No Big Bounce?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2488654-laws-of-quantum-physics-may-rule-out-a-universe-that-came-before-ours/

[Steve H]

 More desperate cherry-picking.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

More desperate cherry-picking.

How so?

[Steve H]

How so?

Lots of universes following each other for ever, with the physical constants reset each time, does for the theist's favourite argument, the extreme unlikelihood of the universe being just right for life to develop.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Lots of universes following each other for ever, with the physical constants reset each time, does for the theist's favourite argument, the extreme unlikelihood of the universe being just right for life to develop.

But there seem to be according to the New Scientist scientific objections to what might be said to be the atheists favourite argument. I take it you think that science is on the side of the multiverse, right?

[Steve H]

But there seem to be according to the New Scientist scientific objections to what might be said to be the atheists favourite argument. I take it you think that science is on the side of the multiverse, right?

I've no idea what is most likely, not being a scientist, but I don't clutch at straws in the form oof isolated articles. I think atheists can accept any hypothesis without qualms.

[Nearly Sane]

But there seem to be according to the New Scientist scientific objections to what might be said to be the atheists favourite argument. I take it you think that science is on the side of the multiverse, right?

I would suggest the vast majority of atheists almost never think about this, never mind have 'a favourite argument' as regards it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I would suggest the vast majority of atheists almost never think about this........

You said that like it was a good thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I've no idea what is most likely, not being a scientist, but I don't clutch at straws in the form oof isolated articles. I think atheists can accept any hypothesis without qualms.

I think it's interesting and the forum tends to buzz a bit more when we discuss this.
I don't think I need say again that an infinite universe or number of successive universe is no skin of my nose since it fails to answer why the universe is like the way it is and why it is here at all?

[Nearly Sane]

You said that like it was a good thing.

No, I wrote it like your statement was wrong.

[Nearly Sane]

I think it's interesting and the forum tends to buzz a bit more when we discuss this.
I don't think I need say again that an infinite universe or number of successive universe is no skin of my nose since it fails to answer why the universe is like the way it is and why it is here at all?

is 'why' as you appear to be using it here with an inplication of purposiveness a valid question?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

is 'why' as you appear to be using it here with an inplication of purposiveness a valid question?

I'm sorry I can't help it if topics such as infinity and necessity garner more enthusiasm from the majority atheist membership of the forum rather than the socio political hobbyhorse threads or that that runs counter to the happy ideal of atheists happy to remain in their hutches concerned about nothing beyond the price of eggs.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm sorry I can't help it if topics such as infinity and necessity garner more enthusiasm from the majority atheist membership of the forum rather than the socio political hobbyhorse threads or that that runs counter to the happy ideal of atheists happy to remain in their hutches concerned about nothing beyond the price of eggs.

I have not the slightest clue of what you are trying to say.