So you mean multiverse then.
Why don't you read back to where I suggested this is what you meant, you said \"no that is world line theory\".
I would appreciate a bit of a description of what universe model you are talking about rather than what name it has today.
As for 'yeah it is unscientific but you get that' doesn't that just reduce one to believing it exists without evidence? How is this different to blind religious faith?
World line theory suggests that at every decision every person faces the universe splits into every possible result of that decision
multiverse at a simple level suggests that there is something like 10 to the power of 500 or something versions of the universe hence at one stage they cant be observed
To the original point of this thread
Dawkins in actuallity challenges religion more because it was an answer provided to before science was mature or really in existence at all. It filled a gap or filled a desire, but just because it did so does no mean it is the truth. It is now no longer tested and we dont dare question or challenge religion. But hey you may have a couple of billion people who believe in varying religion but what about the other 2 - 4 billion who don't believe, how are they any less wrong?
Dawkins doesnt even say that there is no possibility of a "creator" what he is more interested in is finding the truth and not assuming it. This is his and my problem with religion. There is no test there is no questioning or advancement of itself, it claims to know the truth but produce the proof there of and wont challenge its ideas.
Watch the videos I posted on the previous page, they actually are really handy little insights into what Dawkins is on about.
Personally i plan on buying his book in the next few weeks and reading it, because I am unaffraid of seeking other truths.
I issue a challenge to you and to everyone else who wants to debate the topic.
Read his book before wading in
