Meta-Universe and God

[KenV]

After a lot of coaching from the mods, I'm hoping this time to post something that in no way invokes a flag lol. Here goes:

My question pertains to the website. I came here after listening to a Christian Apologetic speak at my university and wanted to learn more about this line of thought. Here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _real.html) the site author gives 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe. The current popular naturalistic explanation that our universe lies within a greater universe whose physics and processes are unknown to us but could potentially create universes, like our own. The other is the theistic supernatural explanation, God created the universe. The meta universe idea would explain the seemingly impossible event that life was able to form as does the supernatural one. He goes on to say that that his reason for converting from atheistic agnosticism to deism and eventually to Christianity was that he applied Occam's Razor to the problem and decided that "God created the universe" was simpler than a complex meta universe doing the same thing.

Is this the conclusion everyone here came to? If so, why does it seem more logical to you that a supernatural event occurred to create the universe than physics that are do not yet understand created it? For me it's hard to accept a supernatural occurrence when there is still any plausible naturalistic options left on the table because however unlikely or hard to measure that option may be, it is still something that makes sense to my brain and is something I've experienced, where I've never experienced the supernatural and can't reconcile it with reality.

Hope that wasn't even the slightest bit offensive! Also, since I'm so heavily moderated (I guess there must have been a wave of arrogant atheist guys coming in here at some point?) I'd appreciate the same level of restraint and politeness from you guys. Thanks.

[MarcusOfLycia]

If 'natural' includes a limitless variety of physics, some capable of creating universes, it would seem the 'natural' would encompass the supernatural.

However, I am a little concerned with an attitude that seems to be common today where, if an answer to a question is unknown, the presumption is 'the science of the gaps may be beyond our reach completely to ever even get evidence for, but we can definitely say it isn't supernatural'. Doesn't seem quite fair.

[KenV]

If 'natural' includes a limitless variety of physics, some capable of creating universes, it would seem the 'natural' would encompass the supernatural.

However, I am a little concerned with an attitude that seems to be common today where, if an answer to a question is unknown, the presumption is 'the science of the gaps may be beyond our reach completely to ever even get evidence for, but we can definitely say it isn't supernatural'. Doesn't seem quite fair.

I agree, I don't think it's any more right to say that God is less likely than the meta-universe idea. If you admit you can't know the answer then saying it can't be supernatural is wrong. But, when both are equally plausible for lack of any information, it's hard for me to think it is reasonable to jump ship and devote myself to even the concept of deism, much less a religion.

I may not have mentioned it in that post, but I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning I'm of the variety of atheist that doesn't claim to know one way or the other because I don't believe one can believe that, given what we know. Atheist in this sense, as many people seem to be unaware of, means to just be with lack of belief in a god, not a disbelief in a god.

However, I disagree with saying a meta-universe that obeys other laws (not necessarily different, just not within our realm or within our realm as only a piece) is supernatural. It isn't limitless but just beyond our current knowledge. I also don't know if I agree that it this area of science is beyond our ability to learn about, but that's something only time will be able to tell.

[StMonicaGuideMe]

I think you'd find that we don't respond to atheists (or anyone) in an offensive or degrading manner. I apologize on behalf of any faithful person who may have upset you in some way in any point in your life-time. Just keep in mind that they are simply human and do make mistakes

I commend you for coming here and engaging with those who hold the worldview that we do. Many atheists and agnostics would simply dismiss the line of thought as "unintelligent, uneducated, irrational, etc" without actually speaking to anyone (which in of itself is quite intolerant!)

I hope you find what you seek here. Welcome

[neo-x]

After a lot of coaching from the mods, I'm hoping this time to post something that in no way invokes a flag lol. Here goes:

My question pertains to the website. I came here after listening to a Christian Apologetic speak at my university and wanted to learn more about this line of thought. Here (http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... _real.html) the site author gives 2 possible explanations for the existence of the universe. The current popular naturalistic explanation that our universe lies within a greater universe whose physics and processes are unknown to us but could potentially create universes, like our own. The other is the theistic supernatural explanation, God created the universe. The meta universe idea would explain the seemingly impossible event that life was able to form as does the supernatural one. He goes on to say that that his reason for converting from atheistic agnosticism to deism and eventually to Christianity was that he applied Occam's Razor to the problem and decided that "God created the universe" was simpler than a complex meta universe doing the same thing.

Is this the conclusion everyone here came to? If so, why does it seem more logical to you that a supernatural event occurred to create the universe than physics that are do not yet understand created it? For me it's hard to accept a supernatural occurrence when there is still any plausible naturalistic options left on the table because however unlikely or hard to measure that option may be, it is still something that makes sense to my brain and is something I've experienced, where I've never experienced the supernatural and can't reconcile it with reality.

Hope that wasn't even the slightest bit offensive! Also, since I'm so heavily moderated (I guess there must have been a wave of arrogant atheist guys coming in here at some point?) I'd appreciate the same level of restraint and politeness from you guys. Thanks.

Ken,
There is no way to prove, at this current time and with the technology that how the universe came into being. Of course when we say God made the universe we are not talking on empirical evidence alone, rather the philosophical reasoning that we have. The order, the chaos, the balance, the harmony, the symmetry and most of all the laws of physics, how come they came - just like that - appear and are enforced in our universe, and they never change. The amount of reasoning required to comprehend something on such a colossal scale is, where as yet we still do not know the boundaries of our own universe, is really hard to get.

I am not saying that science is wrong, no. The problem is, science is just not the right tool to find God. I mean an tuxedo is an awesome piece of clothing but I bet you won't wear it if you're gonna climb mount Everest. So even if you do have all the right tools of science, even in the face of it, you will have to either believe or not. I mean what if God really came to visit you tonight, you'll run to the shrink in the morning complaining you are having hallucinations, you with me? In the end it boils down to, are you willing to think further then your box of science? if you are not willing to even consider the possibility, the how come you will ever find the results unbiased?

What piece of evidence will satisfy you? have you ever asked yourself this question? My brotherly suggestion is that you should. And in case you already have, please do share with us.

I mean, if you say, the smallest particles in the universe started the initial creation moment, then I would simply ask you? how did those particles came to be in the first place? How did they have the properties, what programmed them to behave this certain way and no other? why has that never happened again, what makes it so stable? why is there no life anywhere near us? why is this planet so fine tuned? What fine tuned it? nature? the same nature that makes the sun glow and the moon shine. Did nature stopped and think about it? is nature even a real entity or an abstract concept? Why does gravity pull, what keeps it going that way? Why does some particles have polarities and others don't? Why does our planet regenerates it self? How come we are not able to see beyond a certain point in space? why is the universe expanding? where does it end? what rests out there beyond our universe? where did matter originate? was it always there? does it even makes sense at this point?

the answers of all or most of them is, physics. That is the answer a good scientist will tell me. And I still have my question. Who designed physics? I mean it totally misses my wee brain that all of this happened just because "we don't know but we think matter existed since always". okay but matter must have originated at some point, something cannot come out of nothing, right? And how come this matter had these properties?

btw Occam's Razor is not that the simplest explanation is the best one, it is the the explanation which raises the fewest newest assumptions - is the right one. (not a big fan of Occam's Razor)

At the end of the day, I can't show you "hey look! there is God." But I can ask you to appeal to your better sense and see for yourself, look around you and tell me if the universe was designed by physics then who designed physics? It is not a scientific question, but it is a good one. To me, there is an entity out there, beyond our space and time, who is totally independent of us, who created all of this. I have no way to show you otherwise, everything that exists must have a creator. This is the simple line of thought which I persue. And before you ask me "who created God?", by our definition, something like that cannot happen. This is the sole exception to my line of reasoning, why because it creates a host of other problems and an endless chain of reasoning.

There is joke in the humor sections that I always like to quote, just to clear my point,

Once upon a time, a scientist came up with the conclusion that he could form life without God being in the Equation. One day, he came up to God and said:
God, you say you create life, but i can be a god also, because in my lab, i am able to create life. We(talking about science) dont need you. We are as smart and capable as you are.
God responded by saying: Sure, Billy (God knew his name, obviously because God is all knowing ) So, you think you have come up to the conclusion that the creation is more capable then his master huh?

When the face off started, the Scientist bent over and picked up some dirt, to create life form in the same way God had done.
God, almost laughing told Billy: Bil, get your own dirt.

Hope you have a good time here.

God bless you.

[KenV]

If God came and talked to me personally, I might go find a shrink or I might believe it was God. I guess it'd depend on the experience, it's hard to tell what I'd think or do in such an extreme situation. I mean if he was really God and wanted me to believe he was real and not a figment of my broken psychi I'm sure he could think of a perfect way to proof it to me with relative ease.

As for what piece of evidence it would take. Well, the first step would be to eliminate the possibility of all other universe creation theories. By that I mean, if there were some proof that there wasn't a meta-universe. That would be the first step in making me think it was more plausible that a divinity existed. Still, I wouldn't be convinced, not completely. Not enough to join a religion. That would take something incredible, I suppose. I'm probably not the kind of person that can just accept one thing or the other without concrete proof, but I can be swayed to think something is more plausible than the other which seems to be what the site creator was talking about. So when you ask me where did matter come from, what gave particles their properties, my answer is just "I don't know". And if that is my answer, how could someone like me ever be a Christian? So maybe I can't ignore science in favor of philosophy, I don't know if my mind would allow me to do that sincerely. I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.

As for the fine tuned Earth part. I don't see it that way because what I see is us being a product of nature. We are on a planet that seems fine tuned for life because we have to be on a planet fine tuned for life. Life simply won't appear anywhere else because if it isn't fine tuned then life doesn't grow. So, anywhere we wound up would appear absolutely perfect for us, almost too perfect, because we come from organisms that have been growing and evolving over hundreds of millions of years on this planet, adapting and changing in accordance to the ecosystem. Think about it like this, we are in a universe that appears to be perfectly designed for human life, but, is it even possible that we exist in a place that wasn't? The fact that we exist dictates that we be in a place like this, so there could be countless other universes and planets and we'd still have to be here or not exist at all.

Oh, and I don't know about you but I'm a classy guy and I would totally climb Everest in a Tux .

[neo-x]

I'm not sure you'd reach the top in a tux in one piece

I'm sure he could think of a perfect way to proof it to me with relative ease.

Which perfect way would be that, ken?

As for what piece of evidence it would take. Well, the first step would be to eliminate the possibility of all other universe creation theories. By that I mean, if there were some proof that there wasn't a meta-universe. That would be the first step in making me think it was more plausible that a divinity existed.

There is no solid proof of multi-verse, either. I am curious as to why you'd believe it without first hand seeing that it really exists? Have you ever seen a paralel universe? how do you know for sure, it exists?

I'm probably not the kind of person that can just accept one thing or the other without concrete proof,

ahhh. you completely went against on the multiverse part here, there is no proof of it. Yet you still think it is plausible.

So when you ask me where did matter come from, what gave particles their properties, my answer is just "I don't know".

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

So maybe I can't ignore science in favor of philosophy, I don't know if my mind would allow me to do that sincerely.

No one is asking you to ignore science, just saying there are things science is unable to address, like metaphysical concepts and philosophy, abstracts, like soul and emotions like Love, which of course is just a chemical reaction in biology. They both are there. They both are important.

I have a whole bit about Hell and how someone like me will inevitably be punished eternally for being wrong (Pascal's Wager), but that's a different topic for a different day.

Start a thread, we'll disscuss.

As for the fine tuned Earth part. I don't see it that way because what I see is us being a product of nature

And whose product is nature by the way?

We are on a planet that seems fine tuned for life because we have to be on a planet fine tuned for life.

This implies value to your claim on a philosophical ground, well if it is spontaneous creation without intent, if it was really just a chemical accident then you are no more important than the ant you squish all around the day under your own feet.

So, anywhere we wound up would appear absolutely perfect for us, almost too perfect, because we come from organisms that have been growing and evolving over hundreds of millions of years on this planet, adapting and changing in accordance to the ecosystem.

An ecosystem that seemed to be favouring them all through history, care to elaborate, how could that be. It's like playing roulette and winning for 5 billion years straight off the bat. Not buying it, Ken.

The fact that we exist dictates that we be in a place like this, so there could be countless other universes and planets and we'd still have to be here or not exist at all.

No, this amounts to intent and purpose against spontaneous generation, you can't have both Ken.

[Byblos]

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

[KenV]

Which perfect way would be that, ken?

Well, I'm not God so it's hard to tell, but since he's far more intelligent than I and knows me better than I know myself, I think if anyone was able to do it, he would.

As for what piece of evidence it would take. Well, the first step would be to eliminate the possibility of all other universe creation theories. By that I mean, if there were some proof that there wasn't a meta-universe. That would be the first step in making me think it was more plausible that a divinity existed.

There is no solid proof of multi-verse, either. I am curious as to why you'd believe it without first hand seeing that it really exists? Have you ever seen a paralel universe? how do you know for sure, it exists?

I don't "believe" it at all. I just recognize it as a possibility. The only thing, in my eyes, that makes it more credible than God is that it doesn't rely on supernatural occurrences, since I've never witnessed something like that. I'm not the kind of atheist that has decided "There is no God", only that "I do not "believe" there is, in that I haven't made a choice that there is or is not a god of any sort.

ahhh. you completely went against on the multiverse part here, there is no proof of it. Yet you still think it is plausible.

Exactly, plausible. I didn't go against anything, my logic so far is un-flawed here. I think it nearly as plausible as divine creation, nearly being the operative word since it has a basis in naturalism (what I can see or experience) and has at least the ability to be tested, even if we haven't been able to prove or disprove it yet.

And whose product is nature by the way?

The random assortment of particles that ended up becoming life. 1,000 monkeys in a room creating Shakespeare sort of thing.

This implies value to your claim on a philosophical ground, well if it is spontaneous creation without intent, if it was really just a chemical accident then you are no more important than the ant you squish all around the day under your own feet.

Indeed, in the grand scheme of things I'm less significant than a speck of dust. However, that doesn't bother me and in some ways is a relief to me. No one to blame for horrible atrocities. And I can recognize atrocities as an atheist as being something I find sickening, even if in the grand scheme of things they don't matter, it still effects me emotionally and that brings us back to evolution. We create our own morality.

An ecosystem that seemed to be favouring them all through history, care to elaborate, how could that be. It's like playing roulette and winning for 5 billion years straight off the bat. Not buying it, Ken.

But it hasn't favored anything throughout history. We have random mass extinction, climate change, we are on a ball floating through space circling a giant ball of gas and fire waiting to be destroyed. It doesn't seem like the perfectly stable, hospitable home created by God. It seems like we are an odd growth on small pebble floating around in nothingness. In the grand scheme of things, we've been here almost no time at all. And the ecosystem doesn't favor us, we just grew to best suit it.

No, this amounts to intent and purpose against spontaneous generation, you can't have both Ken.

I disagree, I don't think it shows any intent and purpose. Is there purpose for the mold when it grows on bread? Why didn't it grow on my pristine, untouched computer screen? It's because that's where the mold would grow. It doesn't grow elsewhere because it can't. If the mold could think, would it wonder how such a magical place like the bread exist for it to thrive or would it understand that the only reason it exist is because of the bread, and thus, it could wind up no where else. The world has to be this way or we wouldn't exist.

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

You'll have to explain to me what you mean by infinite regress. I'm not following.

[jlay]

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

Love it!!

[KenV]

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

Love it!!

I left that one alone because it didn't quite make sense to me. The baby knows who its parents are (I'm assuming that's true) because of evolutionary necessity. Give it a few years/months/weeks, I'm better it forgets. But then again, I don't think that was the point, was the point in defense of faith? That people just know or feel that God exist?

[Proinsias]

you're not the first Ken, no one knows, not even the most advanced physicists in the world. If I show you a pic of a child and ask you, whose baby is this? you'd say, you don't know. But you sure as hell, would know, that it has parents.

Love it!!

Would one not assume the parent(s) were human, or at least humanish? As some are now stating the explanation for this universe could be an older universe - a parent universe so to speak. The theistic explanation seems a little akin to seeing a child and declaring it most probably had it's inception in something infinite and eternal, not a coupling of humans. That a baby mouse is not best explained as being the offspring of an adult mouse but rather best explained by an infinite being.

It makes not a lick of difference whatsoever how many universes are postulated beyond ours. You end up with either infinite regress, which is utterly absurd and the death knell of science, indeed of reason itself, or you end up with a purposeful creation ex nihilo. Those are the only two option, there is no third. And guess which one science backs up?

Why is an infinite regress absurd and an infinite creator reasonable?

[MarcusOfLycia]

"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

And perhaps we should see no distinction. However, in that case, one still has to explain a First Cause. They, however, are no longer permitted to identify it separately from the cause-and-effect chain. I feel that task to be impossible. I make the differentiation. I see a requirement for the supernatural, not just a chance.

[KenV]

"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

Your failure to understand the implications the statement presents does not make the statement absurd. It may not be pleasant for you to think about but that takes nothing away from it. It is simply something that does not conform to your world view so you've decided to color negatively. However, it speaks to the realist in me and it is comforting that I am not being judged on values that I do not hold, that I can create for myself what I think is right and wrong, beneficial and not beneficial to society, respectable and not. In a way it is the most flattering thing one can say because it doesn't assume that one has to be a slave to someone else's moral code, one that in my eyes is outdated and superficial, to live a good life.

Furthermore, please explain some of the things you say. If you call something absurd, explain why you think it's absurd. It just makes conversation flow smoother.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

Why would I "believe" in something I've never seen and have no evidence of? I do accept the possibility but I wouldn't say likelihood, especially since its the only possibility that literally has no evidence what so ever while several others at least have basis in the fact that they can be witnessed and possibly tested. Saying that I should accept it as likely is absurd when there are still possibilities that do not require events so far unseen left to explore.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

Say the meta-universe always existed, no beginning, much like God. Would that be supernatural? I don't think so. It obeys its own laws. But what gets me is, with so little information and nothing more than philosophical basis for argumentation, how can you be so sure of anything? Would you suggest that even if I come to the conclusion that the supernatural is likely, that I should also conclude that the supernatural must also be conscious and attribute to it the whole host of Christian implications of what God should be? That level of certainty in this context can never be concluded without a certain level of arrogance.

And perhaps we should see no distinction. However, in that case, one still has to explain a First Cause. They, however, are no longer permitted to identify it separately from the cause-and-effect chain. I feel that task to be impossible. I make the differentiation. I see a requirement for the supernatural, not just a chance.

If you feel that their must be a supernatural for a beginning to have occurred, which above I stated that I do not, why do you assume that it has to be a conscious being? Why is it something that you can understand? Why can't you accept that the supernatural, a thing that already transcends what you can even understand as a reality based thing, might be something that we couldn't possibly comprehend? Do you know something about the supernatural that I do not? If we are going to start talking about the necessity for a supernatural origin, what right or qualifications do we have to opine on the characteristics of that entity?

[KenV]

"We create our own morality" is absurd, and unfortunately is not a very flattering thing for one to say... it is a thoroughly worthless non-philosophical statement.

Your failure to understand the implications the statement presents does not make the statement absurd. It may not be pleasant for you to think about but that takes nothing away from it. It is simply something that does not conform to your world view so you've decided to color negatively. However, it speaks to the realist in me and it is comforting that I am not being judged on values that I do not hold, that I can create for myself what I think is right and wrong, beneficial and not beneficial to society, respectable and not. In a way it is the most flattering thing one can say because it doesn't assume that one has to be a slave to someone else's moral code, one that in my eyes is outdated and superficial, to live a good life.

Furthermore, please explain some of the things you say. If you call something absurd, explain why you think it's absurd. It just makes conversation flow smoother.

The point I was originally trying to make is that your definition of the natural encompasses literally every possibility. In that case, you already accept the plausability (possibility, and I dare-say even likelihood) of the supernatural. But by suggesting that the natural can encompass all things known and all things not known (including those things we can never know), you can avoid saying you believe in the supernatural.

Why would I "believe" in something I've never seen and have no evidence of? I do accept the possibility but I wouldn't say likelihood, especially since its the only possibility that literally has no evidence what so ever while several others at least have basis in the fact that they can be witnessed and possibly tested. Saying that I should accept it as likely is absurd when there are still possibilities that do not require events so far unseen left to explore.

It is, unfortunately, playing with definitions. If we can define the 'natural' as cause-and-effect, then the supernatural is the only explanation for anything- it explains a First Cause. However, if you redefine 'natural' to mean 'existent', you remove the barrier between what used to be distinguished.

I'll start this off with saying I think your definition is wrong. I don't think it means "Cause and effect". I think it means to obey ones observable laws. We don't know the laws of the meta-universe so we don't know what supernatural is in regards to the meta-universe. What may be possible there may not be possible here.

Say the meta-universe always existed, no beginning, much like God. Would that be supernatural? I don't think so. It obeys its own laws. But what gets me is, with so little information and nothing more than philosophical basis for argumentation, how can you be so sure of anything? Would you suggest that even if I come to the conclusion that the supernatural is likely, that I should also conclude that the supernatural must also be conscious and attribute to it the whole host of Christian implications of what God should be? That level of certainty in this context can never be concluded without a certain level of arrogance.

And perhaps we should see no distinction. However, in that case, one still has to explain a First Cause. They, however, are no longer permitted to identify it separately from the cause-and-effect chain. I feel that task to be impossible. I make the differentiation. I see a requirement for the supernatural, not just a chance.

If you feel that their must be a supernatural for a beginning to have occurred, which above I stated that I do not, why do you assume that it has to be a conscious being? Why is it something that you can understand? Why can't you accept that the supernatural, a thing that already transcends what you can even understand as a reality based thing, might be something that we couldn't possibly comprehend? Do you know something about the supernatural that I do not? If we are going to start talking about the necessity for a supernatural origin, what right or qualifications do we have to opine on the characteristics of that entity?