Is Dawkins' multiverse a more or less complex explanation of the universe than God?

Question

Dylan: Dawkins apparently disagrees. It is the principled of compexity he finds problematic with God as an explanation. Read his book again.

Crucifinch, why not for the sake of discussion define God however you like. Could he/she/it possibly be more complex than the multiverse invoked by Dawkins?

Answer 1

The choices are:
a) Goddidit
b) The observable universe is part of the whole physical reality containing multiple universes seperated by vibrational subatomic resonance frequencies, each universe possibly containing different physical laws than our own.

Uhh.... under those choices, one is almost drawn to say (a).
Problem is the definition of "God" needs to be addressed once and for all.

---

Edit: Of course not. But some people like to define "God" as the thing that first created the universe (our universe). Be it a singularity of some sort or some extremely high-energy particle (left over from another universe maybe?). Not necessarily a "big man in the sky" or even intelligent at all.
That, of course is a simple explanation, but it doesn't really contradict the multiverse explanation so it leaves us open to a "c) Both (a) and (b)" scenario. I do not agree with this interpretation as there is no reason to call that event "God." "God" is such a nasty term as it carries so many connotations along with it, and yet there are many people who do this.

Personally, I think the multiverse explanation is a good one, and so do a lot of knowledgeable scientists, apparently.
Atoms are made up of over 99% empty space and it is at least feasible that our universe is resonating out of phase with another one hidden in that empty space. But with our current technology, it's near impossible to test ther hypothesis to any satisfactory degree. That I know of... I'm sure some guy in a lab somewhere is working on a way to study universal atomic frequencies as I type...

It's at least better than the BigBang-BigCrunch model which has gone out of style ever since we realized the universe's expansion is actually accelerating. I also think it's a reaaallly bad idea to call singularities "god."

Answer 2

The multiverse IDEA is not a proposed explanation for the creation/existence of the universe and so this question is irrelevant.

But to answer anyway... it's less complex because there is the question of 'where did God come from?' One would think that any sufficiantly intelligent being with the ability to create a universe would itself need 'creating'

Answer 3

That depends on what you mean by complex. "God created the universe" is very simple, but it leaves unanswered the issue of how God came to be. If intelligence is complex, and God is intelligent, then God is complex.

The multiverse hypothesis isn't Dawkins' though. It's what many physicists believe. At a quantum level, it's the only way to explain certain phenomena. I don't know why it's such a good explanation, but apparently it is.

Answer 4

The problem of the multi-universe theory is that it is absolutely untestable.

The whole premise is that their are countess universes besides our own, but if it is true we have no way to test for or find anything outside our own universe.

As such with no evidence at all what so ever a rational person would disregard the multiverse theory because it is irrelevant.

An individual can only have "faith" in its existence, but never proof.

If Dawkins truly dose advocate that theory he has become what he despises-- a man of faith.

Answer 5

Irrelevant. It's a physics model, as opposed to an ambiguous gap-filler.