Finite multiverse or designed universe; you choose reality According to multiple award winning scientist George Ellis, we presently

have a choice between views of reality: 1. a finite self-generating multiverse 2. a purposefully designed life-generating single finite universe If you look carefully above, the keyword common to both is 'finite'. Essentially, the only substantial difference between the two is purposeful creation. The former allows the possibility of no Creator (although a fine point is: it does not insist on this). So if you're atheist and scientifically inclined, likely you'll prefer view one. If you're a deist, you could go either way because remember, view one only allows the possibility of no Creator not the requirement of no Creator. As Ellis so eloquently points out in this video, the multiverse, if it exists, could have easily been created by God. My point in this article is: which is more likely? Again, if you're atheist, you'll likely choose perspective one. But this says nothing about likelihood. Being a stats major, i can offer some sound advice. ;) Don't ride the fence; nothing was ever gained by wishy-washy attitudes.. Take a stand. Proclaim your beliefs. :) If you're wrong, you have a chance to 'find that out' and correct your mistake. If you're right, you can enjoy the 'spoils of war'. ;) I told you! [he] Of course, in this situation, there's more to gain with proper perspective much more. If the atheists are right and we're in a self-generating finite multiverse, we'd have the 'ultimate freedom' to decide morality, what's right and wrong, and pretty much everything else.. We'd be the 'masters of our own destiny' in the sense we'd be deciding the 'playing field' of reality. We'd essentially be deciding what is reality. There's nothing inherently 'wrong' with this perspective; it simply denies any Creator involvement when there may factually be 'some'. Again, i can't prove Creator involvement in creation.. All i can do is point out the pros and cons.. And try to estimate the likelihood of each perspective heuristically.. What's more likely? Let's examine the associated assumptions for each view: 1. a. all physical parameters are randomly distributed about some mean with Gaussian/uniform behavior depending on parameter 1. b. this scenario explicitly self-creates; no purpose is assumed 1. c. inflation seems to be a requirement for 'getting something from nothing' 1. d. in some places of the multiverse, inflation stops and accelerated expansion takes over 2. a. a Prime Cause initiated the Big Bang with some realistic physics 2. b. all physical parameters were chosen to deliberately create life-generating conditions 2. c. we don't make any assumptions about 'what created the Creator' 2. d. the existing universe is the simplest cosmological structure that supports life ^^ So.. again, Occam's Razor doesn't help the situation; assumptions are equal in number. i didn't deliberately assign assumptions so that this would happen; it just happened. If we use Occam's Razor as a guide, it doesn't help us about likelihood of perspective. Let's try to determine which assumption is 'most core' to each view.. 1. the multiverse self-created with no purpose 2. the universe was deliberately created for life So again, something unprovable and determined by choice determines our perspectives. ^^ Be very clear about your position: you choose to be atheist or deist. There is no factual evidence either way. All deists and atheists (everyone) need to fully understand: we choose our view of reality.