Neither can the theory of parallel universes be tested as an hypothesis, yet it is presented as fact in magazines like the New Scientist. Neither can Mickery's contention in this thread that life may have made millions of unsuccessful attempts at creating itself (meaning it is not a miracle).
So they are both dogma, not science.
Therefore the theory of parallel universes does not explain away the extreme fine-tuning of the universe which makes life possible; neither can the fact that life itself is an inexplicable miracle be explained away.
Respectfully, if you criticize others for not adhering to factual, testable hypothesis, I expect you to adhere to it yourself. I enjoy philosophical discussion of all kinds, but will not respond to posts like this.
I'll address this part though, since I already started.
... extreme fine-tuning of the universe... life itself is an inexplicable miracle...
1)
Not fine-tuned. Life, thus far, consists of a tiny variety of tiny animals on a tiny rock, unable to move from their tiny habitat. Universal support for life is effectively zero.
2)
Life is more than just us. Does life require water? Air? Carbon? A fine-tuned Universe is conceptually based on what broadly amounts to a single example.
3)
This is the only formation of Universe. What if the current strength of gravity is the
only strength of gravity and no matter how many Universes existed, gravity was always the same because that's just what gravity is?
4)
Every observable Universe supports life. If a Universe could not contain life, we would never know because we would be unable to experience it. Therefore, to any third party, the result will
always be Yes.
5)
The Universe is actually extremely likely. If this is the only Universe, and it supports life, then the chances of a Universe supporting life are 100%.
6)
Just kidding, the odds are actually unknown. It is impossible to calculate the likelihood of any circumstance without knowing the context within which it occurs. My horse is entering a race, what are the chances of it winning?
So you’re saying that if the other universes can’t support life they’re totally purposeless and considered a failure? How could you be sure that they aren’t created for other purposes like maybe supporting some other kind of energetic form of life maybe the life after death(I’m not saying this is true just a guess) or maybe having a major role in the equilibrium and dynamic balance of the universes? There could be many other possibilities.
Sure, why not! I wouldn't presume to know what's going on out there and the reason behind it, if any.
As you said an accident surely can happen in a single successful event out of trillions of times but taking a good look at everything around, it is noticeable that there is far more than only one successful event.
It depends how you quantify the creation of life. My preference is that, say, a cell mutation that creates something new is the event and then all future replications are just that, copies of the original manifestation. It does not deny the existence of God to believe that He started the Big Bang and that the Universe arose naturally from a single supernatural jump-start.
But it is just a preference, I appreciate there are valid arguments to the contrary.
From what I’ve seen, everything has a reason behind its creation some we know of and some we don’t.
How does one define the reason of God (or anybody else) other than by a reason of your own?
