For my part, I never assumed a theist who comes here to argue EoG doesn't have his reasons and evidence, or is necessarily Bible-thumping.
Respectfully, I concur that you have been fair to the statement.
My post about the cultural history of the idea of God was exactly what I said.
Yes, but indirectly you helped me understand the (Post 111) 3 and 1 conflation. I'm not saying you committed such. Sorry if I made it sound that way. I just meant that your insights helped me refocus from epistemology to definition.
If you were born in a culture with no concept of God as a part of it, you wouldn't study nature and ever arrive at God as an explanation. You'd arrive at "cause" but there's no reason that's God.
I disagree..... There is definitely reason and that is what these arguments are attempting to provide.
They show that you can have good reason to believe that God exists by reasoning from nature. Back before the science supported them (debatable of course) these arguments were only supported by observation of nature and philosophy. A philosophy that reasoned from nature to God's existence w/o biblical support. Remember the LCA and KCA only identify the need for a necessary being and a first cause. The FTA only concludes that design is the reason for the observed fine-tuning.
As highly speculative as the multiverse theory is, still it's not so dependent on "let me define my terms" like theism is, and has some math and physics to support it as a plausible contender.
If I'm reading you correctly you are trying to say that MV is more plausible than theism with it's math and science support. Fine. That is obviously an assertion to examine.
First I would actually direct the plausibility question directly at the science here. Because the science here is theistically neutral.
So I would assert that the SBBM more plausibly indicates that the universe began to exist, then it's alternative that it is eternal. Therefore the MV is already trying to address a less plausible outcome anyway. Further the BGV renders the MV finite. Why? you might ask.... I would say the same thing Vilenkin did, but he says it so much better so here..........
http://now.tufts.edu/articles/begin...ow.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning
I can see no way that any reasonable person would consider that the MV is more plausible than the more plausible indication of the SBBM, that the universe began to exist. Note that was just about the science.
Further, since MV (if it ever were shown to be more plausible) is also more plausibly finite in the past then eternal, it would still have a cause.
Further (FTA concerns) the fine-tuning of that MV would be reasonably far more fine-tuned than just our universe needing explanation for it's fine-tuning.
So that is some of my case against the MV being a more plausible solution.
But by all means you certainly can make your case. I really would like to hear your case. Convince me that MV is more plausible. It is your duty at this point to defend your offered defeater. Your defeater does not invalidate the KCA by default.
If you have a better explanation, you should skip the shit about straw men and scientism and just get to the plausibility of the God Hypothesis.
The straw man concern was directly addressing the OP, thus very reasonable to present.
Scientism is and epistemological method that directly influences plausibly, thus very reasonable to address.
The "God hypothesis" is your generic term meaning what? Given that the context of the thread from the beginning was the NT arguments for God's existence. The LCA, KCA and FTA. These I have directly addressed. So as I see it..... that is exactly what I have been doing. So what is your concern here?
How wrong you think other people are about anything doesn't make God plausible, only a positive argument for EoG will do.
Really?
Please be fair and reasonable. The actual arguments (LCA, KCA and FTA) are themselves positive. If one is defending an argument as I have been doing. Remonstrated above with your MV hypothesis. One must address all defeaters to the argument. Thus I reasonably should show why your possible defeater is deficient. Shouldn't I? Or I'm I just suppose to say "Oh my.....you win. My argument less plausible than your offered defeater."?
Further ....it is now your duty to defend your MV hypothesis as a defeater addressing the "negative" concerns I raised against it. If you can't reasonably show your MV more plausible than the science it is up against, then why should I abandon my reasoning?