[Mark Lapierre]

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

They are not both just ideas. The concept of a multi-verse is just an idea thought up to try and refute the fact of fine-tuning. If you change one constant of nature a tiny fraction the universe would be radically different making it impossible for ANY life-form to come into being; a tiny deviation would determine whether stars could form or not. We have one unique universe.

Once again, that conclusion is bound by our limited understanding of the universe. As far as I'm aware none of our models of the universe completely account for everything that we observe within it, or everything we have accepted to have occurred within it. The example we've already mentioned is those first few instants of the Big Bang. So if our models are incomplete, can you say with certainty that changes in the unknown parameters of reality which the models are based upon, would not allow some type of existence?

I'll grant that changes would make our universe impossible, but I'm yet to see any argument that logically demonstrates that no universe with some form of life would also be impossible.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

God by definition transcends the physical. If don't believe in any higher power you must concede that the idea is of a higher power as in transcendent.

That's your definition. It doesn't account for many others. Your concept of god is a transcendent one, but if there is a god, it might not be so. But sure, if the point you were making was that a transcendent god is not a machine or a person, I'll concede that. However, since you said you don't know what god is I couldn't assume you defined it as transcendent, hence I couldn't reach any valid conclusion about what you expected a transcendent designer to be. Nor could I know what kind of evidence you'd expect of that undefined designer's designs.

Btw, if I don't believe in a higher power, or rather believe there is no higher power, then I axiomatically deny the existence of that higher power, however it's described (which means I don't have to concede the idea of a transcendent higher power. Just pointing out that a concession isn't strictly necessary).

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

I agree dreams are an inferior way of understanding what we observe while awake and what we observe while awake is an inferior way of understanding our dreams. Me question was ontological. I was asking why we can't consider dreams "real", why don't we consider the dream world a real one all its own? That was crucial to Steve's point.

The answer could still be the same. That the real world is consistent, and the dream world is (usually) not. Since we spend most of our time in the real world, and since the dream world is usually forgotten, and since (for most people) the real world seems so much more, well, real, it's understandable that we don't consider the dream world to be a real one on its own.

Of course that doesn't mean it isn't. But from my perspective all those previous points apply, resulting in the dream world being rather useless as far as understanding reality is concerned. If I had any experiences or proof that the dream world is (or could be) superior to the real world in terms of understanding reality, then I'd probably agree with Steve.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

We cannot verify that at this time if ever. My point isn't that god is empirically verifiable only that circumstantially it is a better assumption than random cosmic coincidence.

We're agreed on the first point. But I think the second point is a matter of differing degrees of intuitive grasp over the many concepts involved in understanding the "god argument" versus the "cosmic evolution" argument. And that intuition is not only shaped by knowledge and understanding, but by social and cultural influences.

So seeming "circumstantially better" is a factor of individual circumstances rather than the circumstances of either religious or cosmological evidence or argument.

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Also, when I say consciousness is not a mechanism or that god doesn't need an explanation (in the usual meaning of word at least) I mean the same thing. That is when I see the color blue I cannot explain what it is like to see the color blue. You can't explain sight to blind man. You cannot break down the sensation of the color blue to anything less than the color blue. The concept of god and conscious awareness go hand in hand. If god is a conscious force then such an entity doesn't require an explanation typical to a physical object because its like the sensation of music or the color blue ie you have to experience it.

The concept of qualia?

The issue with that is that the thing which is blue can still be explained. Likewise the thing which makes the music. Also the thing which makes it possible for you to experience a colour or a tone (transmission of light or sound, nerve signals etc.).

So while your experience of god doesn't need to be explained, in terms of defining god as an entity or a force or a process, it can be explained. Maybe you don't need it to be explained, but that doesn't seem to be what you're asserting. Though I've asked you to clarify that. And while god may be transcendent, consciousness is not (by virtue of our experience of consciousness. Though arguably consciousness can be transcendent).

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Cause and effect is product of linear time. If time is infinite then it is impossible to trace back any line of cause and effect.

Linearity and infinity are not mutually exclusive concepts. Take sequential numbers as an example. Or are you referring to infinite regression in the direction of a first cause?

Originally Posted by Mr.Mustache

Lets say space was infinite, I could divide space infinitely so how could motion exist? You couldn't move through space because you could divide any distance an infinite number of times.

Right. Zeno's paradoxes. However both experience and logical proof show that the paradoxes aren't so insurmountable. Sure philosophers still argue about them, yet it seems pointless to argue that motion doesn't exist when we experience it. It seems far more reasonable to focus on understanding what that experience is, rather than saying it can't happen. (kinda like NDEs, ODEs, etc).