[12:23:51 AM] Scott says: Dawkins tried to get around these arguments. He relied on the idea of a multiverse--which may be true, but it strikes me as pretty much as spooky as God.
[12:24:37 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Spooky, but doesn't rely on an intelligence.
[12:24:54 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: And even in its weakest form, it shows God isn't the only explanation.
[12:25:05 AM] Scott says: Just relies on an infinite amount of universes that we have no means of perceiving.
[12:25:29 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Need they coexist? Why not serial universes?
[12:26:04 AM] Scott says: What do you mean? A big crunch?
[12:26:25 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Sure. A series of big bangs and big crunches, each with different constants.
[12:27:17 AM] Scott says: That's fine, but that only moves the universes to a different temporal spot--we're still being asked to believe in them without any means of perceiving them.
[12:27:29 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: I'm OK with that.
[12:27:45 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: There's a lot that we don't perceive.
[12:28:04 AM] Scott says: Nothing wrong with it. But it's not much of an answer.
[12:28:17 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: I think it's better than "God did it."
[12:28:26 AM] Scott says: I don't see why.
[12:28:42 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Why do you always argue this stuff when I'm going to bed? I'm too tired to think about this now.
[12:28:59 AM] Scott says: You sent the link dude.
[12:29:09 AM] Scott says: Plus I'm more likely to win arguments when you're tired.
[12:29:10 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Yeah. You were supposed to laugh and move on.
[12:29:20 AM] Scott says: Haha.
[12:29:22 AM] Scott says: How about those Colts?
[12:29:30 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: Were those the blue ones?
[12:30:07 AM] Jay Goodman Tamboli says: That was great when that one guy grabbed the ball and kept the other guy from having it. Ha!
[12:30:31 AM] Scott says: Oh my God! I was like, is the other guy going to get it? Oh no, he is! No, wait! Oh man, he did!
I still love Orr's review:
[T]he fact that we as scientists find a hypothesis question-begging—as when Dawkins asks "who designed the designer?"—cannot, in itself, settle its truth value. It could, after all, be a brute fact of the universe that it derives from some transcendent mind, however question-begging this may seem. What explanations we find satisfying might say more about us than about the explanations. Why, for example, is Dawkins so untroubled by his own (large) assumption that both matter and the laws of nature can be viewed as given? Why isn't that question-begging?
I'm listening to Mahler's Fifth an actually enjoying it. Crap--this means I have to apologize to a bunch of people. My exact phrase may have been "romantic sludge."