1. You quote Loftus: David Ramsay Steele reminds us that according to quantum mechanics "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all
The point Loftus is making is that this is one possibility. QM gives us a precedent for thinking that this is possible, but that is not the same as proving it did. Loftus claims no more than that (in this quite anyway).
Pixie is being ignorant and has displayed his inability to read.
I never said Loftus claims it proves the universe does not have a cause, nor did I insinuate it, I was merely showing Loftus error.
"Things begin to exist without any cause all the time." So if some things can begin to exist without a cause, the universe could be one of them, which does not require a creator at all"
What he is talking about is Quantum fluctuations and he is wrong, they do have a cause for their existence. Not only that but it can't even be used as support for the possibility since, they exist WITH a cause, and Loftus quite clearly states "Things begin to exist without any cause all the time."
You say: ... these things happen when there is ALREADY something in existence, principles, fields, physics, etc.
Correct me if I am wrong, but do we know that these things did not exist before the Big Bang? As far as I know, physicists have no idea what there was before the Big Bang. We just do not know. Therefore it remains a possibility that the Big Bang had no cause (that does leave the question of where the principles came from, but the only reasonable answer is "we do not know").
If you're going to maintain that the big bang had no cause, then you cannot use quantum fluctuations as support. Not even for the POSSIBILITY, since quantum fluctuations have a cause. Not only that, but even if we were to accept your assertion that the universe came into existence via quantum fluctuation that does nothing but bring us back to square one, 'what caused the QF?'
You say: On page 90 he brings up the multiverse which is a nonscientific concept, if we accept Dawkins’s naked assertion that a universal designer is more complex than the one known universe, a designer is probably less complex than any two universes and infinitely less complex than an infinity of them.
Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.
Pixie completely misunderstands the point here. The point is that God is MORE PROBABLE than a multiverse, which renders his question 'Does complexity add up in that way? Would you say that an infinite number of pens must be more complex than God? Sounds wrong to me.' would've been answered if he had understood the point, since it is about what is MORE PROBABLE, not about what is more complex.
if we concede, for the sake of argument, that a universal designer must be 1,000 times more complex than the universe in order to create it, and therefore 1,000 times more improbable, a universal designer is still more mathematically likely than the squared improbability of there being two universes of similar complexity. For example, if the probability of one universe is one in one million, then the probability of the universal designer would be one in one billion, but the probability of there being two universes of similarly complex natures would be a much more improbable one in one trillion.
You say: Since the multiverse cannot be observed, verified, and is untestable and as unfalsifiable the God hypothesis, and was created specifically to get around the telological argument, one wonders why Loftus would be appealing to it.
Multiverse is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the teleological argument. We do not know if the multiverse is right, but we do know that the teleological argument is unsound.
Applying Pixies logic he should accept the following:
YEC is a possibility, not an accepted scientific theory. The point of appealing to it is to show that there are ways to get around the theory of evolution. We do not know if YEC is right, but we do know that the theory of evolution is unsound.
Pixie also says the teleological argument is unsound? now this depends on what he means, as there is the teleological argument as proof of God, which is NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT HERE. What I was talking about was the anthropic principle. So not only is pixies logic equally applied to things like YEC, his criticism is nothing but a straw man, since I was talking about the anthropic principle and not the teleological argument. Furthermore he engages in the hilarious irony of appealing to an unscientific, unfalsifiable multiverse to get around an unfalsifiable, unscientific(atheist logic here) God.
