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.

and any life that evolves will find itself in such a hospitable area and think, wow this is fine tuned

There are quite a few different probable solutions to the fermi paradox

how can i prove a negative

i'm saying there's no evidence of god's existence

sure god could exist and just decide to leave zero evidence

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.)

Well, you would just have to disprove my thought experiments as they are "evidence".

If you can disprove these, we go back to square one.

Which I would return to the agnostic position.

1. that is an overly simplistic view of time and causality, that holds in classical physics but not quantum. time is summetrical, would you argue god must exist to destroy the universe? does the universe have a fixed end point?

if it doesnt need to have a fixed end it doesnt need a fixed beginning

the existence of god is still recursive, what created god? i could say that same process created our universe

So you are sayings that in quantum mechanism, in theory, somethings do not require a beginning?

yes

I am actually more inclined to empirical data then metaphysical.

I need to read into space-time science.

why do you assume nothingness or non existence is the default state and creation requires agency

maybe randomness and chaos is the default state, but islands of order and stability can evolve in a sea of chaos

particularly when symmetry breaking is involved

Well, I just assume what the Bible tells me. The universe was kinda there. And God was kinda there. And we just theorize.

I would assume if God is a maximally great-being, he MAY have preexisted the universe.

so what created god