Comments on: “Making Space for Time” – Is cosmic order evidence for ID?

By: ari-freedom

ari-freedom — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 01:27:14 +0000

Assuming a multiverse will mark the end of empirical science as we know it. We will never be able to conclude if a particular observation confirms a hypothesis or is just a coincidence expected as a result of all the zillions of other universes.

In other words, not only is the concept of a multiverse unfalsifiable but it makes everything else unfalsifiable.

By: country6925

country6925 — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 17:19:16 +0000

The problem is, many people don’t realize just how hard Mainstream Science is embracing Goldilocks and the White Rabbit. That’s where education comes in. As the education level on these subjects goes up, so does the skepticism.

By: allanius

allanius — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:56:15 +0000

Understand, the fact of fine tuning means that there are only two realistic choices: multiverses or design. Scientific materialism must revert to Goldilocks in order to save itself. But by embracing Goldilocks, it exposes itself as a fairy tale, losing both its credibility and the stranglehold it has enjoyed over the popular imagination for over a century.

By: DLH

DLH — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 16:02:48 +0000

J
Excellent quote from that iconic skeptic – and founder of the new atheistic cosmological order.

By: j

Sat, 29 Dec 2007 11:31:14 +0000

Carl Sagan, the late David Duncan Professor of Astronomy and Space Studies at Cornell University, in The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996):

In the course of their training, scientists are equipped with a baloney detection kit… What’s in the kit? Tools for skeptical thinking…
…
[9] Always ask whether the hypothesis can be, at least in principle, falsified. Propositions that are untestable, unfalsifiable are not worth much. Consider the grand idea that our Universe and everything in it is just an elementary particle — an electron say — in a much bigger Cosmos. But if we can never acquire information from outside our Universe, is not the idea incapable of disproof? You must be able to check assertions out. Inveterate skeptics must be given the chance to follow your reasoning, to duplicate your experiments and see if they get the same result.

By: landru

landru — Sat, 29 Dec 2007 01:10:32 +0000

The multiverse thing is as bad as the most inaccurate caricature that the materialists make of ID.

Goddunnit == universe-generating machine dunnit

By: DLH

DLH — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:52:36 +0000

JDH As far as I understand it, there is no evidence for it, and such universes cannot be detected. The primary reason to discuss multiverse appears to be to avoid the natural inference of Intelligent Design cause by the astronomically remote probabilities of such evidence occurring by chance. Craig Rusbult, Ph.D. provides some discussion of the issues of ID vs Multiverse in: THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE, COSMOLOGY and THEOLOGY, and three explanations for a fine-tuned world that is "just right" for life. Is the fine tuning due to INTELLIGENT DESIGN and/or A MULTIVERSE?" For the conventional perspectives, see "Criticisms of Multiverse Theories" under Multiverse For philosophical issues involved see: Multiverse at PhiloWiki

By: JDH

JDH — Fri, 28 Dec 2007 23:26:14 +0000

Could someone please tell me how the multiverse theory is falsifiable?

If not why are all these high power scientists gathering to discuss a supposedly “non-scientific” theory?