In my opinion, atheists would be in a worse position...

[Mastermind]

If their multiverse theory is true.

If they believe in abiogenesis, then what is to stop the multiverse to become intelligent as well? After all, it has an infinity of time to work with, and an intelligent omnipresen omnipotent universe=God. We know that if given enough time, anything can happen, and if life and intelligence can come out of nothing, then it is bound to happen.

[Anonymous]

multi-verse theory is just too stupid so i don't even think twice about it.

[Mastermind]

It doesn't matter. It's the best they have, and combined with abiogenesis it is proof of a god.

[Jac3510]

Actually, I've used the multiverse theory against atheists in a somewhat similar way. If there are an infinite number of universes, they argue, then in one of them life is bound to have come up, even given the astronomical odds.

But, it isn't "one" of them that life would be in. Life would be in an infinite number of universes, and life would come in infinite forms. Absolutely no science would hold . . . there could be no predictability at all. For instance, Hugh Ross notes in Creator and the Cosmos (3rd ed) that the chances of the second law of thermodynamics reversing are about 1 in 10^80. To use his example, that's we've never heard of anyone's gas suddenly turning into ice when the spark hit it.

But, given the multiverse theory, there should be an INFINITE number of universes where that happened, and that's only one "odd" event. Anything that is scientifically possible, albeit ridiculously improbable (i.e., a tornado making a 747) should have happened an infinite number of times.

Why have we not observed this?

Regardless, it makes all their arguments about probability, as they use them, moot . . .

[Mastermind]

Well, we can't observe this. However, when arguing this point, we assume it exists. And the idea that the multiverse would develop intelligence isn't really that far fetched when you think about it. Hell, it could even be compared to binary, with the expanding universes=1 and contracting=0. With an infinity of universes, God would get a hell of a lot of RAM :p

[Anonymous]

This is an interesting topic of discussion. For further reading, Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is a fairly easy read and is pretty mind-boggling.
As for the multiverse theory, it seems mostly have spurred out of the chaos at the atomic level...multiverse and string theory both make an effort at tying in two seemingly opposing theories--Einstein's theory of relativity (which works on extremely large scales) and quantum theory (which works on extremely small scales.) Both theories are in their infancy, as neither can be proven easily due to the seeming impossibility of our observances of other universes or strings, yet both are pretty equal in their attempts of finding the Grand Unified Theory that Einstein was searching for in his final days.
Mostly, these two theories make for awesome science fiction...whether or not they are true makes no difference to the infinite possibilities of a human imagination!
Mastermind and Jac--I really enjoyed reading your posts on this topic, as this has been my latest scientific endeavor. Both views are interesting...it's an interesting idea, wondering if combined infinite universes equal God. What would be even more bizarre if all the universes combined equalled nothingness! (Cue music to 'Twilight Zone.') Crazy thought--what if our brains are like receivers to the universes (which could be given wave functions), but have filters on anything that exists outside of the five (or, as some claim, six) senses? That sounds like an interesting idea, though I wouldn't go so far as to call it a 'theory', a 'good guess,' or even a 'logical deduction.' I just think of it as fun!

[Jac3510]

Well, all that said, I still think the most basic problem for the theory is the same one that we have without it:

Where did the multiverse come from?

I try to let as much through as possible when discussing things with atheists. Let them state their positive beliefs. They always contradict themselves in the end. Always. *shrug*

Too much sci-fi, not enough actual science on these issues

[Mastermind]

The multiverse has always been here(just like God), always coughing up new universes. Since this is the standard stance Multiverse Atheists take, it makes it quite easy to expand abiogenesis to a grander scale, taking them off guard.

[sandy_mcd]

But, given the multiverse theory, there should be an INFINITE number of universes where that happened, and that's only one "odd" event. Anything that is scientifically possible, albeit ridiculously improbable (i.e., a tornado making a 747) should have happened an infinite number of times.

Why have we not observed this?

I am totally confused by the logic of these two paragraphs. Given the hypothesis of the first paragraph, it seems (to me) obvious that we haven't observed an infinite number of ridiculously improbable events because we can only observe events in our one universe, not in any of the postulated infinite number of other universes. Could someone please explain ?

Actually, the first paragraph raises a question - given an infinity of universes, is it really true that all possible events will occur ? There are different types of infinities and isn't it possible that even an infinite number of universes is not enough ?

Sandy

[Mastermind]

The first statement isn't a hypothesis. It is an assumption from which I logically derive something else.

[Anonymous]

Most atheists are not even aware that they HAVE to replace God with this theory. They say that in Ocazam's Razor, no God is simpler than God, but "no God" creates even further complications, as most of you are aware of.


Despite whatever they say... the question still stands: Who or what began the universe if not God?






Shalom

[Mastermind]

Personall, I hate ocam's razor. Assuming the most simple explanation does not guarantee its accuracy, nor improve the chances that the explanation is true.

[Anonymous]

Personall, I hate ocam's razor. Assuming the most simple explanation does not guarantee its accuracy, nor improve the chances that the explanation is true.

It's just as logical to use Occam's Razor to support religion, if not more so. In truth, it's not necessarily the "simplest" answer, but the answer with the least assumptions/variables.

"God did it" makes quite a good deal less assumptions and variables enter the equation.

Either way, Occam's doesn't really hold much water on its own as evidence for anything.

[Dan]

This is an interesting topic of discussion. For further reading, Brian Greene's "The Elegant Universe" is a fairly easy read and is pretty mind-boggling.

Read it! I've also read "The Fabric of the Cosmos" by the same author. I'm sort of troubled how he doesn't ever consider intelligent design in his books.

[Anonymous]

Here's an interesting scientific argument for the existence of an afterlife—and indeed in immortality itself—which may also help with some of the difficulties people here are having intuitively reconciling the odds against the accidental evolution of life as we've come to know it. There are only two simple scientific principles which have to be assumed in order for the argument to hold: Mass-energy is neither created nor destroyed; and mass-energy is capable of transformation. An additional observation is also required: random events seem to occur within the scope of nature. The argument goes like this:

Since mass-energy is neither created nor destroyed, it must have been here forever and must continue to be here forever. To the extent that random events occur, then given infinite time, all possible random events which are *consistent with physical laws* will necessarily occur. Life, as far as we know it, is consistent with all known physical laws, and therefore given a long enough interval, the occurrence of life as we know it has to occur. In an infinite amount of time, there is an infinite amount of finite time intervals. Therefore, life as we know it, right down to who we are as individuals, will be re-born again and again, in perpetuity (albeit at irregular intervals).

Thus, belief in immortality and an afterlife requires nothing more than simple scientific observations.

To argue that it is irrational to believe in the random origins of life--without a Divine Creator-- is equivalent to arguing that a single blade of grass on a golf course could not just randomly be the recipient of a golf ball landing on it because the odds against such an event are so high. The golf ball had to land somewhere, and the fact that it did land somewhere does not convincingly argue for the existence of God. However, if one correctly *predicted* that the ball would land on this specific blade of grass, that would indeed be profound. This is why the requirement of prediction makes the scientific method so powerful.