“Theological” proof of the non-existence of infinite universes
Hello Rabbi. I was thinking of a “theological” proof for the non-existence of infinite universes, so that it could serve as a refutation of the atheists’ claim about infinite universes. If it is correct, you should add it to the trilogy, even if in a different formulation. The proof: Assumption A: If there are infinitely many universes, then almost certainly in some region of one of the universes the following items were created by themselves (not necessarily in the same place): all iPhone models, all airplane models, all spaceship models, and (infinitely) other special and complex items. This assumption is based on the “typing monkey theorem”, which states that given an infinite number of attempts, everything will inevitably be created by itself. Assumption B: Not a single one of the above items was created throughout the universe, let alone all of them. Conclusion: There are no infinite parallel universes. Assumption A is clear, and assumption B is agreed upon by most atheists, that is: if we force them by threats to bet all their money on the question of whether all the above items were created somewhere by themselves – they will certainly bet that they were not created, because they would not want to lose their money. The conclusion is that implicitly they do not believe in the existence of infinite universes. Mshaal.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
That is, you agree that the argument is valid, but there are no people who hold the premise without the conclusion and therefore it is useless?
How is this different from your theological proof from morality in which you do see utility? There too, a priori, someone who does not believe in God will not believe in morality, but empirically we see that this is not the case.
Similarly, in this matter, I think that when people know that this is the implication of believing in an infinite number of universes, many of them will examine it again carefully.
In practice, we see that people are not aware of this implication of their belief in universes, and if you ask them whether assumption B is acceptable to them outside of the discussion of the existence of God, they will say that it is acceptable.
In conclusion: Do you think that when I force an atheist to bet on assumption B, and do not reveal to him that this is the implication of his belief in an infinite number of universes, he will bet that all these complex things were created?
I think so. But it's worth a try.
You can increase the evidence for an atheist materialist. Who says there is no free choice.
The chance that I will be Prime Minister in another hour is zero but it exists as it is.
If so, for countless universes I will probably be Prime Minister there. (Especially since he believes in biological identity in doppelgangers that this is the same person.
This is exactly the same argument as all the arguments that are made about multiple universes. According to the multiple universes proposal, nothing is rare because there is a universe in which it happens.
I don't know what most people think, but if I were sure that there are an infinite number of universes, I would definitely bet that anything that has a certain probability actually happens in one of the universes, that's the whole idea of multiple universes (as I understand it, and I don't understand the subject). Why do you think that assumption B is agreed upon by most atheists who accept assumption A?
That's exactly what I wrote to him in my first message.
The thing is, people throw away the infinite universe hypothesis too easily, and don't pay attention to its ontological cost.
When someone is aware that they are actually supposed to believe that countless airplanes, iPhones, and spaceships throughout the universes have spontaneously created themselves, they think twice about whether they actually believe it.
Obviously, if you truly and sincerely believe in infinite universes, then this evidence doesn't work for you.
Even for someone who doesn't believe in morality, the evidence for God from morality doesn't work for them.
Yosef, you still presented the argument incorrectly. You are assuming that there are no iPhones. A more accurate way to present the argument is to say that the multi-universe thesis assumption has iPhones, demons, and fairies in various places, and now to present the reader with the choice of whether to accept this or that. I make sure to present theological arguments in this way, otherwise you will immediately receive responses like you received here. By the way, in my book God Plays Dice (and maybe also in the article. I don't remember) I talk about fairies and gods who are created in all kinds of universes according to this thesis that tries to present an alternative to the existence of God. In my terminology there, this is the Mad Hatter's tea party in Alice.
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
