“It’s atheists’ little slide of hand to avoid admitting that the number of coincidences necessary for our universe to support life is so incredibly vast as to require there to have been an intelligent designer (God).”
That is what is called a binary form of argument—”Either Alternative A or Alternative B must be true”.
There are always other alternatives. The fact that we do not know of them, in fact can’t even imagine them, is our shortcoming, not a shortcoming of nature.
They don't believe in higher powers!
>> That is what is called a binary form of argument—”Either Alternative A or Alternative B must be true”. <<
>> There are always other alternatives. The fact that we do not know of them, in fact can’t even imagine them, is our shortcoming, not a shortcoming of nature. <<
Weeellll, not exactly. I’m not claiming that it tells us anything about the nature of God. But the infinite-universes theory is the atheist’s way of dodging the principle of first cause.
The next defense for the atheists, if they can’t assert an infinite number of parallel universes, I suppose, is to assert an infinite number of sequential universes. But that takes asserting the universe ends with a Big Crush, which is looking pretty baseless. It also means either you have to demonstrate that the physical laws and constants of these universes are somehow different from each other, or else you just have the very same highly improbably universe coming in and out of existence over and over again.
“There are always other alternatives.”
How do you know that?