Evidence for God from Science

Hello everyone, during my latest research into the subject, I finally found a couple of things that many multiverse proponents are saying is actual evidence for the multiverse theory.

One of the pieces of evidence is the "massive" gravational pull in certain areas of the universe that could not be from our own due to the lack of matter in our universe, or that's what the proponent is saying.

The other piece of evidence is from an experiment called the "double slit expirment", anyone ever heard or have looked into this?

If you all happen to know more about the details or of any responses or rebuttals to these "evidences" feel free to respond. Take care.

We studied the Double-slit experiment in several physics classes. To the best of my knowledge, it is an experiment that demonstrates properties of waves (and not just electromagnetic)... and trying to relate it to the multiverse theory seems weird to me. I don't see any correlation.

The other issue is something I know less about. I do wonder why the explanation for large amounts of gravity is somehow another universe that contains it instead of... simply more mass in that part of the universe. I always thought the simplest explanation in science was preferred if there was no evidence to the contrary.

Thank you for responding to this, that helped quite a bit. But I guess I should point out even if the multiverse concept was true, it in no way disproves God, or at least from the way I see it, it does not. I think it merely pushes the problem back a step, such as what IS the mechanism that creates all of these universes and if so how did IT get here? Or if the newer universes came out of or were naturally created by other older universes how did the very first universe come into being?

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I always thought the simplest explanation in science was preferred if there was no evidence to the contrary.

I did too. But we're talking about worldviews here...the goalposts conveniently move when the simplest explanation fills you with horror.

It's remarkable how M-theory just keeps on resurfacing. It's a bit like a punch-drunk boxer who keeps getting back up for more.

DannyM wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I always thought the simplest explanation in science was preferred if there was no evidence to the contrary.

I did too. But we're talking about worldviews here...the goalposts conveniently move when the simplest explanation fills you with horror.

It's remarkable how M-theory just keeps on resurfacing. It's a bit like a punch-drunk boxer who keeps getting back up for more.

Occums Razor in scientific examination is a guide which favors the simplest explanation, but it's not an absolute law by any means. When followed, it's still the responsibility of the scientist to determine if the evidence best fits that explanation and if not, to then examine a more complex solution. The irony is that it's in the soft areas of philosophy that Occums Razor is cited as a reason to reject God and in that context, materialistic atheists are willing to make it a law which they appeal to as if it were invioble.

Canuckster1127 wrote:

DannyM wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I always thought the simplest explanation in science was preferred if there was no evidence to the contrary.

I did too. But we're talking about worldviews here...the goalposts conveniently move when the simplest explanation fills you with horror.

It's remarkable how M-theory just keeps on resurfacing. It's a bit like a punch-drunk boxer who keeps getting back up for more.

Occums Razor in scientific examination is a guide which favors the simplest explanation, but it's not an absolute law by any means. When followed, it's still the responsibility of the scientist to determine if the evidence best fits that explanation and if not, to then examine a more complex solution. The irony is that it's in the soft areas of philosophy that Occums Razor is cited as a reason to reject God and in that context, materialistic atheists are willing to make it a law which they appeal to as if it were invioble.

Thanks, Bart. I've always thought of it as an unwritten 'rule' or guideline as far as scientists are concerned. I'd never thought of it as a law.

DannyM wrote:

MarcusOfLycia wrote:I always thought the simplest explanation in science was preferred if there was no evidence to the contrary.

I did too. But we're talking about worldviews here...the goalposts conveniently move when the simplest explanation fills you with horror.

It's remarkable how M-theory just keeps on resurfacing. It's a bit like a punch-drunk boxer who keeps getting back up for more.

Just curious Dan, is the multiverse theory and M-theory (as in Stephen Hawking's M-theory) synonymous or are they somewhat different?

Sorry, DRDS. I play fast and loose with the terminology when talking about multiverses. When I say 'M-Theory' the 'M' I'm talking about is 'Multiverses' and thus a plurality of multiverse theories, not Hawking's M-Theory. Force of habit and I should be clearer.

Some udate, missing matter found (or so they think).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/05/24 ... ng_matter/
And as for the double slit experiment, the only recent update I was was this
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46193
Here, they were able to do some acual measurmentws of what is happening with the double slit. I see no information about multiple universes that anyone can find from it, it is till rather new and I don't think any conclusions can be reached yet.

Those who want to "prove" multiple universe theory, which currently has no evience to back it up, and thus "prove" that there is no God (it would actually prove nothing of the sort) are quick to grab any slightest hint that they can spin that there MIGHT be multiple universes. Usually this evidence is ambigous in the extreme, and has a lot of ifs and maybes and the like in it, just like multiple universe theory does. Untill they are actually able to visit one, or bring back info from one, or bring back a provable piece, I wouldn't jump to any conclusions yet.

Of course if they 'visited' somewhere they claimed was another universe, how could they confirm it wasn't just part of our universe?

DannyM wrote:Sorry, DRDS. I play fast and loose with the terminology when talking about multiverses. When I say 'M-Theory' the 'M' I'm talking about is 'Multiverses' and thus a plurality of multiverse theories, not Hawking's M-Theory. Force of habit and I should be clearer.

Not specifically Hawking's M-Theory!

DRDS wrote: One of the pieces of evidence is the "massive" gravational pull in certain areas of the universe that could not be from our own due to the lack of matter in our universe, or that's what the proponent is saying.

The other piece of evidence is from an experiment called the "double slit expirment", anyone ever heard or have looked into this?

"On the outskirts of creation, unknown, unseen "structures" are tugging on our universe like cosmic magnets, a controversial new study says. ... The presence of the extra-universal matter suggests that our universe is part of something bigger—a multiverse—and that whatever is out there is very different from the universe we know, according to study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland. ... The newfound flow cannot be explained by, and is not directly related to, the expansion of the universe. ... Movement is detectable in data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). ... The researchers had expected to find that, the farther away clusters are, the slower they appear to be moving. Instead, Kashlinsky said, "We found a great surprise." ... To explain the unexplainable flow, the team turned to the longstanding theory that rapid inflation just after the big bang had pushed chunks of matter beyond the known universe."[1]

-----------------------------------

"As with the other interpretations of quantum mechanics, the many-worlds interpretation is motivated by behavior that can be illustrated by the double-slit experiment. When particles of light (or anything else) are passed through the double slit, a calculation assuming wave-like behavior of light can be used to identify where the particles are likely to be observed. Yet when the particles are observed in this experiment, they appear as particles (i.e., at definite places) and not as non-localized waves.
Some versions of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics proposed a process of "collapse" in which an indeterminate quantum system would probabilistically collapse down onto, or select, just one determinate outcome to "explain" this phenomenon of observation. Wavefunction collapse was widely regarded as artificial and ad-hoc, so an alternative interpretation in which the behavior of measurement could be understood from more fundamental physical principles was considered desirable.
MWI removes the observer-dependent role in the quantum measurement process by replacing wavefunction collapse with quantum decoherence. Since the role of the observer lies at the heart of most if not all "quantum paradoxes," this automatically resolves a number of problems; see for example Schrödinger's cat thought-experiment, the EPR paradox, von Neumann's "boundary problem" and even wave-particle duality. Quantum cosmology also becomes intelligible, since there is no need anymore for an observer outside of the universe."[2]

-----------------------------------

And now something interesting from August this year. It relates to bubble universes.

"The idea that other universes - as well as our own - lie within "bubbles" of space and time has received a boost. Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that several of these "bubble universes" may have left marks on our own. ... The team has worked with seven years' worth of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measures in minute detail the cosmic microwave background (CMB) - the faint glow left from our Universe's formation. The theory that invokes these bubble universes - a theory formally called "eternal inflation" - holds that such universes are popping into and out of existence and colliding all the time, with the space between them rapidly expanding - meaning that they are forever out of reach of one another. ... They used a computer program that looked for these discs automatically - reducing the chance that one of the collaborators would see the expected shape in the data when it was not in fact there. ... The program found four particular areas that look likely to be signatures of the bubble universes - where the bubbles were 10 times more likely than the standard theory to explain the variations that the team saw in the CMB. However, Dr Peiris stressed that the four regions were "not at a high statistical significance" - that more data would be needed to be assured of the existence of the "multiverse".[3]

More data in the beginning of the 2013.

--------------
references:

[1] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -flow.html
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation
[3] http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387

Hi there, just curious, what is your take on this info that you posted? Does the idea of the multiverse bother you like it does me or like some believers do you think the multiverse does NOT hurt the case for God's existence? Thanks.

As far as what I can see currently, this could just be a case of atheists "finding" what they are "looking for". Or put more famously, "if there is a WILL there is a WAY". When you have the kind of money, power coupled with the social agenda that you want to push on the world you would almost expect them to find "evidence" that suits their agenda.

It's just like with evolution, global warming, life on mars, or little green men if the "scientific consensus" wants there to be evidence for these they will do everything they can to make sure they get what they want, no matter how vague their evidence seems to be. I believe most thinking Christians like everyone here pretty much is on to them.

DRDS wrote: Hi there, just curious, what is your take on this info that you posted?

I believe that the double slit experiment can be explained without invoking the multiverse theory. (I have no idea how. )
And the stuff with the dark flow only tells us that there is something lurking beyond the cosmic horizon.

DRDS wrote: Does the idea of the multiverse bother you like it does me or like some believers do you think the multiverse does NOT hurt the case for God's existence?

If multiverses exist, we would never be able to see them or have any contact with them.[1] Why then would God mention other universes in the Bible? And furthermore, there still remains the question where are the laws (e.g. string theory) from?

DRDS wrote: As far as what I can see currently, this could just be a case of atheists "finding" what they are "looking for". Or put more famously, "if there is a WILL there is a WAY". When you have the kind of money, power coupled with the social agenda that you want to push on the world you would almost expect them to find "evidence" that suits their agenda.

It's just like with evolution, global warming, life on mars, or little green men if the "scientific consensus" wants there to be evidence for these they will do everything they can to make sure they get what they want, no matter how vague their evidence seems to be. I believe most thinking Christians like everyone here pretty much is on to them.

I have checked Peter Woit's (well-known physicist) blog and I have to correct my previous post concerning the BBC article. It was a hype.[2] Woit's blog is a good one. He tries to look at things honestly and soberly. (At least that's how I see it.) He has there a category 'multiverse mania'[3]. Interesting reading.

references:
[1] http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... theory.htm
[2] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=3879
[3] http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?cat=10