Vlad,
Of course it doesn't. The external creator argument arises naturally from ideas of quotecontingency and necessity and where the explanation resides. It's completely reasonable.
Of course it isn’t. If you want to posit an “external creator” then all the same questions must apply to it as apply to an uncreated universe. Just claiming the answers to be “a mystery” or some such (ie, “it’s magic innit”) is the abnegation of reason. It’s a cop out. It’s Fletcher’s tunnel.
Looping and quantum borrowing....I'm game what have you got?
I don’t need to have anything other than plausible hypotheses. If someone wants to falsify them so as to clear the way for his faith belief (albeit erroneously), the burden of proof is all with him to show that they are not plausible.
Carroll is just reaching where Russell reached...….his barrier of enquiring....although he's less snappy than Russell but brute fact, stop all explaning, all the same.
Way to miss the point. There’s no “barrier to enquiring” (unlike “goddidit” by the way), but rather the point
in logic was that inferring there must have been intentionality
a priori for the universe to produce little old you is fallacious thinking – it’s the lottery winner’s fallacy. The universe could have produced anything or nothing. If you want to argue that there must be a god to have made the outcome you, then you also need that god to have wanted it to be you in the first place – circular reasoning 101.
Oh, and you have no idea what Russell argued ether by the way.
