Would you say that these headlines are basically what the arguement boils down to? Nothing Creates Universe, Wins Lotto, Universe is Special Or: Something Creates Universe, Uses Choice to Make Universe Special
No. That is what you and countless creationists would very much like it to boil down to, so you can engage in this loony science-by-sheer-logic rhetoric, that was so popular in the 13th century, and which you've recently grown so fond of.
Serious science is not interested in this argument, because it's outside science's sphere of competence. Science is interested in mundane material explanations of material phenomena, and has no useful, or particularly competent, opinions about additional metaphysical explanations beyond that.
And thus yer 'serious science' shows that in a world that operates by philosophy, that could not continue to operate without philosophy, it believes it is perfectly authorized to steal philosophy's show. Of course that does not extinguish philosophy, it only drives philosophy underground.
Would you say that these headlines are basically what the arguement boils down to?
Nothing Creates Universe, Wins Lotto, Universe is Special
Or:
Something Creates Universe, Uses Choice to Make Universe Special
_________________
No. That is what you and countless creationists would very much like it to boil down to, so you can engage in this loony science-by-sheer-logic rhetoric, that was so popular in the 13th century, and which you've recently grown so fond of.
Serious science is not interested in this argument, because it's outside science's sphere of competence. Science is interested in mundane material explanations of material phenomena, and has no useful, or particularly competent, opinions about additional metaphysical explanations beyond that.
____________________
Why is this "outside science's sphere of competence"? If this universe is a creation then there should be some clues to that, evidence IN this universe that either confirms or denies the hypothesis. And it seems to me that physicists have found an abundance of evidence to support the hypothesis that it is a creation. Evidence of this sort is certainly with science's sphere of influence, isn't it?
Is the multiple universe hypothesis is outside of "science's sphere of influence"?
Would you say that these headlines are basically what the arguement boils down to?
Nothing Creates Universe, Wins Lotto, Universe is Special
Or:
Something Creates Universe, Uses Choice to Make Universe Special
____________
No. That is what you and countless creationists would very much like it to boil down to, so you can engage in this loony science-by-sheer-logic rhetoric, that was so popular in the 13th century, and which you've recently grown so fond of.
Serious science is not interested in this argument, because it's outside science's sphere of competence. Science is interested in mundane material explanations of material phenomena, and has no useful, or particularly competent, opinions about additional metaphysical explanations beyond that.
_____________
But there's absolutely nothing metaphysical about this. The first headline is based on the article you linked to. The second is my belief based on the available evidence (the "something" in my headline could be a scientist in a lab somewhere outside our universe).
I think it would be a good idea if we could reduce this argument to its simplest form. So please, if you disagree with the above, could you state how you think the headline(s) should read?