The following is an excerpt from "New Scientist" Magazine.
"COSMOLOGY is in crisis. Recent experiments have given us an increasingly precise narrative of the history of our universe, but attempts to interpret the data have led to a picture of a "preposterous Universe" that eludes explanation in the terms familiar to scientists. Everything we know suggests that the Universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a "typical" universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible Universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a Universe anything like ours in one pick – or even a billion. The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness."
Even a multiverse theory is hard pressed to explain the Universe that we have. The flatness of the Universe becomes another "anthropic principle" sticking point that currently defies the multiverse explantion to explain why the Universe is "fine tuned" for life. If inflation is ruled out, the Multiverse will become cannon fodder for Creationist. (Not all Creationist insist that the earth is only six thousand years old, some scientist and engineers fall in this camp)
In defense of discussing it:
If inflation is ruled out, the Multiverse will become cannon fodder for Creationist.
Yeah, I could see that happening. No surprise.
Meanwhile, note the difference between creation vs multiverse theory. Creationists are motivated to explain the origin of life by way of God. Mulitversists are motivated to explain life cycles of a universe, irrespective of God's existence or non-existence.
I.e., the former presumes Goditit, end of story, and the latter posits that possibly multiverse theory might one day explain universe life cycle, and we're no where near the end of this story.
I.e., Creationists discredit science so they can continue to believe what they want to, vs Scientists discount each other's theories until they come up with enough evidence to agree with the most likely explanation and move on to the next level of knowledge and technology.
Re the edge dot org article, I read it to mean that someone has at last applied Occam's Razor to theories of anything.
The Sci Am guest blog has a flaw. Its author, probably with tongue in cheek, wrote:
Inflation may or may not turn out to be correct, but the recent confirmation of many of its predictions by cosmic microwave background experiments....
Inflation has predicted anything?
Despite inflation's belonging in a sci-fi publication, its believers have made claims. The claims I've seen also belong in sci-fi publications.
Truth is a property of statements/propositions. Is God a statement or proposition?
Often capitalized : a transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality
You didn't tell me if God is a statement or proposition, so I shall answer the question on your behalf.
Realities aren't statements or propositions,* those two things which are the only things that can be true or false, and that due to accurately corresponding, or not, with the things to which they refer.
God, if he exists, is an entity and can't be any more true or false than a yoyo can be true or false. God and yoyos either exist or they don't.
On the other hand, things we say about God or yoyos can be true or false.
Do you understand now?
* What is a proposition? It is the intended meaning of a statement.