Reply #24: What-EVER!

[Stunster]

We are not the purpose of the universe.

That, actually, is the question at issue! LOL!

You are presupposing that the universe is purposeless. The argument is that it doesn't look as if it's purposeless, and that to avoid the inference that it is purposeful, one would have to construct the speculative multiverse hypothesis, which is exactly what Rees & Co. have proceeded to do , because they understand the science of the universe and see the difficulty for the anti-teleological viewpoint thrown up by the actual details of the physics of our universe, in particular its apparent fine-tuning.

(Even your string physics fellow, Brian Greene, sees this and talks about it: "In light of the of the sensitive dependence of life on the details of physics...." (THE ELEGANT UNIVERSE, p. 367). Greene of course, opposes the Multiverse. His preferred answer is that there is one logically possible physics. That's the whole thrust of his book, for pete's sake.)

But the argument being discussed is that there are reasons why it's more reasonable to posit purpose than to posit a quasi-infinity of purposeless universes. Ontological economy for one, and analogy to something we know (our own purposive minds) for another, and the fact that many, many people have religious experiences that dovetail quite nicely with the hypothesis of a divine conscious mind being the purposive creator of the universe, for a third.

I mean, I really don't get why, when you don't even grasp the argument, you think that you can easily refute it. You don't refute it. You simply, systematically, beg the question, as per the above quote!

Sheesh, and have a nice day! Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got to go to work.