Argumentum ad William Lane Craigium

[Outrider]

Sorry O you've been caught fine tuning not only your suggested infinite universes but also the questions you are prepared to accept as valid...and all to suit your argument.

Really? You keep positing things for which there's no evidence - why would I include such things in my argument? That's not fine tuning, it's proceding from the specific to the general rather than from the specific to magic.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really? You keep positing things for which there's no evidence -

And there is evidence of an infinite chain of material universes which all operate under the same laws of physics as found in this one?

You keep positing universes which are fine tuned to suit philosophical materialism. That presupposes God is a philosophical materialist

[Outrider]

And there is evidence of an infinite chain of material universes which all operate under the same laws of physics as found in this one?

Yes there is, it's the fact that cause and effect is universal within the universe, and there's no reliable accounts of other systems, so it's a reasonable presumption that cause and effect continues. As was, quite openly, previously stated.

You keep positing universes which are fine tuned to suit philosophical materialism. That presupposes God is a philosophical materialist

No, I keep proceeding from a materialist viewpoint because no case has been made for anything else. If you want to consider non-material influences you just need to justify the idea of non-material influences - any methodology will do.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes there is, it's the fact that cause and effect is universal within the universe, and there's no reliable accounts of other systems,

However the big downer on that is that the universe came about ''with time'' rather than ''In time''.

[Outrider]

However the big downer on that is that the universe came about ''with time'' rather than ''In time''.

I fail to see why that's a 'big downer', given that I've made no explicit claims about the mechanisms of extra-universal physics. I've said that anything without a corollary of time would make it extremely difficult to conceptualise, but that doesn't make it impossible to exist.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I fail to see why that's a 'big downer',

It is a big downer if you are proposing an infinite temporal regression. Since apparently you only have 13.7 billion years to fit it into.

[Outrider]

It is a big downer if you are proposing an infinite temporal regression. Since apparently you only have 13.7 billion years to fit it into.

If I'd said eternal you might have a point. I didn't specify what dimension or dimensions it might be infinite in - to think that material outside of the universe would be somehow limited by an emergent property within the universe makes even less sense than you usually do.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If I'd said eternal you might have a point. I didn't specify what dimension or dimensions it might be infinite in - to think that material outside of the universe would be somehow limited by an emergent property within the universe makes even less sense than you usually do.

O.

So you do not see cause and effect as a temporal affair then?
How come you are insisting on a slowly developed intelligence and discounting instantaneous intelligence?

[Outrider]

So you do not see cause and effect as a temporal affair then?

It has to occur during transit of a dimension, I don't see that dimension as having to be what we think of as time.

How come you are insisting on a slowly developed intelligence and discounting instantaneous intelligence?

I'm not, I said that a complex spontaneous intelligence was highly unlikely. It will, in an infinite reality, occur an infinite number of times, interspersed with an infinite number more gradual intelligences and an infinite number of places where intelligence never arises.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes there is, it's the fact that cause and effect is universal within the universe, and there's no reliable accounts of other systems, so it's a reasonable presumption that cause and effect continues. As was, quite openly, previously stated.

No, I keep proceeding from a materialist viewpoint because no case has been made for anything else. If you want to consider non-material influences you just need to justify the idea of non-material influences - any methodology will do.

O.

Outrider

You are horribly confused.

You seem to be suggesting that unfalsified means falsified while at the same time suggesting a whole host of unfalsiables.....infinite universes, timeless material, multiverse, materialism.......which somehow the present existence of material validates....it doesn't.

[Outrider]

You are horribly confused.

You seem to be suggesting that unfalsified means falsified while at the same time suggesting a whole host of unfalsiables.....infinite universes, timeless material, multiverse, materialism.......which somehow the present existence of material validates....it doesn't.

No, you're horribly confused, which is a shame, because I don't know if I can explain it any more simply. I suspect, of course, that the nature of the explanation isn't the problem, you're just throwing out arguments to try to hold on to a reason why there simply has to be a god, even if that god is a god of gaps.

It really, really doesn't matter how wrong I might be, of course, none of this idea possibly being wrong means God. If you want to justify that, you need a methodology of your own, and we still haven't even seen a pretense of a conceptualisation of one of those.

O.