Cosmological Origins: Conscious Multiverse vs. Personal Creator

I thank Apologician for accepting this unique debate. Now that my opponent has contended my argument and provided a positive argument of his own, I will address each contention and proposition in order. . ======== Clarification ======== My opponent contends that I provided an unfalsifiable, doctored definition of "Multiverse" which was "everything that exists." However, I made it clear twice what was meant by Multiverse, which in this case was multiple bubble universes. I was merely *clarifying* (not defining) that this Multiverse would replace the "Universe" as everything that exists. Under the Multiverse paradigm, nothing can exist outside of it, and I needed to make that clear. ================================ Parsimonious Multiverse, Unparsimonious Creator ================================ Definitions: Singularity Point: Big Bang singularity; an infinitesimally small, dense, singularity that is continually expanding [1] [For the sake of semantic clarity when discussing the Multiverse] Universe: Everything that exists universe: A "soap bubble" or singularity point Visual Aid: http://astroweb1.physics.ox.ac.uk... My opponent contended that the Multiverse is unparsimonious because it was multiplying entities beyond necessity. However, this is not the case. Let it be understood that (as clarified earlier), the Multiverse is now the Universe, everything that exists. The only difference is that there are *multiple singularity points* in the Universe. But it's still just ONE Universe. It would be more appropriate to think of the Universe (that I am proposing) as an ocean of singularity points, hence a Multiverse of smaller bubble universes. So let me ask you this. Are the oceans on Earth unparsimonious because there's trillions and trillions of water molecules? Are the sandy beaches unparsimonious because of the trillions of grains of sand? If the answer is no, why can't the same be true for the ocean of bubble universes? It's one ocean, one beach, and one Multiverse. There are no entities being multiplied beyond necessity, and thus rules out the possibility that it is unparsimonious. My opponent offered the proposition that a single deity that created one Universe is more parsimonious. However, I am only proposing one Multiverse, he is proposing one deity AND one Universe. Instead of allowing for the Universe to have always existed, he is *adding* beyond necessity, a deity that always existed. But as Carl Sagan pointed out, if you want to say that God always existed, why not save a step and say the Universe has always existed. (Carl Sagan also liked the idea of an "infinite number of universes," so he might also imply that the "Universe" entails an infinity of smaller ones within it. [2]) ================= Edge of Another Universe ================= The massive void of space that was discovered, was found in our own universe, however, the Multiverse doesn't require that it be entirely detached from ours. In fact, the Multiverse theory says that baby universes sprout from larger bubble universes. ================== Many Worlds Interpretation ================== My opponent seemed to have misunderstood Stephen Hawking's assertion. He stated that there's no good reason to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM among the many other equally valid interpretations. However, that's not the point that is being made. Hawking asserted that if quantum physics applies to all of reality, then the Many Worlds Interpretation is quite obviously true. It's not just selecting one out of the twenty other interpretations, it's an inevitable choice given that the premise is true, which is very likely. ========== Consciousness ========== My opponent agrees that the cosmos must be the result of a conscious cause. ===== Infinity ===== Apologician has provided us with a syllogism, also known as Kalam's Cosmological Argument. This can get confusing because it's not entirely clear if he uses the word "universe" to refer to the Big Bang singularity, or the whole of existence. I'm assuming he is referring to the Big Bang singularity, and for good reason. If he were to propose that a deity created "everything that exists," then we come to a contradiction. Because the deity would also be included in the "everything that exists" and thus he would not be independent of the creation. So we have an impossible paradox where he exists, yet he also created everything that exists. Given that by "universe," he means the Big Bang singularity, then it is a sound syllogism. However, after examination, it doesn't rule out the Multiverse. It logically proves that there must be a cause, whether it be a Multiverse or personal creator. He then presents a false analogy fallacy by comparing a mathematical infinity of coins to an eternal Universe. Coins are clearly defined objects that can be counted. A problem does indeed occur when you have an infinity of pennies where you add or subtract one, and still left with infinity. However, any attempt to numerically divide time or assign numbers to time, is entirely arbitrary. On top of that, it makes the assumption that the B-Theory (a linear past, present, future) of time is correct as opposed to A-Theory (only the present exists). My opponent is trying to make a connection that you cannot have an infinite number of events leading to the present moment, however, any attempt to define what constitutes as a separate event would also be entirely arbitrary. So, this mathematical concept of infinity only applies to clearly defined objects (in this case, coins), not reality. The Universe has always existed, yet my opponent is trying to throw numbers at it to demonstrate that a mathematical infinite can't exist. *Crucial Point: If he claims that the Universe can't exist for an eternity, then this also applies to his God who has also existed for an eternity. So if his argument were true, it would rule out both of our eternal causes. It's a lose-lose situation for my opponent, because he cannot possibly make this argument without it refuting his own proposition. >>><<< The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. First, this implies that the matter and energy of the Universe has always existed. Secondly, to propose a creator, directly violates this scientific law. If matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, how can there be a creator in the first place? (You might say that my Multiverse created our universe, however, in this case the matter and energy already existed and is merely transferring it, not creating it.) Let me also note, that if my opponent is to define God as something not subject to scientific laws, something that is outside of, or not bound by space-time, that would be a doctored definition that defines himself into winning; just as he accused me of doing with the Multiverse (which I already clarified that I did put forth a falsifiable definition.) My opponent cannot just keep adding properties and definitions to this hypothetical being, because then he could define it as "a being who exists, no matter what the case may be." Also, if this being is not bound by scientific laws, then my opponent would have to concede that his argument is unscientific, which has a hopeless chance at convincing anyone. ========================= Arguments Against a Personal Creator ========================= One of the fatal failures of theist arguments is that they don't support a theistic, personal creator. They only support a deist God, and it would be making an impossible and illogical leap to go from deism to theism. You may be able to demonstrate that there is some intelligent designer or prime cause, but you cannot demonstrate that it's a personal creator, especially one from any specific religion. I thank you all for reading. Sources: In comments section.