Paraphrased for brevity and clarity:
Her: You don’t need god (sic) to explain creation. Multiple universes explains exactly how our universe came to be.
Me: Even if it were a valid hypothesis, which it isn’t, MUT only pushes First Cause back one step. It doesn’t eliminate the logical necessity.
Her: It’s more valid that some imaginary sky-daddy!
Me: First, anthropomorphization is not a necessary attribute of God. Second, God is a logical axiom, not an hypothesis. Third, MUT is untestable, and therefore not “more valid” than anything. Your approval is not the definition of scientific validity. But let me ask you this: let’s assume that there are multiple universes. What separates them?
Her: Well, normal space, I guess.
Me: Of course. Normal space. Between universes.
Him: The more extraordinary claim has burden of proof! You have to prove your god! (sic)
Me: Actually, “the more extraordinary claim” is determined by status quo. Given that about 90% of the population has been theist for the entirety of human existence, that makes theism as quo as a status gets. Burden of proof is on atheism.
Him: But theism is a claim that a god exists! Atheism is just a lack of belief. We don’t have to prove a lack of belief.
Me: False, both etymologically and historically. The “lack of belief” is agnosticism–and before you go there, it is no more valid to refer to agnosticism as ‘weak atheism’ than it is to refer to it as ‘weak theism.’ Atheism, from the Greek “a-” (“without”) “theos” (“god”), is a positive claim about the nature of the universe–specifically, that there is no form of divinity. And it is certainly not the status quo.
Her: That pizza shop recieved public utilities, so they have to serve ALL of the public!
Me: First of all, private businesses do not “receive public utilities” in the United States. Utilities are a public and private cooperative, which both individuals and business pay PRIVATELY for the goods that they provide. Secondly, you cannot FORCE someone to participate in such a cooperative (which is how utilities work), and then use that very coerced participation to justify stripping private businesses and citizens of their right of association. Are you trolling?
Her: No, just being honest. We all pay for the maintenance of public utilities, so businesses have to serve everyone.
Me: I’m pretty sure that utility companies pay for their own maintenance with the revenue that they generate. Nonetheless, if your sense of ethics is really so skewed that you want to use an electric bill to strip people of their basic human rights–make death-threats against them, in fact–then you should be forcing the 1.5% minority to comply with the 80% majority, and not vice-versa. Nor do I see you making this argument on threads where homosexual-owned businesses were recorded refusing service to Christians. So don’t pretend that there is some sort of virtue in your drive to totalitarianism. We have seen these steps before, by every Socialist dictator of the 20th century. The dance is well-known, and there is no virtue in it.
Me: Science explains HOW a thing occurs; it cannot explain WHY.
Her: That’s just total ignorance of science. I have worked in an office of scientists for years, and they explain “why” all the time! Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Because a huge meteor hit the planet!
Me: You are confusing the two questions.
–HOW is a question of PROCESS: How did the dinosaurs go extinct? A giant meteor hit the planet, devastating the ecosystem beyond the dinosaurs’ ability to adapt. Science works by creating predictive models. Models show HOW a thing occurs, so this is within the scope of scientific inquiry.
–WHY, on the other hand, is a question of PURPOSE. Why did the dinosaurs go extinct? Perhaps because a race of super-intelligent aliens wanted to pave the way for mammalian dominance on Earth. Purpose is a metaphysical characteristic; it cannot be modeled, and therefore lies outside the scope of scientific inquiry.