Question about god and science?

[Byblos]

I would say the multiverse would probably have to have created an infinite amount of universes. But why does it break down? In the analogy, the total number of dimes represent the chances of a universe being randomly generated and having the conditions needed to give rise to life, not the total number of actual universes.

I could be missing something but I also don't see why an infinite number of non-anthropic universes isn't possible. God's characteristics would require that the idea of infinity is possible, and there could be non-anthropic universes because objective material reality is independent of human experience.

No, the total number of dimes represents the number of potential universes the multi-verse is capable of producing. Either this number is finite, in which case the mutli-verse is finite, or it is infinite, in which case there is an infinite number of universes to be traversed to get the red dime. If there is an infinite number of them, then there is also an infinite number to the left of the red dime, and an infinite number to the right of the red dime. So how many non-red dimes do you have to traverse to get to the red dime? An infinite number of non-red dimes. Since infinity cannot be traversed, a multi-verse is either an impossibility or finite.

[Seraph]

Very interesting. You're definitely giving me something to think about.

But, is there an infinite number of possible universes? I would be inclined to think that there is a finite number of possible universes given the number of ways the "factors" (whatever those are) can be arranged that result in a big bang, but an infinite number of universes actually being created. So there would probably be duplicates of each universe.

[Byblos]

Very interesting. You're definitely giving me something to think about.

But, is there an infinite number of possible universes? I would be inclined to think that there is a finite number of possible universes given the number of ways the "factors" (whatever those are) can be arranged that result in a big bang, but an infinite number of universes actually being created. So there would probably be duplicates of each universe.

It boils down to the same odds.

[Seraph]

Wouldn't a finite number of possible universes limit the number of "dimes"?

[Byblos]

Wouldn't a finite number of possible universes limit the number of "dimes"?

Of course it does. But this implies that the multi-verse itself is also finite and had a beginning.

[Seraph]

But it doesn't limit the number of actual universes created, only the possible different kinds of universes.

Maybe there's some kind of trippy eternal reccurance thing going on.

[Byblos]

But it doesn't limit the number of actual universes created, only the possible different kinds of universes.

Maybe there's some kind of trippy eternal reccurance thing going on.

Lol, no. Either they are finite and a beginning is needed or they are infinite and we will never get to where we are. There really is no other choice.

[Seraph]

Last question, if an infinite amount of time in the past is impossible for us to get to where we are today, how come God exists and still performs actions? To my understanding, He has always existed, yet still listens to our prayers and guides the world. Shouldn't He have never arrived at where He is today? The characteristics of God would seem to suggest traversing infinity is possible.

Also, thanks for the discussion Byblos and Maytan. I think you guys have given some of the best answers to the multiverse question I've ever seen!

Lol I kind of ran this thread off the rails didn't I?

[Byblos]

Last question, if an infinite amount of time in the past is impossible for us to get to where we are today, how come God exists and still performs actions? To my understanding, He has always existed, yet still listens to our prayers and guides the world. Shouldn't He have never arrived at where He is today? The characteristics of God would seem to suggest traversing infinity is possible.

Also, thanks for the discussion Byblos and Maytan. I think you guys have given some of the best answers to the multiverse question I've ever seen!

Lol I kind of ran this thread off the rails didn't I?

That's quite alright Seraph. When you say God has always existed, it seems to me your implication is that time has also always existed but that is not the case. Time is finite and is created when the universe was created. For the uncaused cause to make sense there can only be one uncaused cause so to say time has always existed along side God is to make time into a god but that creates all kinds of contradictions. God is not bound by time and since He is the creator of time He can certainly decide to enter and operate within it.

[jlay]

Byb is right on it. That is one of the mind blowing concepts. Infinite time would leave us the impossibility of ever getting to the present. Time is a product of the universe. God is timeless.

[CeT-To]

Great convo guys i loved reading it

[Legatus]

You have two theories here, one, God, is supported by evidence, one, multiple universe theory, is not only not supported by any evidence, but the evidnence that there is shows that the probability of it being true is 10*10*123 (10 to the power 10 to the power 123, 2 exponents) against it being true. I understnad that means that to hold the number of zeroes you need for that number, you need to mark every subatomic particle in the univese with a zero, and then you need billions more universes to also mark their particles with enough zeroes. Conclusion for that, if you want to believe in no God, the odds are, um, just slightly against you. To believe such a thing is neither reasonable nor scientific.

To believe in multiple universes, for which there isn't the slightest evidence (none, zilch, zero, nada), you also must beleive in string theory. To beleive string thery, you must beleive in the following:
1 There is such a thing as an inflation field.
2 A potentially infinite number of bubble universes exists.
3 Strings exist.
4 Six additional hidden spatial dimentions (7 in m-theory).
5 An infinite number of compactivations of these six additional spacial dimentions exist and EACH corresponds (via inflation) to a potential infinity of ACTUAL universes.
6 That the string landscape, when combined with inflation, explains away the problem of our universes finely tuned initial conditions, laws, and constants.
Once again, you must eccept all these things in blind faith, as there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them.

On the other hand, there is the God idea. It, at least has some evidence for it. One evidence is that the bible, written many thousands of years ago, shows the big bang, planatery formation in the correct order, and the formation of life in the correct order (as seen by the fossil record) . http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

BTW, I think I saw you on another post, the "dry land" problem is simple, at the start, the planet was HOT. It didn't really have "land" as we know it, more like one big magma lake. The ocean was all up in the air since touching the surface would vaporise it, and there was a lot of volcanic ash and the like, and probably many gasses not present in our atmosphere today. Result, it was dark, hence the "let there be light" specified to take place here at sea level when it got slightly less dark, and then the next day/age it states that the waters above seperate from the waters below, written of in two places Gen 1:6 and Job 38:8 Job 38:9 (note that in Job, the sea, thick darkness, and an all covering cloud cover are all associated together), only after that does dry land appear AFTER the magma becomes land, the water can then and only then fall on it without vaporising, and then the crust starts cooling more and starts to wrinkle and the land starts to rise up out of the water. You cannot call the magma "dry land" when writting a bible to PEOPLE, who do not associate liquid rock with "dry land". Once you understand that this is written to people who live heare and now, and is written in language that people can relate to, it becomes clearer. For instance, when it says that after plants, there came fish and birds, it does not mention that at first they started out as trilobites and dinosaurs, because people aren't familiar with them, in fact, most people throughout history have never heard of them.

Note also what it says about the first life Gen 1:11 , note that it says "let the earth", it does not say "and God made plants appear out of nothing" or any other such thing. it firther goes on to list them in the same order as our fossil record. The only exception is mankind, where a very specific "fashioned" word is used, the creation of the first man and women is specified to be different from all the rest. This makes sense, if sentient creaturesd are given souls, if they evolved that way gradually, what would you do with the half sentient creatures? Thus God "cheates" and uses a miricle (breaking of natural law) to get past that problem.

You can also read about scientific principles as related to the bible here http://www.godandscience.org/apologetic ... bible.html . In fact, the scientific method, invented by a Christian monk (hard to get more Christian than that) is basically seen here Rom 1:20 Rom 1:20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. This clearly (to quote it) states that the natural world shows that there is a God, and even gives clues as to that Gods nature. This makes Christianity the only religion that allows itself, in the scientific way, to be falsified. So far, attempts to show that there is no God scientifically all depend on going AGAINST the evidence, even to the point of substituting multiple imaginary univeres and imaginary string theory, both completly unproven, for the idea of God, and even doing so despite the *H*U*G*E* evidence we DO have that shows that this universe wiotout a God cannot possibly exist.

In fact, what we really have here is science verus religion. The idea, "God', is the science, the idea, string theory and multiple universes, being unsupported by ANY evidence, and ONLY by blind faith despite the huge evidence against it, is the religion. The idea of infinite imaginary universes is basically the old "elephants all the way down" tale, seen here" In an oft-told variation of the Hindu myth of cosmology, a young boy asks his father what holds up the Earth. Amused, the father assures his son that the world rests on the back of a very large turtle. “But what holds up the turtle?” the boy asks. After brief reflection, the father says, “A huge elephant.” “But,” the boy continues, “what is under the elephant?” Sensing that he is rapidly losing control of the conversation, the father finally exclaims, “Son, it's elephants all the way down from there!”

So basically, you have the idea "God", supported by science (which leans so heavily in the God direction that it is basically saying that science proves God), versus ideas supported by "scientists" who are most definatly NOT using the scientifi method, but instead making up a religion. But wait, there's more! There is also actual POSITIVE evidence for this Christianity stuff. There is this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin a quote from the research project "We can conclude for now that the Shroud image is that of a real human form of a scourged, crucified man. It is not the product of an artist. The blood stains are composed of hemoglobin and also give a positive test for serum albumin. The image is an ongoing mystery and until further chemical studies are made, perhaps by this group of scientists, or perhaps by some scientists in the future, the problem remains unsolved." Then the history channel made a computer model to see what this man looked like, you can see the result here http://citizenwells.files.wordpress.com ... face01.jpg . He looks Jewish, that caracteristic Jewish nose. And then there is the dead sea scrolls http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_scrolls some mentioning Jesus http://www.grantjeffrey.com/article/article1.htm .

Conclusion, you can accept the idea "No God", but you will have to go agaisnt science to do so, or you can accept the idea "God", with much supporting evidence both scientific (which God also specifically mentions supports him) and archeological. If you want to support the idea "God" without supporting Christianity, well, you will have to go with a religion that does not specifically say that science supports it, with a creation myth that does not track with what we now know happened, without ancient writings or archeology that supports it (any other religion with a shroud, I think not!), and often with parts of the religion clearly at odds with physical reality (like supporting multiple wives in a world with half men and half women).

[kmr]

I love how you write all of your posts in the form of a persuasive essay. I could never do it!

[Legatus]

I love how you write all of your posts in the form of a persuasive essay. I could never do it!

Well, I have learned how to make a classic 'argument". Why, here, you can actually see a clinic on how to argue (ok, and also how to NOT argue).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=teMlv3ripSM
But seriously, it actually does show how to argue and not argue, mostly the latter.

[kmr]

Hahaha!! That was great!