Evidence for God from Science

Why do scientists insist on the multiverse being a fact. It's hypothetical, and even if it is a thing, we wouldn't be able to know of its existence in the first place. Also, the multiverse itself contradicts other atheist arguements like the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, and pink unicorns." If there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of laws, than it would be impossible for these not to exist within the multiverse. In my eyes, the multiverse is just used as a scapegoat for God instead of actual science. When scientists can't explain the Big Bang, they resort to an eternal universe or "multiverse" as an explanation. Stephen Hawking himself even said that the universe had a beggining. I have to ask, if God didn't start it, then what caused the Big Bang? There can't be anything inside of the singularity to make it explode because the singularity would be of the planck length. Any distance any smaller does has no meaning and does not exist. There would be nothing inside of the singularity to make it explode. The "multiverse" explanation doesn't do anything to bring a solution as it has not been scientifically or theologically been proven to exist. I advise anybody who want to argue with a theist to not use the multiverse as an arguement; it just shows a sign off weakness.

YoungApolegist wrote:Why do scientists insist on the multiverse being a fact. It's hypothetical, and even if it is a thing, we wouldn't be able to know of its existence in the first place. Also, the multiverse itself contradicts other atheist arguements like the "The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Santa Claus, and pink unicorns." If there is an infinite amount of universes with an infinite amount of laws, than it would be impossible for these not to exist within the multiverse. In my eyes, the multiverse is just used as a scapegoat for God instead of actual science. When scientists can't explain the Big Bang, they resort to an eternal universe or "multiverse" as an explanation. Stephen Hawking himself even said that the universe had a beggining. I have to ask, if God didn't start it, then what caused the Big Bang? There can't be anything inside of the singularity to make it explode because the singularity would be of the planck length. Any distance any smaller does has no meaning and does not exist. There would be nothing inside of the singularity to make it explode. The "multiverse" explanation doesn't do anything to bring a solution as it has not been scientifically or theologically been proven to exist. I advise anybody who want to argue with a theist to not use the multiverse as an arguement; it just shows a sign off weakness.

The latest discovery on March 17th of a pattern in the microwave background gave good evidence that there was a rapid inflationary period in the early stages of the universe. Apparently that opens the door for multiverse models. (Really dont know how). But the 2 things that it does do is this -

1) Cements the big bang theory as the most solid model as the beginning of this universe.
2) Eliminates certain multiverse models. Any multiverse model would have to be an inflationary model and according to the Borde Guth Vilenkin theorem any model of the universe that has inflation in its history still had a beginning.

Read my threads (links below) I tackled this myself. (Remember all of this is still highly speculative - the multiverse part, not anything else.)

http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 23&t=39314
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =6&t=39409
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... =2&t=39297

I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not another universe would be detectable from ours. It seems intuitively obvious that such could not be, but there are plenty of things that have seemed intuitively obvious to me that have, in the end, been mistaken (and so we say that truth is stranger than fiction).

What I can say is that the multiverse hypothesis certainly seems like it was rooted in a philosophical assumption of the eternality of the physical world. If our universe had a temporal beginning, then the only way to preserve the assumption is to push it back one step further: if our universe didn't exist forever, then it must be a part of a number of universes, and that collection (a multiverse) has always existed in one form or fashion.

The second thing I can say is that, even if the multiverse were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. It might discredit the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and I say "might," because some KCA advocates are saying that the Kalam works even there). It might make the Intelligent Design argument harder to make. But neither of those are any skin of my nose, because I think there are better arguments anyway (I have an essay on my blog where I critique the KCA, and I have always worried a bit about the entire methodology behind the ID movement). The point is that the attempt to use a multiverse to "push out" God just fails. God is just as necessary if a multiverse exists than if it didn't.

Jac3510 wrote:I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not another universe would be detectable from ours. It seems intuitively obvious that such could not be, but there are plenty of things that have seemed intuitively obvious to me that have, in the end, been mistaken (and so we say that truth is stranger than fiction).

What I can say is that the multiverse hypothesis certainly seems like it was rooted in a philosophical assumption of the eternality of the physical world. If our universe had a temporal beginning, then the only way to preserve the assumption is to push it back one step further: if our universe didn't exist forever, then it must be a part of a number of universes, and that collection (a multiverse) has always existed in one form or fashion.

The second thing I can say is that, even if the multiverse were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. It might discredit the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and I say "might," because some KCA advocates are saying that the Kalam works even there). It might make the Intelligent Design argument harder to make. But neither of those are any skin of my nose, because I think there are better arguments anyway (I have an essay on my blog where I critique the KCA, and I have always worried a bit about the entire methodology behind the ID movement). The point is that the attempt to use a multiverse to "push out" God just fails. God is just as necessary if a multiverse exists than if it didn't.

I don't understand why people think the existence of a multiverse would be proof of the non-existence of God. How would a multiverse know how to do this, and how would the physical laws of those other universes be different? The existence of a multiverse has no correlation to the non-existence of a god. If anything, it would make the existence of God even more evident, at least in my eyes.

YoungApolegist wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not another universe would be detectable from ours. It seems intuitively obvious that such could not be, but there are plenty of things that have seemed intuitively obvious to me that have, in the end, been mistaken (and so we say that truth is stranger than fiction).

What I can say is that the multiverse hypothesis certainly seems like it was rooted in a philosophical assumption of the eternality of the physical world. If our universe had a temporal beginning, then the only way to preserve the assumption is to push it back one step further: if our universe didn't exist forever, then it must be a part of a number of universes, and that collection (a multiverse) has always existed in one form or fashion.

The second thing I can say is that, even if the multiverse were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. It might discredit the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and I say "might," because some KCA advocates are saying that the Kalam works even there). It might make the Intelligent Design argument harder to make. But neither of those are any skin of my nose, because I think there are better arguments anyway (I have an essay on my blog where I critique the KCA, and I have always worried a bit about the entire methodology behind the ID movement). The point is that the attempt to use a multiverse to "push out" God just fails. God is just as necessary if a multiverse exists than if it didn't.

I don't understand why people think the existence of a multiverse would be proof of the non-existence of God. How would a multiverse know how to do this, and how would the physical laws of those other universes be different? The existence of a multiverse has no correlation to the non-existence of a god. If anything, it would make the existence of God even more evident, at least in my eyes.

It doesn't - but secular scientists use it to get round the fine tuning problem. However it really doesn't. Because if it is true - it would still require fine in order to produce universes in the first place, plus it does not explain why it is there in the first place - or why any physical reality exists at all. As you said you still have the physical laws to account for. Plus it would have had a beginning anyway.

Silvertusk wrote:

YoungApolegist wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:I don't know nearly enough to know whether or not another universe would be detectable from ours. It seems intuitively obvious that such could not be, but there are plenty of things that have seemed intuitively obvious to me that have, in the end, been mistaken (and so we say that truth is stranger than fiction).

What I can say is that the multiverse hypothesis certainly seems like it was rooted in a philosophical assumption of the eternality of the physical world. If our universe had a temporal beginning, then the only way to preserve the assumption is to push it back one step further: if our universe didn't exist forever, then it must be a part of a number of universes, and that collection (a multiverse) has always existed in one form or fashion.

The second thing I can say is that, even if the multiverse were true, it would not disprove the existence of God. It might discredit the Kalam Cosmological Argument (and I say "might," because some KCA advocates are saying that the Kalam works even there). It might make the Intelligent Design argument harder to make. But neither of those are any skin of my nose, because I think there are better arguments anyway (I have an essay on my blog where I critique the KCA, and I have always worried a bit about the entire methodology behind the ID movement). The point is that the attempt to use a multiverse to "push out" God just fails. God is just as necessary if a multiverse exists than if it didn't.

I don't understand why people think the existence of a multiverse would be proof of the non-existence of God. How would a multiverse know how to do this, and how would the physical laws of those other universes be different? The existence of a multiverse has no correlation to the non-existence of a god. If anything, it would make the existence of God even more evident, at least in my eyes.

It doesn't - but secular scientists use it to get round the fine tuning problem. However it really doesn't. Because if it is true - it would still require fine in order to produce universes in the first place, plus it does not explain why it is there in the first place - or why any physical reality exists at all. As you said you still have the physical laws to account for. Plus it would have had a beginning anyway.

And it can come down too - where did the physical laws of these universes come from?

We can measure certain parts of these laws but without us being here, these laws that hold it all together still exist - who designed these laws and brought it all together in working order?

Random probability does not quite cut it.
-
-
-

Silvertusk wrote:
The latest discovery on March 17th of a pattern in the microwave background gave good evidence that there was a rapid inflationary period in the early stages of the universe. Apparently that opens the door for multiverse models. (Really dont know how).

Sorry my memory is a little foggy, so this is going to sound extremely weak. But I recall something about how this idea has matured and now is not accepted. The scientist who first hypothesised this 'skew' in the background radiation has even stated that it's a dead hypothesis. Of course, that doesn't make headlines. Sorry I don't remember the details and can't even say for certain if I'm right. If I do have that right though, then the multi-verse is no different than unicorns. Which makes the athiest who submits this hypothesis rather stupid looking from my perspective.

I actually had an online conversation with some atheists on a nintendo collecting forum once. They started pushing on me that speculating God kicked off the big bang was bad philosophy and no different than unicorns and not science. They had already used the multiverse to discredit fine tuning earlier in the conversation, so I said, "and what kind of philosophy is the multiverse". Needless to say, there was silence. That's all it took. One question and they knew they had fallen on their own sword (they were suprisingly smart enough to see what they had done). So ya, I agree the athiest should not use the multiverse hypothesis or they end up looking quite ridiculous.

ryanbouma wrote:

Silvertusk wrote:
The latest discovery on March 17th of a pattern in the microwave background gave good evidence that there was a rapid inflationary period in the early stages of the universe. Apparently that opens the door for multiverse models. (Really dont know how).

Sorry my memory is a little foggy, so this is going to sound extremely weak. But I recall something about how this idea has matured and now is not accepted. The scientist who first hypothesised this 'skew' in the background radiation has even stated that it's a dead hypothesis. Of course, that doesn't make headlines. Sorry I don't remember the details and can't even say for certain if I'm right. If I do have that right though, then the multi-verse is no different than unicorns. Which makes the athiest who submits this hypothesis rather stupid looking from my perspective.

I actually had an online conversation with some atheists on a nintendo collecting forum once. They started pushing on me that speculating God kicked off the big bang was bad philosophy and no different than unicorns and not science. They had already used the multiverse to discredit fine tuning earlier in the conversation, so I said, "and what kind of philosophy is the multiverse". Needless to say, there was silence. That's all it took. One question and they knew they had fallen on their own sword (they were suprisingly smart enough to see what they had done). So ya, I agree the athiest should not use the multiverse hypothesis or they end up looking quite ridiculous.

Ryan - if you could find any reference to this I would definitely be interested to read it.

Hi Silvertusk,

Sorry, I didn't pay attention to the date or your comment, March 17th. I thought you were referring ideas (pre-march 17th) about the patterns in the radiation that indicate a multiverse. Hot and cold spots that suggest universes colliding into each other. I think THAT idea is dead. Sorry for the confusion. Afaik, the March 17th work is still great stuff. I didn't know it "openes the door for multiverse models". That's interesting. I wonder how it does that.

Sorry for the late reply as well. I don't log in often. And when I do I'm usually on my phone reading on a small screen. My mistake there.

The mulitverse is the most ridiculous bunch of poppycock ever. We can see and observe our universe and think of how little we really know of it. And yet, some egg heads can conceive of a multi-verse and offer a question begging hypothesis and suddenly its a legit theory?? And creationists are the religious nuts?? Spare me.

And it can come down too - where did the physical laws of these universes come from?

Bada-Boom, Bada-Bing! Yep, Random chance and processes do not and cannot produce laws of great precision, complexity and the necessary order and complex interactions to form a universe - whether one or multiple universes. This is why I am fond of saying to atheists that they not only believe in miracles, but that they have FAR greater faith than I do. Because to believe what they do obviously takes enormous faith. But it is a faith that is founded upon unproven conjecture and fantasy.

jlay wrote:The mulitverse is the most ridiculous bunch of poppycock ever. We can see and observe our universe and think of how little we really know of it. And yet, some egg heads can conceive of a multi-verse and offer a question begging hypothesis and suddenly its a legit theory?? And creationists are the religious nuts?? Spare me.

You may be underestimating theoretical physics far too much.

neo-x wrote: You may be underestimating theoretical physics far too much.

I agree. The recent discoveries in the inflationary model make the idea of multiple universes theoretically possible. But they also strengthen the BVG theorem insomuch as they must be past incomplete.

As I said before, I don't know enough about astrophysics to say whether or not a multiverse is reasonable. I will say it is counterintuitive, and so I would require a strong burden of proof before embracing it. I will also say that I have not been impressed at all (in fact, I've been rather let down) in reading what would even constitute as evidence for a multiverse. Here's an article that was written just before the discovery in question was announced.

http://phys.org/news/2014-05-cosmologis ... verse.html

The point of the article is that there is in principle no directly testable effects of a multiverse. Notice I said that there is no such method in principle. That means this is not an argument from silence, but rather an argument from what we know. The suggestion is rather than if we start with the proposition that a multiverse exists, we can suggest a model by which a generator would create a particular universe and then hypothesize what effects that generator would have in OUR universe. If we see those effects, then we can claim that as evidence for a multiverse.

On its face, that logic seems VERY shaky to me. It gets worse when I read things like this (and this from the article):

• How typical is our universe of the set of possible universes?
  
  There is one way in which our universe is highly unusual: it contains life. If our laws of nature were only slightly different then our universe would look and behave quite differently: atoms would fall apart, or the universe would have expanded so fast that stars and galaxies could not form.
  Most cosmological scenarios would have left our universe stone-cold dead, devoid of life.
  
  The multiverse can handle this. The probability of observing a particular type of universe depends on that universe first creating observers. We are not just passive observers, setting up our equipment and taking measurements of the universe at our leisure. We are products of this universe.
  
  While universes with observers may be highly unusual in the entire multiverse, they will obviously be the norm for observed universes. And so, the life-permitting nature of our universe can be counted as a successful prediction of the multiverse. (Prediction in the logical, rather than chronological sense.)

So the fact that there is life is evidence for the multiverse? Really?

It should be very, very clear that this is not science but rather philosophy (and I would suggest bad philosophy). Likewise, the article argues that inflation is evidence for a multiverse because the supposed generator would create universes through inflation. But guess how many mechanisms are offered to justify that claim. Exactly and precisely zero. It is simply asserted. Now, in the article's defense, it suggests that some might exist. It just doesn't talk about any of them (so we're dealing with a bald assertion). The relevant portion says,

• Cosmologists think that in its earliest stages, the universe underwent an extraordinarily rapid expansion, known as inflation. In many versions of inflation, gravitational waves leave an imprint in fossil radiation, recently observed as characteristic swirls in this ancient light; a successful prediction of inflation.
  
  In some versions of inflation, the process that causes our universe to inflate is expected to produce huge numbers of other universes. Evidence for inflation isn't exactly direct evidence for the multiverse, but it's a start.

I would point out, then, first again that no mechanisms are suggested. It is only said that "in some versions of inflation, the processes that cause our universe to inflate is expected to produce huge numbers of universes." That's one heck of a claim without any evidence. And who says it is expected? How can such a claim be tested? Just seeing inflation (which is what the recent discoveries seem to imply as happened) would't justify that kind of a claim. And related to that, the article itself notes that the fact of inflation "isn't exactly direct evidence for the multiverse." It says it's a start. I don't even see how it is that. For how do we know if the multiverse generator predicts inflation or if, seeing inflation, we posit a multiverse generator that employs inflation?

So, again,I am terribly unimpressed.

tl;dr - multiverses CANNOT BE OBSERVED. The only hope scientists have is to observe the effects of a theorized multiverse GENERATOR on THIS universe. The problem, of course, is how we can say anything even about such a generator without begging the question in each and every case. I think the whole enterprise might be based on a logical fallacy.

Thanks for that post Jac. Some excellent points you brought up there....