Joined: Sep. 2006
|Concerning cosmology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life would appear to be prima facie evidence for design. One can either choose to believe (at least provisionally) that this is the case, based on some evidence, or one can choose to believe in an infinitude of hypothetical alternate universes, which are in principle undetectable, based on no evidence.|
This reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. You can provisionally accept just about any assertion as a hypothesis (a tentative assertion proposed for the purpose of making empirical predictions). However, you don't consider such an assertion to be scientifically confirmed unless those predictions are subject to empirical testing. That includes multiple universes and fine-tuning assertions, neither of which (along with an infinitude of other scenarios) have obvious empirical implications. Believe what you want, but mere belief doesn't make those beliefs scientifically valid.
|Thus, at least among many intellectual elites and others, the incredible is given precedence over the credible as the default position. How did we arrive at this curious state of affairs?|
Sorry, but the default position is "We don't know".
|The materialists have no trouble believing in some infinite multiverse, but have trouble believing some kind of transcendant intelligence can exist.|
Multiverses is a speculative hypothesis, not a scientific conclusion.
|J Harlen Bretz developed a theory that certain local features were caused by cataclysmic water flows. He spent the next forty years trying to convince his colleagues. The turning point was when Joseph Thomas Pardee suggested that the water came from a large lake formed by an ice dam, which eventually failed catastrophically. This was plausible enough that scientists finally began to accept the obvious.|
Gee, when new evidence was discovered, scientists modified their existing geological theories. What a novel concept.
"Itâ€™s like Zachriel spores all over the internet."