Evidence for God from Science

Well if the theory is true, than it is a rather good explanation for the apparent design of our universe. If there is quantum randomness and an infinite amount of time like the theory says, it wouldn't matter if there were trillions of conditions that needed to be met for life to occur or quadrillions to the power of quadrillions. It would get there eventually, there would be no time limit.

Hey Seraph, if the multiverse has you worried have you looked into what RTB and Jeff Zweerink specifically has to say on the subject? From what I understand, that's one of the main areas that Zweerink specializes in. He's done quite a few articles and podcasts on the topic, many of which you can still find on reasons.org. Also, he's written a book "Who is afraid of a multiverse?" in which he makes the case that even if somehow the multiverse were proven true, it does not in any case, prove that God does not exist. Plus I think Zweerink is even on facebook, so if you add him you could ask him some specific questions if what I've just mentioned doesn't help. But anyway, I hope this helps. God bless.

Thanks! I'll have to look into what he says about it.

Also, this might help too.

http://www.truefreethinker.com/articles ... multiverse

Seraph wrote:Well if the theory is true, than it is a rather good explanation for the apparent design of our universe. If there is quantum randomness and an infinite amount of time like the theory says, it wouldn't matter if there were trillions of conditions that needed to be met for life to occur or quadrillions to the power of quadrillions. It would get there eventually, there would be no time limit.

No it can't (didn't we go through this already?).

I don't think we came to an agreeable conclusion. In fact I think I came to the conclusion that with an eternal God, an infinite series of events leading up to this one has to be present anyway. So I don't really think it's been proven that an infinite regression is impossible.

I think that the arguement of an infinite regression being impossible does not work unless you are an Atheist who does not believe in the existence of ANYTHING before a certain point. You could say God is timeless to get around the infinite regression, but you could also say that for a multiverse.

Seraph wrote:I don't think we came to an agreeable conclusion. In fact I think I came to the conclusion that with an eternal God, an infinite series of events leading up to this one has to be present anyway. So I don't really think it's been proven that an infinite regression is impossible.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? Please present your formal argument.

Seraph wrote:I think that the arguement of an infinite regression being impossible does not work unless you are an Atheist who does not believe in the existence of ANYTHING before a certain point. You could say God is timeless to get around the infinite regression, but you could also say that for a multiverse.

And again, no you cannot say the same of the mutliverse as you can say of God. God is the unmoved mover, immaterial, independent (of anything), pure actuality, existence itself. None of these attributes can be said of a multiverse that is material, potential, dependent, itself requiring a beginning no matter how many super-verses you postulate or how far back you go in time (to say nothing of the necessity of time itself needing to be created). We are not talking about some theoretical infinite line on which we propose a segment of two points A and B and presume to traverse from point A to point B even though the theoretical line itself is infinite. What we are talking about is an infinite series of SUCCESSIVE causes and effects, an effect being IMPOSSIBLE without its PRECEDING cause. And if the series is infinite then you will NEVER arrive at the present effect (present time) because there simply is no starting point for its cause. That is by definition.

Here's a crude illustration of what I'm talking about. Take the segment of dots below labeled A-5 (minus 5) to A5:

.............A5.A4.A3.A2.A1.A0.A-1.A-2.A-3.A-4.A-5....................

Each dot represents a step. At step A0 lies the meaning of the universe and of all creation but in order to get to A0 one must step on every point that preceded A0. So, for example, you can start at point A-1 and go all the way back (A-2, A-3, A-4, etc) until you find a starting point. Once you find a starting point now you can travel back and arrive at A0. Except of course the number of steps to the right of A0 is infinite.

Go ahead Seraph, start at A-1 and let me know when you've reached a starting point so you can head back towards A0 and ultimate knowledge.

How exactly do you come to that conclusion? Please present your formal argument.

And again, no you cannot say the same of the mutliverse as you can say of God. God is the unmoved mover, immaterial, independent (of anything), pure actuality, existence itself. None of these attributes can be said of a multiverse that is material, potential, dependent, itself requiring a beginning no matter how many super-verses you postulate or how far back you go in time (to say nothing of the necessity of time itself needing to be created). We are not talking about some theoretical infinite line on which we propose a segment of two points A and B and presume to traverse from point A to point B even though the theoretical line itself is infinite. What we are talking about is an infinite series of SUCCESSIVE causes and effects, an effect being IMPOSSIBLE without its PRECEDING cause. And if the series is infinite then you will NEVER arrive at the present effect (present time) because there simply is no starting point for its cause. That is by definition.

It's said that God is transcendent of space/time so He is able to be the uncaused creator. Well so is the theoretical multiverse. It is proposed to exist outside of our physical laws and timeline. The universes within the multiverse are parallel to one another, not linear and occuring one after another. The multiverse as a whole is said to be uncaused and an unmoved mover, and because of this, I don't think your example using "A5 though A-5" can be used to disprove a multiverse because it isn't an infinite regression in the way you're suggesting it is. The multiverse as a whole IS the starting point, not just a step along the way. I think you need to research the propositions of the different multiverse theories more because I think you're misrepresenting them.

Also, in a sense the proposed multiverse goes beyond the material in the same way God does, being made up of quantum "strings" rather than what we see as physical matter, so it superceeds the matter and laws of our universe in the way God does due to being an immaterial spirit. So in this way, the multiverse is not bound to the physical like our universe is and is in a way non-material. The characteristics of God and the characteristics of the multiverse are very similar in a lot of ways, to the point where I don't really see a reason why only God can fill the role as the unmoved mover that can't also be applied to a multiverse.

Thus is why I don't think the cosmological arguement works. I think God is the creator, but the cosmological arguement doesn't work in demonstrating this. It shows that there needs to be a first cause and unmoved creator, but it doesn't say why only God can fill this role and not a multiverse.

Seraph wrote:It's said that God is transcendent of space/time so He is able to be the uncaused creator. Well so is the theoretical multiverse. It is proposed to exist outside of our physical laws and timeline. The universes within the multiverse are parallel to one another, not linear and occuring one after another. The multiverse as a whole is said to be uncaused and an unmoved mover, and because of this, I don't think your example using "A5 though A-5" can be used to disprove a multiverse because it isn't an infinite regression in the way you're suggesting it is. The multiverse as a whole IS the starting point, not just a step along the way. I think you need to research the propositions of the different multiverse theories more because I think you're misrepresenting them.

Also, in a sense the proposed multiverse goes beyond the material in the same way God does, being made up of quantum "strings" rather than what we see as physical matter, so it superceeds the matter and laws of our universe in the way God does due to being an immaterial spirit. So in this way, the multiverse is not bound to the physical like our universe is and is in a way non-material. The characteristics of God and the characteristics of the multiverse are very similar in a lot of ways, to the point where I don't really see a reason why only God can fill the role as the unmoved mover that can't also be applied to a multiverse.

Thus is why I don't think the cosmological arguement works. I think God is the creator, but the cosmological arguement doesn't work in demonstrating this. It shows that there needs to be a first cause and unmoved creator, but it doesn't say why only God can fill this role and not a multiverse.

And where did these quantum strings come from? Did they create themselves, out of nothing, or were they created? Nothing is nothing you know. It's not gravity, it's not a vacuum, it's not strings or branes or whatever. It is really nothing. And if there is something, then it had to have had a cause. I am well aware of the different multiverse theories and no I am not misrepresenting them. It doesn't matter whether the universes are parallel or sequential, you will always go back to the same problem because the multiverse itself that is creating (or has created) these universes itself needs to have been created. But if you want to postulate that this multiverse is eternal then you are making it equivalent to God but then you run into a myriad of philosophical problems how 2 timeless, omnipotent, omniscient beings can co-exist (hint: they can't, only one can). But to know that is to study the Aristotelian/Thomistic classical theism and more precisely the subject of formal and final causes as well as the simplicity of God.

It doesn't matter whether the universes are parallel or sequential, you will always go back to the same problem because the multiverse itself that is creating (or has created) these universes itself needs to have been created.

Why doesn't this apply to God? God exists, why doesn't He require a creator if what you're saying is true? God has characteristics like a mind, a will, and love so He isn't irreducibly simple.

But if you want to postulate that this multiverse is eternal then you are making it equivalent to God but then you run into a myriad of philosophical problems how 2 timeless, omnipotent, omniscient beings can co-exist (hint: they can't, only one can).

We're arguing about the multiverse proposed as an alternative to God creating the world, so God probably doesn't exist if the multiverse theory we're discussing is true. That would solve that dilema.

The two theories side-by-side then are: An omnipotent, omniscient, timeless God who created the universe, or an infinitely complex series of infinitely many universes.

I gotta be honest, I don't see why anyone would choose the second option, all things being equal.

Seraph wrote:

It doesn't matter whether the universes are parallel or sequential, you will always go back to the same problem because the multiverse itself that is creating (or has created) these universes itself needs to have been created.

Why doesn't this apply to God? God exists, why doesn't He require a creator if what you're saying is true?

Because He is the first UNCAUSED cause, Seraph. Not only must there be an uncaused cause, but this uncaused cause must have the INTENT to first cause from nothing, something a mindless, thoughtless (albeit universe producing) mutlivere cannot possibly have.

Seraph wrote:God has characteristics like a mind, a will, and love so He isn't irreducibly simple.

If God were complex then he would be reducible, if he were reducible, he would have some potentiality (dependency that is), if he had any potentiality he would require a creator and would not be God . God is irreducible because he is pure actuality, pure existence, and pure intelligence. Only such a being can form the intent to create from nothing. Seriously, you need to read up on the doctrine of God's simplicity. Here's a quick review

Seraph wrote:

But if you want to postulate that this multiverse is eternal then you are making it equivalent to God but then you run into a myriad of philosophical problems how 2 timeless, omnipotent, omniscient beings can co-exist (hint: they can't, only one can).

We're arguing about the multiverse proposed as an alternative to God creating the world, so God probably doesn't exist if the multiverse theory we're discussing is true. That would solve that dilema.

And yet again, no it solves nothing as you'd still be left with who created the multiverse, there really is no escaping that. It is a mindless, purposeless machine full of dependencies and no INTENT to do anything, let alone create from nothing. You're back to square one.

I just don't know what to say Seraph, you almost seem to me to be doing your best to find an excuse to reject God. You spend so much time and effort trying to show us the the multiverse has merit. Come on! Currently there is NO hard evidence for the multiverse. And quite honestly, I don't think there ever will be any hard evidence for it. The multiverse is simply a last ditch effort for atheists to explain away the fine tuning and to give a natural hypothesis to what caused our universe. The fact that you by pass all the good resources and advice that all the others here have given you seems to say to me that you HOPE that atheist scientists will find evidence for the multiverse because you HOPE that the multiverse is true. I hope I'm wrong, but I'm afraid I could be right.

Byblos, great arguments. I couldn't agree more. No matter what is theorized to be here before our universe, if it's physical, it had to have a beginning. All replacements for God still lead back to the same dilemma of how they began.

I concur, great arguments... I'll be honest but I'd almost say unarguable if you want to stay on the side of reason. After seeing my share of debates, the problem of a first cause and infinite regress is one that atheists simply cannot answer, even heavy-hitters don't answer directly but use an evasion "who caused God then?", even though the doctrine of divine simplicity and the inherent nature of God solves these problems and makes God the most logical explanation.

Of course I've never put much stock into multi-verse theories myself and I haven't seen much at all to convince me of their validity. Often they seem just... desperate to me.

The biggest problem with multi-verse is, it can't be proved, it can't be observed. Even if it exists the only way to travel to it is to travel faster than the speed of light. Yeah looks really good on paper but in reality a feat like that is impossible. The largest particle accelerators on Earth can only come 99.99 percent of the speed of light, not greater, no matter how much power it is fed. And the reason is - light theory defines and is tested that the greater an object accelerates close to the speed of light the more power is required to push it forward. So unless the multi verse is proved one way or the other, it is the same as saying, it could happen so why not accept it may very well happen. Well the onus is on science to prove it first then we could say whether this poses a problem to theology. until then what is the point of accepting it.

And believe me multi verse is a far more greater question than the meager ones that science still needs to answer. for example, evolution, the first formation of matter, exact point in time of creation, an artificial primordial soup that could at least produce something, DNA, gay genes, objective morality, free will, soul, para normal, cloning, subconscious, how dreams come true, biblical prophecies coming true, self organizing behavior of cells/genes, altruism, and the list is endless folks...So I won't worry about multi-verse just yet, we still have a long way to go before we even get there.