverse since we can never interact with it

there are supposedly good theoretical arguments for a multiverse. as for 3, you'd only find yourself in one of the universes that could support life

this is the anthropic principle

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cmYATfYjwI

Let's start with 2.. Can you prove or put evidence forward for the mutliverse?

forget about fine tuning, thomism is where it's at

so... A. first level of multiverse is any part of our unvierse expanding away from us faster than light. B. next level is inflationary bubbles which current theory suggests are expanding exponentially. C. there's quantum superposition multiverse levels

(Would like to do this more often. Already having fun.)

nick the knife

Well, what evidence for this conclusion is there?

you should read up on inflationary cosmology

Got ya, I will put that on my list of stuff to read.

A. looks interesting.

if you consider the possibility of inflation's role in the big bang its almost inevitable we're part of an infinitely vast multiverse

But this is a theory, so all of these are evidence, not proof, as it does not guarantee the premise it seems.

But I am willing to make the assumption the multiverse exists.

saved picture

1. Well, there would need to be a mechanism making the multiverse. I could just say that is God.
3. It is not likely that we are in the few universes that we live in the fine-tuned universe. (I can explain further.)

How do you respond to these?

so if the universe exists, 99.99999999% of it could be barren seas of particles that can't interact well enough to form stable chemistry and galaxies

but there only needs to exist one pocket in the vast sea of probabililties that is hospitable to life

Well, that does not disprove God.