Ruminations on multiverses; Another view (Introduction)

by dhw, Wednesday, September 07, 2016, 12:51 (2782 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: It all depends on how you view 'chance' and the odds involved. The atheists have had to invent a multiverse to get rid of my fine tuning arguments. Invention is the sign of a weak argument.-dhw: And because you cannot accept invention by chance, you invent an eternal, immaterial, sourceless mind. But you cannot see that both sets of inventions are based on the same set of facts, while both sets of conclusions are what you have dismissed as “theoretical imagination”.-DAVID: When I point out to you only the two possibilities of chance and design exist, you sit on your fence, say both are impossible, and continue to sit. Both are unreasonable? You are the perfect agnostic.-No, no, no, I don't say both are impossible. I say that I find both inventions equally difficult to believe, since I can see no evidence for either. That is why, as you have agreed over and over again, belief requires faith.-David's comment (under “Respiratory mitochondrial form”): As techniques of resolution improve the complexity will only become more obvious and the odds of chance dwindle to nothingness. The research road ahead is clear, more and more complexity: chance has no chance of being the correct solution to the question of why is there life.-This is a major reason for my inability to believe in chance. However, we are looking at developments that have been perfected over thousands of millions of years by organisms which may be intelligent enough to invent them. That is why the concept of the intelligent cell is so important. Even if there is a God, there is no need to have him painstakingly working out every single detail of every single complexity for every single organism if you grant that he might have given organisms the means to work it all out for themselves.