The case for a multiverse

[Echoside]

Certainly agree with that - Do you believe in God then Echo? I only ask because you profile says you are not a Christian.

I believe that God is a reasonable concept, and that there are evidences to support God that I would be foolish to dismiss outright without further investigation. No, I would not identify myself as a Christian at the moment, or a theist even. I am in the process of searching, and Jeremiah 29:13 to me is a promise from God that my search will not be futile (if he exists , anyways )

I might technically be an agnostic of sorts, but if something doesn't make sense i'm not one to "bury my head in the sand", so to speak.

[RickD]

Certainly agree with that - Do you believe in God then Echo? I only ask because you profile says you are not a Christian.

I believe that God is a reasonable concept, and that there are evidences to support God that I would be foolish to dismiss outright without further investigation. No, I would not identify myself as a Christian at the moment, or a theist even. I am in the process of searching, and Jeremiah 29:13 to me is a promise from God that my search will not be futile (if he exists , anyways )

I might technically be an agnostic of sorts, but if something doesn't make sense i'm not one to "bury my head in the sand", so to speak.

Actually Echoside, Jeremiah 29:13 was written to a specific people at a specific time in history. When read it in context,it's not a promise for us. John 3:16 is a promise for everyone, including us. I encourage you to read the book of John, and ask God to speak to you when you read.

[Echoside]

Certainly agree with that - Do you believe in God then Echo? I only ask because you profile says you are not a Christian.

I believe that God is a reasonable concept, and that there are evidences to support God that I would be foolish to dismiss outright without further investigation. No, I would not identify myself as a Christian at the moment, or a theist even. I am in the process of searching, and Jeremiah 29:13 to me is a promise from God that my search will not be futile (if he exists , anyways )

I might technically be an agnostic of sorts, but if something doesn't make sense i'm not one to "bury my head in the sand", so to speak.

Actually Echoside, Jeremiah 29:13 was written to a specific people at a specific time in history. When read it in context,it's not a promise for us. John 3:16 is a promise for everyone, including us. I encourage you to read the book of John, and ask God to speak to you when you read.

Ah I see, I will keep that in mind. At any rate, honestly seeking - and with all my heart and mind is what I plan to do. I have read the book of John, and im in the process of finishing the rest of the bible.

[Byblos]

I have no problem with what Craymatter said, other than he may have rejected 'creation' too quickly.

You dismiss too quickly. You can ask the question 'who created God' only if the a priori assumption is that everything MUST have been created. Is that in fact the biblical or the classical philosophical claim? No it is not. The actual claim is that an UNCAUSED CAUSE must exist, otherwise nothing would get started to begin with, including your multi-verse. So to ask the question who created God would be tantamount to asking who caused the uncaused cause. It is a nonsensical statement that violates the law of non-contradiction.

You speak of an uncaused cause. What is this cause? God? Why does it have to be God (God, being a being with the 3*omni's)?

You can call it anything your little heart desires but it doesn't change the fact that the uncaused cause must be all-powerful to be able to create ex nihilo, must be simple so as to need nothing, must be transcendent and therefore outside of its own creation, and must be intelligent so as to decide to create (there are more attributes of course but those will do for now).

If we are calling this cause God with out a base for it, why can't I claim that this cause was just a quantum fluctuation, that inflated, bringing into existence our universe.

You can't call that the uncaused cause because quantum fluctuation does not conform to any of the attributes of an uncaused cause, let alone all of them.

Quantum physicists, when they say that every thing ocame from nothing, they don't literally mean ex nihilo, out of nothing. What they speak of when they say nothing is the back round on which everything exists.

Do you see the emphasized? Where did everything come from? More to the point, where did the background where everything exists come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Do I know what this is? No. Am I a string theorist? No. Do I know more about this than the average person, yes. Can I in due time? Yes.

Lol, you might find more than the average person around here. And I look forward to knowing as well. What is your point?

If you can claim this uncaused cause is God, I can claim it is a random atom or Zeus.

Again, no you can't because by definition an atom or Zeus does not conform to the attributes of an uncaused cause (unless you want to argue infinite regress). This is not a matter of religion or faith, it is a matter of science (the bedrock of all sciences, i.e. philosophy).

[DannyM]

I have no problem with what Craymatter said, other than he may have rejected 'creation' too quickly.

You dismiss too quickly. You can ask the question 'who created God' only if the a priori assumption is that everything MUST have been created. Is that in fact the biblical or the classical philosophical claim? No it is not. The actual claim is that an UNCAUSED CAUSE must exist, otherwise nothing would get started to begin with, including your multi-verse. So to ask the question who created God would be tantamount to asking who caused the uncaused cause. It is a nonsensical statement that violates the law of non-contradiction.

You speak of an uncaused cause. What is this cause? God? Why does it have to be God (God, being a being with the 3*omni's)?

You can call it anything your little heart desires but it doesn't change the fact that the uncaused cause must be all-powerful to be able to create ex nihilo, must be simple so as to need nothing, must be transcendent and therefore outside of its own creation, and must be intelligent so as to decide to create (there are more attributes of course but those will do for now).

If we are calling this cause God with out a base for it, why can't I claim that this cause was just a quantum fluctuation, that inflated, bringing into existence our universe.

You can't call that the uncaused cause because quantum fluctuation does not conform to any of the attributes of an uncaused cause, let alone all of them.

Quantum physicists, when they say that every thing ocame from nothing, they don't literally mean ex nihilo, out of nothing. What they speak of when they say nothing is the back round on which everything exists.

Do you see the emphasized? Where did everything come from? More to the point, where did the background where everything exists come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Do I know what this is? No. Am I a string theorist? No. Do I know more about this than the average person, yes. Can I in due time? Yes.

Lol, you might find more than the average person around here. And I look forward to knowing as well. What is your point?

If you can claim this uncaused cause is God, I can claim it is a random atom or Zeus.

Again, no you can't because by definition an atom or Zeus does not conform to the attributes of an uncaused cause (unless you want to argue infinite regress). This is not a matter of religion or faith, it is a matter of science (the bedrock of all sciences, i.e. philosophy).

Nice.

I predict these latest 'challengers' will throw a few early blows, be unable to resist the weight from the counter-blows, and will scurry off proclaiming all Christians 'ignorant'.

If past efforts are anything to go by, I'm confident of this...

[BGoodForGoodSake]

A Case for the Multiverse Theory
I have believed for a while now that our universe came from something preceding. I cannot imagine otherwise.
...
no one is there to contemplate or care just how lucky we are in ours, wishing they were here, but oh how extremely lucky we are indeed!

If your theory is true what a wonderous and awe inspiring multiverse we live in!
However you must respect the fact that due to preconceptions many here won't and/or can't even stop to consider this idea.

[Byblos]

A Case for the Multiverse Theory
I have believed for a while now that our universe came from something preceding. I cannot imagine otherwise.
...
no one is there to contemplate or care just how lucky we are in ours, wishing they were here, but oh how extremely lucky we are indeed!

If your theory is true what a wonderous and awe inspiring multiverse we live in!
However you must respect the fact that due to preconceptions many here won't and/or can't even stop to consider this idea.

Huh? What idea is that? That we're lucky we get to live in a miraculous universe? Yes, you're right, our preconceptions preclude us from considering that.

[Canuckster1127]

Actually, I think we're agreed with cray that we live in a miraculous universe that came from something or somewhere that is near incomprehensible.

It appears Cray's faith is in a continually morphing physical universe that is more complex and transitory than say, the traditional steady state assertion of years past. His is a more complex theory but in the end, even while appealing to Quantum Physics, there's nothing new here on a philosophical level.

Cray's theory as to methodology for the introduction of this Universe doesn't preclude God as the author or means. The two are independent and not necessarily conflicting assertions. If Cray doesn't believe we can convince him solely on the physical evidence, neither can he prove a negative or demonstrate where his theory provides any more impetus for his metaphysical conclusions.

[Seraph]

I have no problem with what Craymatter said, other than he may have rejected 'creation' too quickly.

You dismiss too quickly. You can ask the question 'who created God' only if the a priori assumption is that everything MUST have been created. Is that in fact the biblical or the classical philosophical claim? No it is not. The actual claim is that an UNCAUSED CAUSE must exist, otherwise nothing would get started to begin with, including your multi-verse. So to ask the question who created God would be tantamount to asking who caused the uncaused cause. It is a nonsensical statement that violates the law of non-contradiction.

You speak of an uncaused cause. What is this cause? God? Why does it have to be God (God, being a being with the 3*omni's)?

You can call it anything your little heart desires but it doesn't change the fact that the uncaused cause must be all-powerful to be able to create ex nihilo, must be simple so as to need nothing, must be transcendent and therefore outside of its own creation, and must be intelligent so as to decide to create (there are more attributes of course but those will do for now).

If we are calling this cause God with out a base for it, why can't I claim that this cause was just a quantum fluctuation, that inflated, bringing into existence our universe.

You can't call that the uncaused cause because quantum fluctuation does not conform to any of the attributes of an uncaused cause, let alone all of them.

Quantum physicists, when they say that every thing ocame from nothing, they don't literally mean ex nihilo, out of nothing. What they speak of when they say nothing is the back round on which everything exists.

Do you see the emphasized? Where did everything come from? More to the point, where did the background where everything exists come from? Why is there something rather than nothing?

Do I know what this is? No. Am I a string theorist? No. Do I know more about this than the average person, yes. Can I in due time? Yes.

Lol, you might find more than the average person around here. And I look forward to knowing as well. What is your point?

If you can claim this uncaused cause is God, I can claim it is a random atom or Zeus.

Again, no you can't because by definition an atom or Zeus does not conform to the attributes of an uncaused cause (unless you want to argue infinite regress). This is not a matter of religion or faith, it is a matter of science (the bedrock of all sciences, i.e. philosophy).

Nice.

I predict these latest 'challengers' will throw a few early blows, be unable to resist the weight from the counter-blows, and will scurry off proclaiming all Christians 'ignorant'.

If past efforts are anything to go by, I'm confident of this...

I'm going to come out and be the dissenting prick here. In this case, if he does go and gripe about how ignorant Christians are, it's probably going to be because he came here and was met with Christians meeting his arguements with a rather disrespectful and condescending tone. Which I think is kind of taking place in this instance and probably occurs here more than we realize...

[Byblos]

I'm going to come out and be the dissenting prick here. In this case, if he does go and gripe about how ignorant Christians are, it's probably going to be because he came here and was met with Christians meeting his arguements with a rather disrespectful and condescending tone. Which I think is kind of taking place in this instance and probably occurs here more than we realize...

I must have missed it. Could you point where anyone was condescending or disrespectful?

[Seraph]

Sorry, I didn't mean for the post to be aimed soley at you Byblos, but:

You can call it anything your little heart desires

What is your point?

I feel that language like these snippits convey some hostility and can prevent an Atheist from openly hearing the arguements for Christianity.
Then again, since it's all text I could easily be seeing emotions that aren't actually there.

[DannyM]

Seraph, I have merely reciprocated with a tone matching that which I have met. Besides, I long ago gave up responding to atheist hostility with humility. And if you are attempting to force me to introspection then I'm afraid I've been there and done it, and gave up being cutesy a long time ago.

[Byblos]

Sorry, I didn't mean for the post to be aimed soley at you Byblos, but:

You can call it anything your little heart desires

What is your point?

I feel that language like these snippits convey some hostility and can prevent an Atheist from openly hearing the arguements for Christianity.
Then again, since it's all text I could easily be seeing emotions that aren't actually there.

Lol Seraph, it's funny that you said you didn't aim it solely at me and yet you only quote 2 things I said. No wonder I missed them, I WAS THE CULPRIT.

Seriously, Seraph I assure you no disrespect or condescension was meant at all. The first is an expression I usually reserve for my wife (whom I adore) and the second was meant exactly as it sounded. I wasn't sure what his/her point was since we too look forward to knowing the ultimate truth about our creation. Just because we believe in a creator does not preclude us from seeking knowledge. That was my point.

[Gman]

Whatever theory you choose make sure you don't include the God of the Bible because that would mean that you are narrow minded and promote hatred for the world..

[MarcusOfLycia]

Everyone on this planet is precluded to certain ideas. I'm not sure why people on this website need to be exclusively pointed out as having a preconditioned bias. Besides, if you look at it this way, it makes sense:

God exists, therefore those who pursue Him learn in the truth and are preconditioned to tell truth from error.
God doesn't exist, we are merely the result of physical forces, and no such thing as truth exists. We don't have control over our actions; we are at the mercy of the physical forces that make up our complexity.

Either way... is it worth pointing out that we have preconceived notions apart from people who come to the website with their own?