Cosmological Origins: Conscious Multiverse vs. Personal Creator

======= Parsimony ======= Here is an illustration that compares our propositions: http://i46.tinypic.com... Occam's Razor is still being misused by my opponent. He is using it to shave away any and all numbers greater than 1. He might as well just come out and say the number 1 is simpler than the number 5 simply because it's a smaller number. Occam's Razor doesn't work like that. IMPORTANT! *It shaves away all excessive postulates, causes, and explanations, NOT the sheer quantity involved in a theory or proposition.* IMPORTANT! There's a difference between qualitative and quantitative excess, yet my opponent fails to realize this important point. "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] According to cosmologist PhD Max Tegmark (Berkeley and MIT): "A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel verses by default. To deny the existence of those verses, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words." [2] From the same source: "Thus, according to Tegmark, paradoxically the multiverse scenario is more parsimonious than that of a single verse. David Lewis, however, draws a distinction between qualitative and quantitative excess. Postulating extra universe just like our own does not increase the number of kinds of things there are, and thus is only quantitative excess." [2] {*Such a deity would be immaterial, having no physical parts. It would thus make no sense to ask "where" this realm is, since there is no spatial dimensions to this real. Just exactly how is it absurd?*} Beyond absurd. My opponent asserts: 1. Personal, immaterial entity with no physical parts. - This makes no sense and fails to explain anything, let alone the origins of our Universe. An immaterial entity with no physical parts is an entirely unscientific assertion and one that a human mind can't even comprehend. Sounds like a complicated, unnecessary, excessive entity. 2. This deity exists in a realm with no spatial dimensions. - None of this makes sense scientifically or mathematically. All of this takes Occam's Razor, snaps it in half, and throws it in the garbage. Let me point out that my opponent is asserting an unknown, unparsimonious, superfluous explanation by introducing a being that has yet be known to exist. I am asserting multiple universes which poses no problem at all given that we already know that at least one exists. Just like the water molecules. If it is known that at least one water molecule exists, why can't there be others? In fact, it would be absurd if only one did exist. ================ Edge of Another Universe ================ My opponent claims that Mersini-Houghton's conclusion relies on string theory, but that's not the case. We have actually observed what is likely the edge of another universe. My opponent also attacks string theory saying that it hasn't been fully formulated yet, however this is not true. Michio Kaku, co-founder of string field theory, has said that the math checks out, it's just that these strings haven't been observed yet. ============ MW Interpretation ============ Apologician proclaims that there is no good reason to accept the MW interpretation over the other quantum theories, however, I have evidence to the contrary. "To deny the existence of those verses, one needs to complicate the [quantum] theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates" - Max Tegmark (cosmologist) [2] ==================== Kalam Cosmological Argument ==================== Con claims that he provided good reasons as to why the cause was personal. He argues that the first cause was a being that freely willed to create the universe and therefore personal. Again, let me remind the readers the difference between Deism and Theism. The Deist God is impersonal, the Theist God is personal. A personal God is a God of the monotheistic religions. Critical Point: If he denies that this God is a religious deity, then he concedes that it's a Deistic God, not a Theistic, personal one. Personal God = Religious God. Impersonal God = Deist God. {*Pro argues that by personal, I must demonstrate the existence of a God who intervenes within creation.*} I never claimed that. I was alluding to the personal God as a being who also happens to intervene. {*But that is clearly not what the debate is over, it was over _cosmological origins_. It is thus sufficient for me to show that the cause of the universe must have been personal (in that it freely chose in the lack of determining conditions)*} Either A. This deity is a religious deity or B. This deity is a deistic one. =========== Infinity and Time =========== Con says that because we can assign arbitrary divisions or events, therefore the divisions and events exist. This is false. He is making a bare assertion that separate events exist, even though we can't clearly define them. He admits that we arbitrarily divide events and says that I'm commiting a fallacy of the beard. This is making the huge assumption that separate events actually exist. I say until we can empiracally and precisely define separate events with a proven scientific method, then these so-called separate events don't exist. Therefore, at this current moment, an eternal Universe is valid. The mathematical problem of infinity does not apply the existence of the Universe because it is not necessary to assign numbers to it. ================= God and Thermodynamics ================= This specific argument between me and my opponent is based on the properties of the proposed being. He defines this being as one who is not bound by scientific laws, I contend that his definitions are unfalsifiable. He claims it's the traditional concept of God, well if that's the case, it's an unfalsifiable one. ============ The Smoking Gun ============ "No new hypothesis is needed to consider multiple universes. In fact, it takes an added hypothesis to rule them out-- a super law of nature that says only one universe can exist. But we know of no such law, so we would violate Occam's razor to insist on only one universe." - Astrophysicist Victor Stenger [3] ======== Conclusion ======== In conclusion, my opponent's core argument fails: Kalam's Cosmological Argument. It assumes that the Universe had a beginning (which I refuted) and based on that assumption, it still only argues for a Deist God and nothing more. My opponent keeps trying to define a personal God as merely one that had freely willed to cause the Universe. But if this deity is not a religious, intervening God who answers prayers, then it is merely a Deist God. Thank you for reading. Sources: [1] http://www.answers.com... [2] http://www.wikinfo.org... [3] http://skeptico.blogs.com...