Cosmological Origins: Conscious Multiverse vs. Personal Creator

My thanks to GeoLaureate8 for engaging me in this debate. My strategy in this debate will be two pronged. I will (1) present several arguments against my opponent's position, and (2) I will present one positive argument of my own in favor of my position. Definitions: by God, I simply mean a monotheistic personal creator. An Evaluation of Con's arguments Let me begin by pointing out what I see to be a grave mistake in Con's definition of multiverse. He defines the multiverse as "everything that exists." But this definition is too general, for Con basically defines himself into winning. If the multiverse is simply "everything that exists," then even if I disprove the existence of universes other than ours, Con's theory still holds, since his definition is so broad as to escape falsification in principle. This definition is doctored, and not how cosmologists define multiverse. Hence, I propose this definition instead: "[T]he hypothesis that there are many universes or regions of space-time in which the constants and initial conditions of the universe, and in some versions the laws themselves, vary from universe to universe." [1] Now that we have that cleared up, Con argues that a multiverse is implied through standard big bang cosmology. On his view, our universe is simply one among others. Unfortunately, he fails to specify why this must be the case. Certainly, a multiverse is compatible with standard big bang cosmology, but why should we prefer this explanation over, say, a single universe? Con simply asserts that a multiverse is the best explanation without telling us why. I propose a more parsimonious alternative, one that does not violate Ockham's razor by multiplying entities beyong necessity: A single deity created one universe. Now, supposing I did grant that our universe exists within a void, that there exists other universes alongside it simply does not follow. Con argues that this begs the question, but I cannot see where. Con then argues that a whole set of numbers is more parsimonious then simply one, but what is this even supposed to mean? This also seems to be an improper application of Ockham's razor. If one number exists, then it logically entails that the entire set of numbers must exist (Since a number is what it is by virtue of its place on the number line). [2] But this has no bearing on whether or not a multiverse exists. Numbers and universes are two fundamentally different things. Simply because the entire set of natural numbers must exist does not at all imply that there must be multiverses to boot. This seems to be a non-sequitur. 1. The massive void of space -From reading Con's own source, this void was discovered within our own universe. But simply because cosmologists have discovered a massive void of space in our own universe does not at all imply that there must exist more than one universe. 2. Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum mechanics -There is no good reason to accept the Many Worlds Interpretation of QM. Indeed, it is one among more than twenty different interpretations, all of which are empirically equivalent. Additionally, the MW interpretation violates Ockham's razor by multiplying entities beyond necessity. As such, there is no good reason to accept it, especially when there are more than twenty other empirically equivalent interpretations. 3. Textual argument -As Con has pointed out, it is indeed weak evidence. In response, I can just simply point to absolute creation as found in early Jewish, Christian, and Muslim writings. But neither is rendered more plausible simply by being mentioned in ancient texts. A Personal Multiverse? Even if I were to grant the existence of the multiverse, I see no reason to think that it must be conscious. Why must it be conscious? Con responds that because there exist conscious and rational beings, who cannot have been the product of a non-rational and non-conscious multiverse. I happen to agree with Con on this point, but unlike Con, I see no reason to suppose that the multiverse must be the conscious and rational cause. Instead, it would make more sense to suppose that the rational and conscious cause is God, a personal agent. It seems bizarre to attribute this property to the multiverse. By all appearances, nature is amoral, arational, and unconscious. There is simply no good reason to think that this cause must be the multiverse, instead of God. Thus, it makes more sense to suppose that it was God who endowed creatures with reason and consciousness, and who authored the laws of nature. ____________ I will now defend a positive argument in favor of my position. I will be defending three major premises: 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause 2. The universe began to exist 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause Premise one is uncontroversial, and I will focus my criticism on premise two, which seems to be the one which Con will attack. Approaching the second premise from a philosophical perspective, the universe must have begun to exist because if it were eternal, then its past duration would be actually infinite. However, since actual infinities are impossible, it follows that the past duration of the universe must be finite. [3] DEFINITIONS: Potential infinities -sets that are constantly increasing toward infinity as a limit, but never attain infinite status. A more accurate description would be to say that their members are indefinite. Actual infinite - a set x that contains a subset x' that is equivalent to x. [4] Suppose that there exists a coin collector who owns an infinite number of rare coins. Being a generous person, he one day decides to donate his entire collection to a museum. One way he could do this is to simply give the museum his entire collection of coins. This way, the collector is left with no coins to himself while the museum is left with an infinite amount of coins. Another way is for the collector to give the museum every odd numbered coin in his collection. Using this method, both the collector and the museum end up with an infinite number of coins. The collector is left with the same amount of coins as he started with. Yet another way is for the collector to give the museum every coin in his collection except the first seven. Here, the museum is left with an infinite number of coins while the collector is left with seven. In fact, using the last method, one could yield an infinite number of answers. But how can any of this be? Though each method starts off with the same amount of coins, they all yield different answers to the same equation. In the first example, infinity minus infinity equals zero. In the second example, infinity minus infinity equals infinity. Finally, in the third example, infinity minus infinity equals seven. What these contradictory answers demonstrate is that an actually infinite number of things cannot exist, as they entail contradictions. Instead, the notion of an actually infinite set is purely conceptual and has no relation to reality. It should be noted here that while one is able to work with actual infinities in set theory and calculus, they cannot exist in reality. Strictly speaking, actual infinities are not not logically contradictory, but their existence in reality is metaphysically impossible (unactualizable). From this it follows that the universe began to exist. It must be noted that since there is nothing prior to the cause of the universe, it cannot be explained scientifically, as this would imply the existence of antecedent determining conditions. Hence, because there are no prior determining conditions, the cause of the universe must be personal and uncaused. It seems that the only way this could be possible is if the cause was a free agent who has the ability to effect a change; for if the cause of the universe was impersonal, then it would not have created. SOURCES: See comments