Evidence for God from Science

This was a topic we went over in the Chance thread, and it frustrated me to no end.

The Multiple Universe Theory is not a counter theory to fine tuning.

Fine Tuning itself assumes other possibilities! Otherwise what in the world is being fine tuned!!!!

The Multiple Universe theory was proposed as a possible metauniverse construct in the early 90's? It is based on mathematical models of the universe. I suppose some people looked at it and went wow there are so many possibilities what are the chances??? And went on to develop fine-tuning.

Probability is a function of our limited capacity to measure. We don't know the possibilities there is no frame of reference. (We only have one universe to compare)

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:This was a topic we went over in the Chance thread, and it frustrated me to no end.

The Multiple Universe Theory is not a counter theory to fine tuning.

Fine Tuning itself assumes other possibilities! Otherwise what in the world is being fine tuned!!!!

The Multiple Universe theory was proposed as a possible metauniverse construct in the early 90's? It is based on mathematical models of the universe. I suppose some people looked at it and went wow there are so many possibilities what are the chances??? And went on to develop fine-tuning.

Probability is a function of our limited capacity to measure. We don't know the possibilities there is no frame of reference. (We only have one universe to compare)

Looks like everything here is Pseudoscience.

Jbuza wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:This was a topic we went over in the Chance thread, and it frustrated me to no end.

The Multiple Universe Theory is not a counter theory to fine tuning.

Fine Tuning itself assumes other possibilities! Otherwise what in the world is being fine tuned!!!!

The Multiple Universe theory was proposed as a possible metauniverse construct in the early 90's? It is based on mathematical models of the universe. I suppose some people looked at it and went wow there are so many possibilities what are the chances??? And went on to develop fine-tuning.

Probability is a function of our limited capacity to measure. We don't know the possibilities there is no frame of reference. (We only have one universe to compare)

Looks like everything here is Pseudoscience.

I might not go so far as saying even pseudoscience.

Yes, everything except for probabilities.

=)

THe non-scientific belief only moves the design back-instead of a finely tuned universe-you have a finaly tuned universe making mechanism.

I think BGood's point is that if you dismiss Multiverse as pseudoscience you dismiss the fine tuning argument as pseudoscience by default.

Personally I don't have much respect for either concept, pending further evidence and research.

Blob wrote:I think BGood's point is that if you dismiss Multiverse as pseudoscience you dismiss the fine tuning argument as pseudoscience by default.

Personally I don't have much respect for either concept, pending further evidence and research.

I don't see how one goes with the other. And are you calling for an infinite amount of evidence and research? So scientists do more research and discover more evidence...so, you still don't want conclusions drawn until MORE research is done, and no conclusions until THAT is verified...etc, etc...

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how one goes with the other.

Both discuss the possibility of other universes.

And are you calling for an infinite amount of evidence and research? So scientists do more research and discover more evidence...so, you still don't want conclusions drawn until MORE research is done, and no conclusions until THAT is verified...etc, etc...

That's science.

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how one goes with the other.

Both discuss the possibility of other universes.

And are you calling for an infinite amount of evidence and research? So scientists do more research and discover more evidence...so, you still don't want conclusions drawn until MORE research is done, and no conclusions until THAT is verified...etc, etc...

That's science.

That's nonsense, not science.

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:That's nonsense, not science.

How so?

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how one goes with the other.

Both discuss the possibility of other universes.

And are you calling for an infinite amount of evidence and research? So scientists do more research and discover more evidence...so, you still don't want conclusions drawn until MORE research is done, and no conclusions until THAT is verified...etc, etc...

That's science.

That's nonsense, not science.

So alternatively I should do minimal research and make conclusions based mostly on my beleifs? This is science right?

If I may drop in on the Multiverse discussion, the mathematical theories are simply mental masturbation to avoid the issue of hot big bang as a creation. Two quotes: "theoretical physics has become a refined form of creative play, in which testing out wacky ideas continuously outruns experiment. Sometimes it outruns experiment so far the ideas are barely testable even in principal." (Jon Turney article: Strange Matters: Mathematics and the Playful side of Physics, N.Y. Times 9/29/02. )Theoretical cosmologist Joao Magueijo in, Faster Than the Speed of Light, 2003 offers: "no one has the faintest idea of how to test these theories with current technology...the two leading quantum gravity cults [string theory and loop quantum gravity]...don't connect with experiment or observations at all [and] they have become fashion accessories at best, at worst a source of feudal warfare. Brian Greene in his recent article on Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2 notes that the big bang is some form of creation. Only a few physicists buy the multiverse possibility. We are trapped in this universe. Occam's razor tells us not to invent others when we cannot observe them.

David Turell wrote:If I may drop in on the Multiverse discussion, the mathematical theories are simply mental masturbation to avoid the issue of hot big bang as a creation. Two quotes: "theoretical physics has become a refined form of creative play, in which testing out wacky ideas continuously outruns experiment. Sometimes it outruns experiment so far the ideas are barely testable even in principal." (Jon Turney article: Strange Matters: Mathematics and the Playful side of Physics, N.Y. Times 9/29/02. )Theoretical cosmologist Joao Magueijo in, Faster Than the Speed of Light, 2003 offers: "no one has the faintest idea of how to test these theories with current technology...the two leading quantum gravity cults [string theory and loop quantum gravity]...don't connect with experiment or observations at all [and] they have become fashion accessories at best, at worst a source of feudal warfare. Brian Greene in his recent article on Einstein's famous equation e=mc^2 notes that the big bang is some form of creation. Only a few physicists buy the multiverse possibility. We are trapped in this universe. Occam's razor tells us not to invent others when we cannot observe them.

I would like to add that most physicists don't even like to be associated with theoretical physics. lol
There are scientific Theories and then there are theories based on science.
Theoretical physics is mostly the latter.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:This was a topic we went over in the Chance thread, and it frustrated me to no end.

The Multiple Universe Theory is not a counter theory to fine tuning.

Fine Tuning itself assumes other possibilities! Otherwise what in the world is being fine tuned!!!!

The Multiple Universe theory was proposed as a possible metauniverse construct in the early 90's? It is based on mathematical models of the universe. I suppose some people looked at it and went wow there are so many possibilities what are the chances??? And went on to develop fine-tuning.

Probability is a function of our limited capacity to measure. We don't know the possibilities there is no frame of reference. (We only have one universe to compare)

May I ask how the Multiple Universe even became a Theory. What Testing has been Done? There has to be some kind of Proof for it to be a Viable Theory!?

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:

Blob wrote:

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:I don't see how one goes with the other.

Both discuss the possibility of other universes.

And are you calling for an infinite amount of evidence and research? So scientists do more research and discover more evidence...so, you still don't want conclusions drawn until MORE research is done, and no conclusions until THAT is verified...etc, etc...

That's science.

That's nonsense, not science.

So alternatively I should do minimal research and make conclusions based mostly on my beleifs? This is science right?

No, blob was calling for an impossibility to make a conclusion-an infinite amount of evidence.

Cutting edge science is always speculative. Note that it is the theoretical cosmologists themselves saying "well we really don't know and can't test our ideas have reservations about our own work but we'll keep plugging away." However there is good reason to speculate because for all the power of Big Bang it is a theory in crisis (that doesn't mean out and out wrong, but rather its resolution of approximation is getting past its sell-by date).

Scientific speculation is not a crime specially when the speculators themselves call it speculation.