A few questions from an atheist.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Nice interesting post well done.

Daniel

[1over137]

So in the multiverse model, every time something could happen, both outcomes happen and fracture reality, how the multiverse deals with this is to shear the two realities and form a new universe.

Here you are talking about many worlds interpretation of QM. One has to distinguish among “multiverse” of inflationary cosmology, “many worlds” or “branches of the wave function” of quantum mechanics and “parallel branes” of string theory.

reference: beginning of
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... same-idea/

[Silvertusk]

There may indeed be astronomical evidence that I am ignorant about. What do you guys think is the strongest evidence for god/christianity?

I personally think that the strongest evidence for God is in the universal models, which basically boil down to two, there are a bunch of sub-theroies in each branch but there are really only two main branches. One is the multiverse and the other is ordered universe. Atheist scientist like Hawkins subscribe to the multiverse model while others subscribe to the ordered single universe model. The very interesting part about the multiverse and what many of the subscribers to the theory try to dodge is that it is wild speculation. Because our universe is born out of the multiverse and has it own physical model nothing can be known about the nature of the multiverse, where our universe is our natural laws the multiverse and it's laws by virtue are supernatural they are extra-dimientional so therefore cannot be tested by our constraints to our 4 dimensions. It's starting to sound a lot like a religion is it not, the funny part is that it is a religion, several of them, many eastern religions subscribe to the multiverse model the only difference from say hinduism and the multiverse theory is one describes it in religious writings while the other cloaks it in scientific terms. In the end they are the same.

So in the multiverse model, every time something could happen, both outcomes happen and fracture reality, how the multiverse deals with this is to shear the two realities and form a new universe. So somewhere out there you are typing this and I am reading it. Taking this further, somewhere out there the sun just blew up and we both died. The interesting part about this, is why do these wildly improbably realities not happen in our reality, I mean it just sheared off and the sun blew up but some how, we remain in the reality that continues on as normal. If you reject the multiverse model then you reject a large portion of other religions, almost all eastern religions. So there goes Hinduism, Buddhism and all of those religions. There are good reasons to reject the multiverse and I will get to them, but for now lets deal with the other Abrahamic religions.

So why is Islam not the correct religion, the most damming evidence is earth centric theory. The Koran proposes a earth based center of the universe, which has been thoroughly refuted. Finally I would say the lack of absolute pacifism is another. Mohammad gave commandment to the Muslims that upon their own accord, they could act in self-defense, we have seen the trappings of allowing men to make decisions of life and death too many times. Leaders create boogy men and then bring whole nations to war and kill innocent people. If you accept that only god can be a pure judge, then you must accept pacifism in totality. I know this is a somewhat weaker argument than earth centric theory because it requires the subject to accept that pacifism is truly a logical truth of the true religion. I do, therefore I see it as proof.


OK so that pretty much leaves Christianity or Judaism as the possibilities for the true religion. If we accept the Jewish text then we accept the prophecies of a coming Messiah, in which we only need to ask did Jesus fulfill those prophecies. Secondly, if god created all mankind, would he only reserve his grace for a select people, who through no actions of their own, are given gods grace? It would not be the mark of a fair god so I feel that it refutes Judaism as the truth. This leaves Christianity, in which we only need to look at the subject. Christ himself, did his teachings and his life embody the purity of a god. What we humans do cannot be attributed to God, for they are the folly of man, we will soil anything we touch with the blight of sin. Many Atheist make this logical mistake, they look at religion and blame Jesus for the shortcomings of man. So it really comes down to does Jesus measure up.

So now lets jump back to the Multiverse and lets use science. One of the basic teachings in the citadels of science is Occam's Razor which states

simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones

. So in an ordered universe that we can accurate predict phenomenon, is it simpler to assume that we are born out of a chaotic multiverse, that deals with fragmented reality, by playing out every possible outcome, yet some how our reality that we stay in timeline on the chaos never seems to seep in? Gravity never spins the earth backwards even though it is a possibility. Or using Occam's razor, is the simpler solution, that the order of the universe arose from a design? If we chose the latter then we can look for some clues, if we are made in god's image then we should have the capacity to understand how it was built, there should be some core building blocks, and their should be some rules that maintain the system. Armed with this knowledge we can start to look for the signatures of god.

We can assume that god would have a language, I propose that it is mathematics, they are pure and every idea, every concept, everything in existence can be described with mathematics. Further, concepts that don't exist in nature can be described via mathematics. Such as -1 you cannot find it in nature, yet we build amazing things based on the idea that negative numbers exist. We have faith that negative numbers as a concept can exist, because there is no natural proof of their existence. So the question becomes did humans invent math or did we discover math, if it was discovered, then it is a strong argument for god.

Humans where made in god image, if we take this as a truth, then we should be able to invent things such as the universe. We should be able to take a concept, and idea and turn it into something real and physical. I cite the internet as an example, it is a network of information, computers and people that transfer information and ideas among themselves. Real world and conceptual items are always being created on the internet. To the extent that we are now starting to shape the physical world with it. I just used an application the other day on my phone that places virtual objects on a latitude and longitude. If you go to that spot, open your camera on the phone and look around you will find this virtual item, embedded in the real world. Is it real, that is all perspective, it is just information, but yet it is a real creation, and exist via real information. I always tell people it would scare you if you understood reality enough to know that we are not very much different that that virtual item embedded in the "real world". Science has discovered that our universe is best described as a system of information and information processing. The more you look at the universe the more it becomes apparent that it is very much like a simulation or though. The real is not as real as any of us would like to believe. We experience reality through 4 dimensions which is woefully inadequate to understand the true nature of the universe.

DNA is a strong argument for god, again basic building blocks in which all things are created. A system of logic and design reused to develop many variations. The fact that we can discover and manipulate it again leads to our design being like that of gods. The fact that we can manipulate the core building blocks, gives credence to the idea that it was designed in the first place. The fact that we can recognize the patterns and modify them lends credibility to the fact that we where created in his image. Which becomes recursive, if we where created in his image then his image and therefore he exist.

Finally the multiverse itself, if all possibilities exist, then there is a universe in which god exist, god being the great I am, has no master and is subservient to no laws. If he exists in a reality on the multiverse he would by his nature have to exist above the multiverse. It is a problem of recursion that has to be possible yet is impossible.

FYI, I was an agnostic and and very arrogant, not because I was dismissive to other peoples views I actually rather enjoyed talking about the idea of religion. I was arrogant because I fashioned myself a god. By feeling that I had to fix things because there was no god, I arrogantly believed that I could. I did not give things over to god that are his will, for if their is no god then there is only my will and therefore I must do my will. In acting for ones own will, one is being arrogant, one believes themselves to be a god and the only source that can fix problems. It is futile and arrogant to believe that we can fix the corruptions of man, these are the trappings of Satan because we make no room for god. We arrogantly believe that we will fix the problems of humanity when all evidence is to the contrary. Humanity is not getting better, it is getting worse and every technical advancement makes it that much worse the last 200 years have been the darkest in human history and by all measures are getting worse daily. The worst part about my arrogance and the arrogance of people like me is that by believing that we are able to fix it without god, our will is done and not gods will, thereby furthering the problems. It is the worst trappings in the world because, the arrogance is lead by a desire to help humanity via our own efforts, we feel that we are doing good according to man. But with god we see that mans standards are a false and fallen standard.

Good post. Welcome to the board.

[kls]

So in the multiverse model, every time something could happen, both outcomes happen and fracture reality, how the multiverse deals with this is to shear the two realities and form a new universe.

Here you are talking about many worlds interpretation of QM. One has to distinguish among “multiverse” of inflationary cosmology, “many worlds” or “branches of the wave function” of quantum mechanics and “parallel branes” of string theory.

reference: beginning of
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmi ... same-idea/

I was going under the assumption that they will unify the cosmological and quantum models, and that the theories that they are interrelated are true. I assume that a bridge between quantum and the macro physics will be established, because I tend to have faith that it is ordered. Being such I tend to favor grand unifying theories, I therefore see the theories that unify the wave function collapse and the generation of another universe in the multiverse as logically cleaner. At the level I was trying to explain the concepts at, getting into the sub-theories was unnecessarily convoluted when giving an overview of the two major branches would suffice. But you are right and I should have disclaimed it, there are a bunch of multiverse models and I chose one which is an assumption on my part. That being said, I had to chose one for brevity and the overriding point to deal with when dealing with an Agnostic or Atheist that relies on science as their justification, is to have them contemplate the models that we know. Most scientifically minded Atheists are going to subscribe to one of the two major branches, with the majority subscribing to the multiverse because most of the prominent scientist subscribe to it, but most have never really contemplated whether the multiverse makes the most logical sense. When one is walked through it, it becomes very apparent that it has all the markings of a religion, one can then show these scientists "venomous" talks about faith and god and show that they have an agenda and that they would have active interest in dealing with the unsavory connotations that a single ordered universe brings into question, with an alternative theory. Showing that Atheist scientist had to create a religion to deal with the fact that all observation leads to the logical conclusion that it is by design, is the most powerful and damming evidence that you can give to an Atheist.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

I just looked around the website and I couldn't find anything. Can you link us to some articles?

They are there; there's even a search bar to use.

Here are some that answer some of the main questions by atheists:

1. If Christianity is a made up fairy tale by a bunch of ancient guys, their imagination kinda sucks http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... false.html
2: Who created God? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... d_god.html
3: The Reliability of the Bible http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html
4: God of the Gaps http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _gaps.html
5: Why God can be omnipotent by our own definition http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/rock.html
6: Christians do not believe with "blind faith" alone http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/reason.html
7: Religious conflicts comprise less than 7% of all conflicts in history/Atrocities done in the name of religion http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... ities.html
8: Is it Possible for God to Provide "Partial Free Will" and Eliminate All Evil? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _will.html
9: Did God Create Evil http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/evil.html
10: How could a loving God send people to hell? http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hell.html
11: Predestination vs. Free Will http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/p ... ation.html
12: What will happen to people who have never heard of Jesus http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... heard.html
13: The importance of biblical literacy: The Tetragammaton http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetragrammaton
14: The problem with an over-dependency on a fallible science method http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/20 ... px#Article
15: God & Logic, the cold-hearted breakdown http://thecollegeoftheology.com/god-and-logic/
16: Chemical Origin of Life? http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/chemlife.html

The wonderful thing about God & Science is that there are multiple supplemental articles on the topics along with credible references. As others have said; there truly is overwhelming amounts of evidence and if you find yourself hesitating to believe it even when it's rational, perhaps you may not be as unbiased towards it or as open as you think. That, of course, is not inherently bad, you just have to be aware of the fact and try to get around it. You will find the truth if your heart is sincerely seeking it. And, if you're from an atheistic perspective now, what harm can be done by throwing a thought into the wind and asking "if I can get the right guidance, then please bring me there". You may be surprised at how quickly that thought is answered. In fact, maybe you already have, and that's why you're here