Multiverse- A replacement for God

[Philip]

While the idea of a multiverse is merely and scientifically theoretical (and fraught with many huge problems), and often whipped out as a supposed and desperate counter to arguments that there must be a Creator, with GOD, nothing is impossible - even a series of universes. Or simultaneous universes. However, that doesn't make this a reality or one we can currently prove. And WITHOUT God, a universe - even ONE universe - coming into being without a Cause is ZILCH! And not only could not ONE universe exist that has no prior Cause, even if one could somehow come into existence, uncaused, the ability and odds of it producing the necessary fine tuning that could sustain, much less produce, life - even in just one planet? Absolute ZERO! Many rambling on about such a possibility often do not realize the number of miraculous and exceptionally complex, necessarily interactive components, and comprehensively precise mechanisms necessary for just ONE planet to exist that would allow, much less sustain, biological life.

Look at the fine-tuning necessary for OUR universe and OUR planet: http://www.reasons.org/articles/fine-tu ... e-universe And so where did these mechanisms and the complex laws governing them come from.

I see this all the time in naive newspaper articles - in which a constantly fund-seeking and self-justifying NASA promotes and wildly hypes the probability - in which it is asserted that if a planet has (or once had) water, is in the "Goldilocks Zone," has the necessary temperatures and perhaps a few other basic attributes, then it is "quite likely that such a planet has or once had some form of (at least primitive) life. So we're to believe that our own universe and planet, both so incredibly fine-tuned and unique in such an astonishing number of necessary and mathematically, unlikely, complex attributes, that these have been similarly replicated in countless other universes? It takes tremendous faith to believe that even ONE such UNCAUSED universe could exist. To believe that some infinite or even a few other such universes could exist, UNCAUSED, well, someone with that kind of faith in something so completely unproven and without substantial evidences to believe it is really a person who has completely deluded themselves.

But WITH God creating and sustaining them, I have no problem believing that God has possibly created countless universes and dimensions, in which His attributes of being constantly active and creative, have been eternally producing them. If true, the existence of other (outside of our universe, and possibly, time) such universes and creatures shouldn't rattle anyone's theological cage. And these other universes and realities, if they exist, may be physical or not. Just because man was created to live in a physical universe and as Heaven is described as being a physical place (of which both the Apostles John and Paul saw glimpses of), it does not mean that ALL of God's other creations are physical as well. And it doesn't mean that God hasn't created, had purposes for, had those purposes play out, and then subsequently deleted other universes and dimensions. We just don't know. If true, so far, He hasn't revealed them to us. Nor have any other forms of life made themselves known to us. Do they exist? WITH God, possible - theoretically and otherwise. WITHOUT God ... impossible!

The mere fact that God is constantly active, delights in being creative (on a scale we cannot accurately or mentally fathom), and that He has ALWAYS existed - and with these abilities and attributes - why should we be surprised if He has created other universes, realities and beings besides humans and angels? Does one believe that God has been merely twiddling his thumbs and planning our universe, time and existence FOR ETERNITY PAST? To me, it's very human and narcissistic to think that God's creations have only revolved around US. But to hear most Christians talk, you would think they believe that to be the case.

[Byblos]

A nice article in the Huffington Post that caught my attention. I will post it in the inflationary model thread also.

[Silvertusk]

Thanks for sharing that Byblos. Very interesting read.

[1over137]

I liked the ending summary

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation in physics -- and the correct theories are eventually confirmed by experiment and observation. But it is definitely wrong -- misleading and dishonest -- to preach to an unsuspecting public, mostly uninitiated in science, mere hypotheses as if they were confirmed facts. This isn't science, and it isn't honest scientific reporting. Physicists should be the purveyors of facts, not dreams.

[Morny]

I liked the ending summary

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation in physics -- and the correct theories are eventually confirmed by experiment and observation. But it is definitely wrong -- misleading and dishonest -- to preach to an unsuspecting public, mostly uninitiated in science, mere hypotheses as if they were confirmed facts. This isn't science, and it isn't honest scientific reporting. Physicists should be the purveyors of facts, not dreams.

No need to worry about people believing scientists' silly sinister speculations.

Thankfully, people don't even believe scientists' well-established findings: vaccines don't cause autism, HPV causes cervical cancer, smoking causes cancer, HIV causes AIDS, GMOs are safe, CFCs caused the ozone hole, therapeutic touch doesn't work, homeopathy doesn't work, acupuncture doesn't work, magnetic bracelets don't work, power lines don't cause cancer, cell phones don't cause cancer, humans are causing climate change, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and evolution.

"Many people still don't believe in global warming, which is understandable, because confusion is a side effect of heat stroke." -- Jeff Caldwell, comedian

[1over137]

I liked the ending summary

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation in physics -- and the correct theories are eventually confirmed by experiment and observation. But it is definitely wrong -- misleading and dishonest -- to preach to an unsuspecting public, mostly uninitiated in science, mere hypotheses as if they were confirmed facts. This isn't science, and it isn't honest scientific reporting. Physicists should be the purveyors of facts, not dreams.

No need to worry about people believing scientists' silly sinister speculations.

Thankfully, people don't even believe scientists' well-established findings: vaccines don't cause autism, HPV causes cervical cancer, smoking causes cancer, HIV causes AIDS, GMOs are safe, CFCs caused the ozone hole, therapeutic touch doesn't work, homeopathy doesn't work, acupuncture doesn't work, magnetic bracelets don't work, power lines don't cause cancer, cell phones don't cause cancer, humans are causing climate change, the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and evolution.

"Many people still don't believe in global warming, which is understandable, because confusion is a side effect of heat stroke." -- Jeff Caldwell, comedian

What are you saying?

[Morny]

What are you saying?

People don't even believe scientists on topics (see list) with massive supporting evidence. So what makes the Huffington Post author, or anyone else, think that scientists' obviously speculative musings on the universe's ultimate questions in the popular press is going to "replace God" for the "unsuspecting public"?

[Danieltwotwenty]

What are you saying?

People don't even believe scientists on topics (see list) with massive supporting evidence. So what makes the Huffington Post author, or anyone else, think that scientists' obviously speculative musings on the universe's ultimate questions in the popular press is going to "replace God" for the "unsuspecting public"?

When you say "people", which people are you talking about? The majority of people I know either accept scientific discoveries or simply are indifferent towards them.

It's rare that I run into people who reject the current scientific theories and the ones that I do reject it purely on their narrow interpretation of scripture, which by and large they are in the minority when it comes to a world wide scale.

I would strongly disagree with your statement.

[Morny]

When you say "people", which people are you talking about? The majority of people I know either accept scientific discoveries or simply are indifferent towards them.

It's rare that I run into people who reject the current scientific theories and the ones that I do reject it purely on their narrow interpretation of scripture, which by and large they are in the minority when it comes to a world wide scale.

I would strongly disagree with your statement.

Polls repeatedly indicate that at least 1/4 of the population rejects massively supported evidence for major scientific findings.

So I am ecstatic that you accept the scientific findings in my long list above, but I think you're being optimistic about others.

[neo-x]

When you say "people", which people are you talking about? The majority of people I know either accept scientific discoveries or simply are indifferent towards them.

It's rare that I run into people who reject the current scientific theories and the ones that I do reject it purely on their narrow interpretation of scripture, which by and large they are in the minority when it comes to a world wide scale.

I would strongly disagree with your statement.

Polls repeatedly indicate that at least 1/4 of the population rejects massively supported evidence for major scientific findings.

So I am ecstatic that you accept the scientific findings in my long list above, but I think you're being optimistic about others.

Many atheists I know, believe in ghosts, spirits, conscience after death, karma, telepathy, homeopathy, astrology, aliens etc...

while I agree that number of people do reject scientific findings, I also think that to associate this number directly to a certain religious community is wrong. Many in the same community but not within the same number hold the opposite.

i think you will find people in all groups equally strange, if you polled how many people believe in ghosts for instance, and that number will be I am afraid a bit substantial among non-believers as well.

[Danieltwotwenty]

When you say "people", which people are you talking about? The majority of people I know either accept scientific discoveries or simply are indifferent towards them.

It's rare that I run into people who reject the current scientific theories and the ones that I do reject it purely on their narrow interpretation of scripture, which by and large they are in the minority when it comes to a world wide scale.

I would strongly disagree with your statement.

Polls repeatedly indicate that at least 1/4 of the population rejects massively supported evidence for major scientific findings.

So I am ecstatic that you accept the scientific findings in my long list above, but I think you're being optimistic about others.

Which population? They took a poll of the whole Earth? Or are we talking about the US of A. I live in Australia so I don't really know what it is like in the states, I can only speak for my country and on a whole I would say the large majority accept most scientific discoveries. I would also like to say that it is perfectly healthy to have scepticism of all discoveries, without the sceptics the theories may never be put through their paces and we would live in an echo chamber of ideas that are probably false. Even the YEC position I think adds a good flavour to the mix, without alternate theories science would stagnate.

[1over137]

From scientists here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6865

I’m not particularly keen on the rumour-mongering that has gone on, but then I’m not very keen either on the way the BICEP2 result has been presented in some quarters as being beyond reasonable doubt when it clearly doesn’t have that status. Yet.

This is, this is a really, peculiar situation. In that, the best evidence for this not being a foreground, and the best evidence for foregrounds being a possible contaminant, both come from digitizing maps from power point presentations that were not intended to be used this way by teams just sharing the data. So this is not – we all know, this is not sound methodology. You can’t bank on this, you shouldn’t. And I may be whining, but if I were an editor I wouldn’t allow anything based on this in a journal. Just this particular thing, you know. You just can’t, you can’t do science by digitizing other people’s images.

[Morny]

Many atheists I know, believe in ghosts, spirits, conscience after death, karma, telepathy, homeopathy, astrology, aliens etc...

while I agree that number of people do reject scientific findings, I also think that to associate this number directly to a certain religious community is wrong. Many in the same community but not within the same number hold the opposite.

i think you will find people in all groups equally strange, if you polled how many people believe in ghosts for instance, and that number will be I am afraid a bit substantial among non-believers as well.

I agree completely. I hope I didn't single out the religious anywhere. In my experience, nonsensical thinking is an equal-opportunity employer.

[Morny]

Which population? They took a poll of the whole Earth? Or are we talking about the US of A. I live in Australia so I don't really know what it is like in the states, I can only speak for my country and on a whole I would say the large majority accept most scientific discoveries. I would also like to say that it is perfectly healthy to have scepticism of all discoveries, without the sceptics the theories may never be put through their paces and we would live in an echo chamber of ideas that are probably false.

So far so good. (I'll have to re-lookup the innumerable polls I've seen.)

Even the YEC position I think adds a good flavour to the mix, without alternate theories science would stagnate.

Here's where we diverge. Alternate theories glaringly inconsistent with evidence are unhelpful. YEC falls into this category, as well as any other alternate theory that disagrees with a finding in my list above.

[Morny]

From scientists here: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=6865

I’m not particularly keen on the rumour-mongering that has gone on, but then I’m not very keen either on the way the BICEP2 result has been presented in some quarters as being beyond reasonable doubt when it clearly doesn’t have that status. Yet.

This is, this is a really, peculiar situation. In that, the best evidence for this not being a foreground, and the best evidence for foregrounds being a possible contaminant, both come from digitizing maps from power point presentations that were not intended to be used this way by teams just sharing the data. So this is not – we all know, this is not sound methodology. You can’t bank on this, you shouldn’t. And I may be whining, but if I were an editor I wouldn’t allow anything based on this in a journal. Just this particular thing, you know. You just can’t, you can’t do science by digitizing other people’s images.

I'm not sure if you're implying anything, but the recent CMB polarization result (that supports inflation) not only hasn't been completely double checked by others, but also hasn't been replicated. The CMB polarization result is encouraging, but in science, one result never eliminates reasonable doubt. Any scientist beating his chest about inflation now being proven lowers his credibility.