Evidence for God from Science

A Case for the Multiverse Theory
I have believed for a while now that our universe came from something preceding. I cannot imagine otherwise. I also believe that we either live in a multi-verse(more likely) or one that renews possessing different laws with each succession. My reasoning for this is that it appears we live in a universe tuned to be able to "stand on its own", further tuned for life, and even further, intelligent life.
Everywhere you look there are a seeming near infinity of "miracles" that had to be just right for these things to happen, especially all at once as in the universe within which we live. I once read somewhere that if the ratio of the strong nuclear force to the weak nuclear force(or something like that) were off by 1 part in hundred thousand, or maybe millions, atoms would indeed be unstable and unable to form, and this, is but one example.
At first glance it may seem like intelligent design had a hand in that business for sure, and if you look around, there are literally thousands of things that had to be "just right" for us to be here, so it follows that there must be a God right?
For a short while I entertained the idea that our universe was a "class project" with the goal being for students to make a universe that could first, stably exist on its own, and then farther, harbor intelligent life. You'd have to be a pretty darn "fart smeller" to create such a thing, harder by far even than quantum theory, or molecular biology, or even mere rocket science!
With seriously doubting the implications of a "creator" imposing "intelligent design", and referring back to the: "then who created God?" Posit, suddenly feeling mundane, I quickly dismissed the idea.
Then it hit me suddenly. People are stymied, and intimidated by very large numbers and quantities, but nature has no problems there at all. Pi, for instance is a ratio that never repeats, infinitely. Compared to ourselves, nature shows lavish, exuberant abundance everywhere. As humans, we have terrible problems even finding enough energy while our sun produces a gozillion times more than we could ever possibly use every second of it's existence. No one in his right mind would dare ask for so much energy, it just wouldn’t be safe! Also, our sun pales in comparison to other dangers out there and is but one inconceivably small speck in the grand scheme that is our universe.
Notice I italicized the words "our universe". That's where the hint lies. Just realizing that nature abounds with very large numbers, no problem, it should be easy to make the "leap". Why should ours be the only single solitary universe there is? Why not millions? Why not, "gazillions” then? If for any reason, be it physics, or mathematics, anything at all, should object to this, even however so slightly, please stand forward. No takers? Good.
My theory is that universes form constantly and in countless numbers. Ok, maybe "constantly" is not a necessary criterion since we humans are also "time biased" with our short life spans. Nature can hold its breath for a trillion years without noticing a thing.
Whichever the case, "countless numbers" is key. I think that within these vast numbers probably lie universes that ceased to exist immediately after being born due to instability. Their inherent "laws" just didn’t work out so they just simply collapsed into "nothingness".
Or maybe a universe was still born, and just sat there doing nothing. An unbelievably boring place for sure, but no one is bothered by that kind because no one lives there to care.
Some universes are lively, highly energetic places where an unimaginable menagerie of things happen all the time, but they are exactly as boring as the previous ones because the "prerequisites" for intelligent, "aware" life were not in place there either.

It is only within those extremely unlikely, and incredibly small percentage numbers of universes that intelligent life exists which is capable of wondering how in the world we happened to get so lucky to be here, and in all the myriad of others, 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!

craymatter wrote:With seriously doubting the implications of a "creator" imposing "intelligent design", and referring back to the: "then who created God?" Posit, suddenly feeling mundane, I quickly dismissed the idea.

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.

I'd reconsider your dismissal if I were you.

There is a ton of issues here, but this caught my eye.

My reasoning for this is that it appears we live in a universe tuned to be able to "stand on its own",

Are you so sure that the universe stands on it's own? On what authority will you make such a claim?

While the possibility of a multiverse model sounds nice in theory, in reality it is no more different than what any one religion might say about existence. It might have some nice "theoretical" physics packaged with it, and is supported by scientific communities so it sees much less disdain than a christian telling people god created ex nihilio.

Multiverse, string theory, whatever you want to call it is untestable, overly complicated science fiction that people are somehow being paid to research and write books on so the secular community can attempt to replace god with something they endorse.

Just my 2c anyways, because when you get back to the thing that "constantly spews universes out", why does that even exist? The fact that we are faced with seemingly illogical solutions of infinite regression and science fiction is one of the biggest evidences for a god IMO.

The OP promises a case for the MT. But I see no evidence or anything relevant in the post, just a bit of incredulity, and what seems to be something more resembling 'thinking out loud' rather than an argument. Could we expand?

Like Echoside said, it still comes back to who was there before the first universe. Don't we know that the physical universe cannot come from nothing? However many theoretical universes exist or have existed, they had to have a beginning. It makes the most sense to me that something (God) outside the physical universe existed first. The multiverse theory looks like another attempt to show that God doesn't exist.

That's just one opinion from a simple guy who goes with the simplest answer that makes sense.

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

Byblos wrote: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)? 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. 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 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.

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

Echoside wrote:While the possibility of a multiverse model sounds nice in theory, in reality it is no more different than what any one religion might say about existence. It might have some nice "theoretical" physics packaged with it, and is supported by scientific communities so it sees much less disdain than a christian telling people god created ex nihilio.

You are wrong about it being no different than a mythological claim about the universe from a Christian. The difference is string theory has a mathematical backing, while Christian claims are founded on a book, with no good evidence to back it up. About it receiving less disdain, I don't think you understand why it is that way. All of the fruits of science have gone into everything you rely on today. Science has done things that, at the time, seemed to be a waste of time and money. Science has been an excellent method to find out what secrets the world holds. Medicine, the internet, electrical devices are all the result of science. Because of this science is trusted, but is disputed, both internally and externally. Science is method, not a belief, and this method, as I have said, has shown itself to be excellent at finding out what is correct and what isn't. When a theory has been wrong, science has corrected it. Until science discards current theories based on evidence, they are the best we've got.

Echoside wrote:Multiverse, string theory, whatever you want to call it is untestable, overly complicated science fiction that people are somehow being paid to research and write books on so the secular community can attempt to replace god with something they endorse.

This is just a blatant lie. It is to testable. It makes predictions that, if confirmed, will lend great power to this theory. The problem is, with our current equipment, it is near impossible to detect the things the theory predicts. Also, this isn't some conspiracy against God. If God wanted to he could put an end to all of this science, but chooses not to. This is an question that needs to be answered, and "God did it" doesn't fill all of the gaps.

Echoside wrote:Just my 2c anyways, because when you get back to the thing that "constantly spews universes out", why does that even exist? The fact that we are faced with seemingly illogical solutions of infinite regression and science fiction is one of the biggest evidences for a god IMO.

We don't necessarily know. I know I don't. You can't expect answers from people who say they don't know them. You can, from those who do. Most of science has turned out to be contrary to common sense. Which is why you have to ignore common sense when you come to advanced physics. Common sense doesn't work, and has never really worked. Second, if infinite regression doesn't work for science, how does it for God?

DannyM wrote:The OP promises a case for the MT. But I see no evidence or anything relevant in the post, just a bit of incredulity, and what seems to be something more resembling 'thinking out loud' rather than an argument. Could we expand?

No problems with what you said. Although, I don't quite understand what you mean by "a bit of incredulity." But it is a new term for me so... (not exactly up to date on some of the phrases used with logical fallacies)

RickD wrote:Like Echoside said, it still comes back to who was there before the first universe. Don't we know that the physical universe cannot come from nothing? However many theoretical universes exist or have existed, they had to have a beginning. It makes the most sense to me that something (God) outside the physical universe existed first. The multiverse theory looks like another attempt to show that God doesn't exist.

That's just one opinion from a simple guy who goes with the simplest answer that makes sense.

As I already said, the universe didn't come from literally nothing. Also, your statement is not necessarily accurate. If some explanation of the theory are correct, than this all works off of probability, in the same manner that if you wait a long enough time, all the atoms in a gas will be on one side of the container, but will only be there for a small period of time (this is based on the random movement of the gas particles). If the quantum fluctuation theory is correct (and I understand it to some degree), then it behaves in a similar manner. The multi-verse theory isn't a conspiracy against God either. It is merely an attempt to explain the universe as we see it. Just because you, nor I, understand the theories and the math behind it, doesn't give you the ground to argue against it. Go take years of classes in calculus and physics, then come back and argue that you are correct. These people aren't making it up willy nilly, these theories are based off of hard math, and actual observations.





(if I have made in errors, let me know, and I'll correct them.)

Copaceticman, if by multiverses, we are talking about physical universes, then we still have to figure out how these alleged universes began. I think people who keep positing universe before universe, etc. Are trying to avoid answering the ultimate beginning. I just think it's simpler and easier to believe that a transcendent being was there before any physical universe. Whether one, or many universes. It doesn't take years of studying, and a Mensa iq to figure that out.

CopaceticMan wrote:You are wrong about it being no different than a mythological claim about the universe from a Christian. The difference is string theory has a mathematical backing, while Christian claims are founded on a book, with no good evidence to back it up. About it receiving less disdain, I don't think you understand why it is that way. All of the fruits of science have gone into everything you rely on today. Science has done things that, at the time, seemed to be a waste of time and money. Science has been an excellent method to find out what secrets the world holds. Medicine, the internet, electrical devices are all the result of science. Because of this science is trusted, but is disputed, both internally and externally. Science is method, not a belief, and this method, as I have said, has shown itself to be excellent at finding out what is correct and what isn't. When a theory has been wrong, science has corrected it. Until science discards current theories based on evidence, they are the best we've got.

CopaceticMan,

I hold that God is a necessary precondition of science. SInce you obviously disagree (referring to the "mythological claim" of the Christian Universe), I need to ask a few questions:

1.) Do you consider science to be truth, or is it a tool for telling us things about our natural world?

2.) Can you explain and justify the scientific method in a godless unverse without a.) being circular, and b.) importing a metaphysical position not founded upon science?

3.) What is a scientific law, and how are such laws justified in a godless world?

4.) What do you consider to be "valid scientific evidence" for or against any truth claim?

That'll be a good start.

CopaceticMan wrote:

Echoside wrote:Multiverse, string theory, whatever you want to call it is untestable, overly complicated science fiction that people are somehow being paid to research and write books on so the secular community can attempt to replace god with something they endorse.

This is just a blatant lie. It is to testable. It makes predictions that, if confirmed, will lend great power to this theory. The problem is, with our current equipment, it is near impossible to detect the things the theory predicts. Also, this isn't some conspiracy against God. If God wanted to he could put an end to all of this science, but chooses not to. This is an question that needs to be answered, and "God did it" doesn't fill all of the gaps.

Echoside wrote:Just my 2c anyways, because when you get back to the thing that "constantly spews universes out", why does that even exist? The fact that we are faced with seemingly illogical solutions of infinite regression and science fiction is one of the biggest evidences for a god IMO.

We don't necessarily know. I know I don't. You can't expect answers from people who say they don't know them. You can, from those who do. Most of science has turned out to be contrary to common sense. Which is why you have to ignore common sense when you come to advanced physics. Common sense doesn't work, and has never really worked. Second, if infinite regression doesn't work for science, how does it for God?

No, it isn't a lie. The multiverse is by definition supernatural and beyond the study of any capability that we have (and, easily arguable, beyond what we ever could do). What you are suggesting is that a theory that is extremely untestable should be trusted as a viable alternative to belief in God (a premise that is testable but not a scientific sense necessarily). There is massive debate about the issue in the scientific community. This isn't like a lot of scientific knowledge that actually results from the scientific method. It is a philosophy that is dangerous because of the ignorance that it is a philosophy.

Also, most of science has -not- turned out to be different from common sense. The scientific method, at times, reveals things that don't fit our assumptions on occasion, but it always gives us circumstantial evidence that must be -interpreted-, meaning that our 'common sense' is actively at work in translating raw data into information. Part of my problem with your statements is also that you seem to be of the opinion (and you aren't alone) that scientists form some sort of unbiased community devoted to pursuing knowledge and avoiding all error. This isn't the case at all. Scientists are normal people who use a method to get data that they then process through their worldview to create information. Notice that the most important step here isn't the gathering or the conveying, it is the interpretation.

Your question about God is kind of silly though. You'll find plenty of answers to that if you just spend some time researching it.

Also, stop treating science like a person. I don't really like anthropomorphosizing something like that because 'science' is merely a method that generates information based on a logical system. 'Scientists' say plenty of things, often times contradicting each other. We have to be clear here what we're talking about.

CopaceticMan wrote:You are wrong about it being no different than a mythological claim about the universe from a Christian. The difference is string theory has a mathematical backing, while Christian claims are founded on a book, with no good evidence to back it up. About it receiving less disdain, I don't think you understand why it is that way. All of the fruits of science have gone into everything you rely on today. Science has done things that, at the time, seemed to be a waste of time and money. Science has been an excellent method to find out what secrets the world holds. Medicine, the internet, electrical devices are all the result of science. Because of this science is trusted, but is disputed, both internally and externally. Science is method, not a belief, and this method, as I have said, has shown itself to be excellent at finding out what is correct and what isn't. When a theory has been wrong, science has corrected it. Until science discards current theories based on evidence, they are the best we've got.

Also, also... I have studied quite a bit of math and physics in my life. Mathematics tells us also that as you approach the speed of light, you gain infinite mass but 0 length, and if you went faster than the speed of light, that you'd have infinite size and 0 mass. Math is simply a model. You can't extrapolate it to reality most of the time perfectly because of that, and if you try, you end up with ridiculousness. Having a 'mathematical backing' means less than nothing if it doesn't have an -observable- backing as well.

CopaceticMan wrote:

DannyM wrote:The OP promises a case for the MT. But I see no evidence or anything relevant in the post, just a bit of incredulity, and what seems to be something more resembling 'thinking out loud' rather than an argument. Could we expand?

No problems with what you said. Although, I don't quite understand what you mean by "a bit of incredulity." But it is a new term for me so... (not exactly up to date on some of the phrases used with logical fallacies.

First of all, thank you for having no problems with what I said. I'm sure if you were the OP I'd feel very blessed.

"With seriously doubting the implications of a "creator" imposing "intelligent design", and referring back to the: "then who created God?" Posit, suddenly feeling mundane, I quickly dismissed the idea."


That is what I mean. An argument from incredulity or ingnorance doesn't cut it in the real world. But over to you:

"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)? 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.

And where did this quantum fluctuation originate? What's its cause? God by definition is the necessary uncaused first cause upon which every other cause depends. I'm appealing to a mind; you're appealing to, what, random chance? You see, your argument just won't cut it in the real world. The main problem with the M theory is that it still ascribes "random coincidence" to explain the facts, so using it to explain the order in the universe makes about as much sense as using it to explain the fossil record. So if this theory disproves God, then it also disproves evolution, since the fossil record could, hypothetically, be explained by random coincidence instead of evolution.

The other problem is that if, as it states, any universe which could hypothetically exist does exist, then this would mean that there exists (at least one) universe in which an omni-+ deity has purposely ordered the matter and energy within it in order to promote life, since such a universe is theoretically possible. So will you allow me my universe created by God? Any universe which can hypothetically exist exists, right? So this theory does not disprove God. In fact, it makes God's existence almost certain, with the only question being whether we happen to be one of the universes with a God, or in one of the universes where random, unguided forces happened to create a universe capable of promoting life. In fact, with an infinite number of universes, there would be an infinite number of Gods of infinite number of types. So anyone subscribing to the Multiverse theory cannot be an atheist but, at best, can only believe that no God or gods exist in this particular universe. A person who subscribes to Multiverse theory would be a polytheist, believing in many more gods than one who subscribes to the theory of a created universe does. So you see the complete mess in which this theory leaves you...

CopaceticMan wrote: Science has done things that, at the time, seemed to be a waste of time and money. Science has been an excellent method to find out what secrets the world holds. Medicine, the internet, electrical devices are all the result of science. Because of this science is trusted, but is disputed, both internally and externally. Science is method, not a belief, and this method, as I have said, has shown itself to be excellent at finding out what is correct and what isn't. When a theory has been wrong, science has corrected it. Until science discards current theories based on evidence, they are the best we've got.

Science itself has done nothing. It is a tool or method by which we discover, as you said. However, the people that use science have beliefs and bias, and they can very easily accidentally make the transition from pure science to pure speculation.

CopaceticMan wrote: This is just a blatant lie. It is to testable. It makes predictions that, if confirmed, will lend great power to this theory. The problem is, with our current equipment, it is near impossible to detect the things the theory predicts. Also, this isn't some conspiracy against God. If God wanted to he could put an end to all of this science, but chooses not to. This is an question that needs to be answered, and "God did it" doesn't fill all of the gaps.

The amount of energy needed to even have a chance at finding evidence, which might not even exist, is staggering. Perhaps scientists should invest time into new forms of energy, something that is actually practical. This is not really a question that needs to be answered, unless you think that practical uses of finding a sliver of something that "might" lend power to a theory we cannot even experience will give the same benefits to humanity as medicine, electricity, and the internet. It is naive to say this isn't some conspiracy against God. I would not make the claim that every scientist is running an anti religious agenda of course, but the attitude towards religion in many secular communities is clear.

CopaceticMan wrote: As I already said, the universe didn't come from literally nothing. Also, your statement is not necessarily accurate. If some explanation of the theory are correct, than this all works off of probability, in the same manner that if you wait a long enough time, all the atoms in a gas will be on one side of the container, but will only be there for a small period of time (this is based on the random movement of the gas particles). If the quantum fluctuation theory is correct (and I understand it to some degree), then it behaves in a similar manner. The multi-verse theory isn't a conspiracy against God either. It is merely an attempt to explain the universe as we see it. Just because you, nor I, understand the theories and the math behind it, doesn't give you the ground to argue against it. Go take years of classes in calculus and physics, then come back and argue that you are correct. These people aren't making it up willy nilly, these theories are based off of hard math, and actual observations.

If you do not understand the theories and math, then why do you belief you have the ground the argue for it? Do not claim that because "educated" people believe it is true that we are all to submit to their beliefs. I can give you a list of respected scientists that think multiverse theory is a waste of time and was in fact made up "willy nilly". Actual observations? Can you please list a few of these, because to my knowledge multiverse theory has zero empirical support, it is a set of mathematical theories and paramaters at the moment. I have regular contact with an MIT grad who has taken far more calculus and physics than would be needed to understand this theory, and I have come to the reasonable conclusion
that it is simply impractical and not worth investing time into.

Echoside wrote:While the possibility of a multiverse model sounds nice in theory, in reality it is no more different than what any one religion might say about existence. It might have some nice "theoretical" physics packaged with it, and is supported by scientific communities so it sees much less disdain than a christian telling people god created ex nihilio.

Multiverse, string theory, whatever you want to call it is untestable, overly complicated science fiction that people are somehow being paid to research and write books on so the secular community can attempt to replace god with something they endorse.

Just my 2c anyways, because when you get back to the thing that "constantly spews universes out", why does that even exist? The fact that we are faced with seemingly illogical solutions of infinite regression and science fiction is one of the biggest evidences for a god IMO.

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