Cosmological Origins: Conscious Multiverse vs. Personal Creator

======= Parsimony ======= My opponent contends my parsimony argument by stating that Occam's Razor would eliminate multiple universes and instead favor just one. This is a gross misunderstanding of its definition and application. Occam's Razor doesn't eliminate all propositions and variables, it eliminates all EXCESSIVE EXPLANATIONS, not simply the quantity of an outcome. If a Multiverse is found to be probable, Occam's Razor does not counter that by saying there are too many universes. That would be absurd. My opponent manipulated the definition of Occam's Razor by stating "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity" and used that to assign "universes" as the unnecessary "entities." The problem is that theses entities, referred to by Occam's Razor, are explanatory or causal, not consequential. He left out an important detail which you can see here in this definition from Dictionary.com: "The maxim that *assumptions introduced to explain a thing* must not be multiplied beyond necessity." The Multiverse itself is the ONE explanation for our universe, not the multiple neighboring universes. All of these other universes share the same explanation, and only one explanation. According to one source: "Misconception: Occam's Razor rules against a plethora of unobservable universes – Occam would prefer just one universe; i.e. any non-MWI interpretation. MWI response: Occam's razor actually is a constraint on the complexity of physical theory, not on the number of universes. MWI is a simpler theory since it has fewer postulates." [1] My opponent contends that I posit a multitude of universes within a Universe, whereas he just posits one universe and one deity. Problem: He posits an extra explanation for the existence of the Universe, I posit that the Universe (Multiverse) just exists with no explanation. He asserts a deity as if it is more parsimonious. But here's the nuance; this deity is a much more complex, excessive explanation than the Multiverse. Our universe exists, so we already know how it's possible for others to exist. This deity however, is highly unlikely, and causes too many scientific problems to arise. This is a deity that exists outside the universe which implies that he lives in some other realm, transcendent of space-time where ordinary scientific laws don't apply. And on top of that, this is a personal deity who can listen to 6 billion people's prayers, who can intervene in our world and brings with it, a whole set of unanswerable, superfluous problems. This is just pushing the problem back further: what and where is this realm outside of space-time, void of scientific laws that he apparently exists in. Clearly, this deity is extremely unparsimonious, improbable, and outright absurd. ================ Edge of Another Universe ================ My opponent contends that this massive void of space doesn't favor a Multiverse or a single universe. However, the physics professor clarified that "standard cosmology cannot explain such a giant cosmic hole" and the article I sourced further elaborated that "a hole this size was essentially impossible to explain under the constraints of current scientific theory." [2] This is partly why she concluded that it is the "unmistakable imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own." So at the current moment, this discovery is leaning towards multiple universes. ============ MW Interpretation ============ Apologician asks that I explain why MWI is inevitable (suggested by Hawking) given the premise that QM applies to all of reality. First let me note that there are four "phases" of the Multiverse theory, which are all compatible with each other. Phase I is the proposition of multiple Hubble Spheres, or as I called them, singularity points. Phase III is the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics which holds that there are *parallel* universes. In quantum mechanics, "certain observations cannot be predicted absolutely. Instead, there is a range of possible observations each with a different probability. According to the MWI, each of these possible observations correspond to a different universe." [3] This means that if QM applies to reality, where every possibility exists, MWI is inevitably true. ===================== Kalam's Cosmological Argument ===================== My opponent argues that the KCA does argue for a personal God over a deist God, yet he provided no good reason behind this assertion. {*Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused.*} This is a non-sequitur. I understand that we are assuming the premise that nothing existed before the creation of the universe, but this does not lead us to conclude that the initial cause is a personal creator. Let me make this clear; "personal God' means the God of the monotheistic religions. If my opponent denies that, then he concedes that this God, or first cause, is the deist God (non-religious, non-intervening, and acts only as the creator.) =========== Infinity and Time =========== {*Regarding the issue of what constitutes an event and how things can be unarbitrarily divided, I see no problem here at all. Though we cannot specify an exact division, we simply specify an arbitrary division point for the sake of clarity.*} The core of my opponent's argument against infinity is that there cannot be an infinity of events leading to this current moment. First of all, he agrees with A-Theory which says that past events don't even exist. Second of all, he concedes that you cannot unarbitrarily divide past events. If you cannot empirically define separate events, the problem of infinity is null. There are no separate events until we arbitrarily define them, bottom line. Sidenote: My opponent says KCA assumes the A-Theory over B-Theory, but this is not the case. KCA requires that the universe had a beginning, a moment of creation. This moment of creation was a past event which was the beginning of a linear timeline implied by B-Theory. A-Theory holds that only the present exists and that no such beginning of time (past event) could have occurred. The present exists infinitely. =========================== God and the First Law of Thermodynamics =========================== Apologician states that he is defending the traditional concept of God. He didn't really specify, but I will assume that he means that this God exists outside the universe, outside of space-time, and is not bound by scientific laws. I don't have a problem with this definition (except the last bit), however it is a self-defeating one. It concedes that this being is beyond all scientific inquiry. I argued that my opponent can't claim this being isn't subjected to scientific laws and he responded that they are descriptive, not prescriptive. This is not true. The Universe has indicated to us that these laws do dictate everything in reality, and we just put names to them. So the laws aren't descriptive, they are prescriptive and we just give them descriptive names for identification purposes. So my opponent is wrong, the first law of thermodynamics (matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed) does dictate that the Universe must have existed forever, and that a creator is not possible. And if he wants to claim that he is not subject to these laws, again, I object to this definition for it is an unfalsifiable, untestable claim. ======= Conclusion ======= In conclusion, my opponent has yet to provide for a personal creator, only a deist God. He tried to argue that this deity has intentions, thus making him personal. But this does not constitute as a personal, monotheistic God, only a deist one. Even the deist God had to have intentions to create the Universe. He has ultimately failed to show that the first cause was a personal creator, or even a deist creator, over a conscious Multiverse. Sources: Comments.