Dale Nelson Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Knygatin, your speculation about the mountain peak
> painting seems far-fetched to me, but then I think
> it's possible that for any or almost any theory of
> things, there will be some things that it seems to
> explain very well and others that it has to strain
> to explain.
>
> Thus, there was a time when the adherents of the
> Ptolemaic conception of the universe resorted to
> what seem to us now far-fetched explanations of
> "epicycles." But there were other phenomena for
> which the Ptolemaic theory worked very well. But
> effort had to be put forward to "save the
> appearances," until the Copernican understanding
> carried the day.
>
> Today, the theory of the multiverse seems
> far-fetched to some, a desperate effort to "save
> the appearances" in order to preserve
> materialism/naturalism*; all right, its advocates
> say, we grant that our universe does seem
> astonishingly fine-tuned for life; but then it is
> only one of a vast number, or, heck, even infinite
> number, of universes, that are not necessarily
> fine-tuned for life; we just happen to live in the
> very rare exception. Somewhat similarly, my
> "young earth creationist" brethren resort to
> far-fetched supposals to explain the "appearance"
> of great age for the universe. (It should be said
> that "young earth creationism" is a highly visible
> but minority view; I suppose most Christians
> who've gone into the matter think the universe
> looks old because it is old.)
Here's a more recent article on the multiverse idea/strong theory.
[
www.wsj.com]