Evidence for God from Science

So i was arguing with and atheist a couple days ago and he stated that there's more proof for the multiverse theory than God, is that true?

Well it would seem that way for a person who doesn't believe in God anyway.

But no. If you completely dismiss God as a possibility then the multiverse would seem to be the most likely explanation for the origin of the universe and it's fine tuned parameters, but there is no more evidence let alone proof for it than for existence of God.

jakobp wrote:So i was arguing with and atheist a couple days ago and he stated that there's more proof for the multiverse theory than God, is that true?

Really? As far as I know the multiverse theory I'd just a wild stab of desperation by atheists to explain away the fine tuning with virtually no proof whatsoever.

I would say that it's more probable for God to exist, compared to the multiverse. Although the existence of multiverses would only provide more evidence of there being a creator.

I agree that there is no proof for the multiverse theory. I do not find the double slit experiment and the dark flow to be the proofs.

Sounds to me like that's probably one of those atheists who repeats ad nauseum "There is no evidence for God, none whatsoever!" even when anyone who studies honest for about half an hour knows better. I don't think all of these people necessarily believe what they're saying, they're just building walls of defense. If you tear down one wall they want to have another and another... they want to do anything necessary to avoid reaching the conclusion that God exists. In my mind, that's why some try so hard to sell the ridiculous idea that Jesus didn't even exist- because trying to sell the hallucination or swoon theory might not convince rational people. They want to hit you with as many ideas as possible, even if they're contradictory ideas... as long as you avoid that one conclusion.

Silvertusk wrote:

jakobp wrote:So i was arguing with and atheist a couple days ago and he stated that there's more proof for the multiverse theory than God, is that true?

Really? As far as I know the multiverse theory I'd just a wild stab of desperation by atheists to explain away the fine tuning with virtually no proof whatsoever.

Nope see here.

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

jakobp wrote:So i was arguing with and atheist a couple days ago and he stated that there's more proof for the multiverse theory than God, is that true?

Really? As far as I know the multiverse theory I'd just a wild stab of desperation by atheists to explain away the fine tuning with virtually no proof whatsoever.

Nope see here.

None of that made the least bit sense to be. It may as well been written in a foreign language. So I stand with my original statement.

Silvertusk wrote:

BGoodForGoodSake wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:

jakobp wrote:So i was arguing with and atheist a couple days ago and he stated that there's more proof for the multiverse theory than God, is that true?

Really? As far as I know the multiverse theory I'd just a wild stab of desperation by atheists to explain away the fine tuning with virtually no proof whatsoever.

Nope see here.

None of that made the least bit sense to be. It may as well been written in a foreign language. So I stand with my original statement.

I agree with Silvertusk - it makes no sense to me either. How could we prove the existence of other universes (assuming that they do exist), if we're a part of this universe? By using math? And what would be the implications of a multiverse? An infinite number of universes would mean that the probability of anything existing somewhere is 1. That includes the Flying Spaghetti Monster, invisible pink unicorns, and of course, an omnipresent/omnipotent God... who would, being omnipresent, have to be present in every universe... Sounds mind-bogglingly contradictory to me, and IMO it's an attempt to revive the belief that the universe is eternal and uncreated, a belief that was refuted when it was discovered that our universe had a beginning.

Maybe galatic overlord xemu is locked up in a multiverse

The point was that the multiverse theory was not dreamed up to provide an answer to fine tuning.

It was a posible solution to observations and mathmatics used to model reality, it was arrived at independently.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

You BGood provided the link: http://www.wiziq.com/tutorial/2277-Stri ... athematics.
So, why are mathematician so excited about string theory? What I understand so far is that the string theory is a candidate which
combines the mathematics of general relativity with the mathematics of quantum mechanics and as was written: "Best conjectures are those whose statements or proofs relate different types of mathematics." What is so special about the special metric on the Calabi-Yau manifolds? What is the mirror symmetry of Hodge numbers really about? Do I understand correctly that what was the shocking prediction was the mirror symmetry of Hodge numbers? I see that the string theory brought many new conjectures in mathematics and I agree that the inevitability of string theory as a mathematical theory is undisputable. And so is with supersymmetry which is having hard times now. String theories need supersymmetry, right?

1over137 wrote:You BGood provided the link: http://www.wiziq.com/tutorial/2277-Stri ... athematics.
So, why are mathematician so excited about string theory? What I understand so far is that the string theory is a candidate which
combines the mathematics of general relativity with the mathematics of quantum mechanics and as was written: "Best conjectures are those whose statements or proofs relate different types of mathematics." What is so special about the special metric on the Calabi-Yau manifolds? What is the mirror symmetry of Hodge numbers really about? Do I understand correctly that what was the shocking prediction was the mirror symmetry of Hodge numbers? I see that the string theory brought many new conjectures in mathematics and I agree that the inevitability of string theory as a mathematical theory is undisputable. And so is with supersymmetry which is having hard times now. String theories need supersymmetry, right?

Yes super symetry is not looking so good

Multiuniverse and mulit-dimensions can actually be viewed as "evidence" for God.
A universe in which the Law of our universe do not apply would be one that can be described as the "heaven" of the bible.
A place where time is none existent and the laws of physics do not apply, where a being or beings have virtually unlimited power including the ability to travel to "parallel universes" by sheer will and even cause life to come into being in those universe.
I mean, why not right?

I thought this article might help:
http://www.bethinking.org/science-chris ... g-bang.htm