Design

[rossum]

Papal bulls are not always infallible:

I didn’t say they were. However, a Papal Bull is a good indication of the official attitude of the Catholic Church at the time.

rossum

 

[buffalo]

Occam’s Razor is ignored at one’s peril! There is the risk of metascientific indigestion.

The god of BUC is getting really silly now.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Why do you think that a multiverse necessarily rejects the concept of God? I have never seen anyone on this forum, nor indeed anywhere else, suggest that. It only seems to be Christians like yourself who make unfounded claims that it’s a desperate attempt by ‘atheist scientists’ to discount the divine.

If you can actually find anyone who suggests that, we can explain to him or her how fatuous the argument would be.

I’m glad you agree the argument would be fatuous.

The bottom line is that scientists may infer things they want to infer because they are consistent with their philosophy. Einstein, for example, before the Big Bang theory, believed that the universe was eternal. He fudged the equations in his own math on relativity to indicate that (and later admitted it was the biggest blunder of his life). You see, if the universe was eternal, he wouldn’t have to see any implications that it was created, and we know what Einstein thought about Genesis. Not much.

So it’s entirely possible that after the Big Bang got to be accepted, astronomers would start looking for ANYTHING that would excuse them from having to look at the implications of a created universe. First it was the Big Crunch. Well, that fell through. So after that the multiverse came into play, even though there was no the slightest evidence of an infinity of universes that would be required to replace the God-of-the-gaps.

Now we do not expect atheist scientists would admit to entertaining the multiverse just to get around God, just as we might not have expected Einstein to admit that he fudged the math so that he would not have to encounter the Creation event.

Took a Catholic priest, George Lemaitre, to correct his math and set him straight. Einstein later had the decency to nominate Lemaitre for a prestigious scientific award.

 

[tonyrey]

I didn’t say they were. However, a Papal Bull is a good indication of the official attitude of the Catholic Church at the time.

NB:

In 1527 Rome was sacked by Charles V of Spain and **the pope was often the prisoner of coloniser kings. **The fragility of church authority was confirmed by the Protestant Reformation.

Therefore, acknowledging the limits of its power, the church tended to accept slavery as a sad reality of the human condition (like war or feudalism) and to focus on ameliorating its worst effects. Hence the church appointed an official Protector of the Indians in the 1610s and it helped write labour codes designed to define the rights of slaves and the responsibilities of their owners. In 17th-century Paraguay the Jesuits established an enormous republic (known as the Jesuit Reduction) wherein indigenous people were free to practise their own culture (so long as they converted to Catholicism). They were educated and trained in cottage industries, attaining a degree of wealth and independence unique within the Spanish Americas. Threatened by slave traders, they were permitted by the Spanish crown to form militias to defend the settlements. When the Jesuits were expelled from the Americas in 1767 the slave trade returned with a vengeance.

historytoday.com/tim-stanley/atheists-slaves-simplicity

 

[tonyrey]

Seems to me that if God exists as is generally understood, then making multiple universes would not be a problem.

You need to explain the purpose of creating so many universes

And we already can’t access 0.000000000000000000001%* of what He’s made already, so having an infinite amount unavailable doesn’t really change much.

• actually a much smaller amount but you really aren’t interested in the actual number of zeros.

That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever come across.
It implies that our ignorance increases the probability of an event…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I didn’t say they were. However, a Papal Bull is a good indication of the official attitude of the Catholic Church at the time.

rossum

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves. England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery” (Ernest Havet, “Le christianisme et ses origines”, I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church."

 

[Bradski]

You need to explain the purpose of creating so many universes
That is one of the weakest arguments I have ever come across.
It implies that our ignorance increases the probability of an event…

If there is no purpose to universes we can’t access then there is no purpose to the vast majority of this one which we can’t access.

 

[rossum]

NB:

In 1527 Rome was sacked by Charles V of Spain …

How is this relevant? Dum Diversas was issued in 1452, 75 years earlier and under a different Pope.

I am aware that the Catholic attitude to slavery has changed; it was not always the same as it is today.

rossum

 

[rossum]

This from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“A second revival of slavery took place after the discovery of the New World by the Spaniards in 1492. To give the history of it would be to exceed the limits of this article. It will be sufficient to recall the efforts of Las Casas in behalf of the aborigines of America and the protestations of popes against the enslavement of those aborigines and the traffic in negro slaves. England, France, Portugal, and Spain, all participated in this nefarious traffic. England only made amends for its transgressions when, in 1815, it took the initiative in the suppression of the slave trade. In 1871 a writer had the temerity to assert that the Papacy had not its mind to condemn slavery” (Ernest Havet, “Le christianisme et ses origines”, I, p. xxi). He forgot that, in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime” (magnum scelus); that, in 1537, Paul III forbade the enslavement of the Indians; that Urban VIII forbade it in 1639, and Benedict XIV in 1741; that Pius VII demanded of the Congress of Vienna, in 1815, the suppression of the slave trade and Gregory XVI condemned it in 1839; that, in the Bull of Canonization of the Jesuit Peter Claver, one of the most illustrious adversaries of slavery, Pius IX branded the “supreme villainy” (summum nefas) of the slave traders. Everyone knows of the beautiful letter which Leo XIII, in 1888, addressed to the Brazilian bishops, exhorting them to banish from their country the remnants of slavery — a letter to which the bishops responded with their most energetic efforts, and some generous slave-owners by freeing their slaves in a body, as in the first ages of the Church."

See my response to tonyrey above. I agree that the attitude of the Church has changed. I am pointing out what it changed from. We all know what it changed to.

rossum

 

[tonyrey]

How is this relevant? Dum Diversas was issued in 1452, 75 years earlier and under a different Pope.

I am aware that the Catholic attitude to slavery has changed; it was not always the same as it is today.

It’s highly relevant because the previous Popes were virtual prisoners.

 

[tonyrey]

You need to explain the purpose of creating so many universes.

Non sequitur. You still need to explain the purpose of creating so many universes. Otherwise it’s an appeal to ignorance. Is there a conceivable reason for doing so or is it just fantasy?

BTW It’s not clear what “to the vast majority of this one” means. Majority implies more than one…

 

[Charlemagne_III]

How is this relevant? Dum Diversas was issued in 1452, 75 years earlier and under a different Pope.

I am aware that the Catholic attitude to slavery has changed; it was not always the same as it is today.

rossum

Did you read my previous post?

“in 1462, Pius II declared slavery to be “a great crime””

Not aware that any of this has anything to do with Design, the topic of this thread.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Non sequitur. You still need to explain the purpose of creating so many universes. Otherwise it’s an appeal to ignorance. Is there a conceivable reason for doing so or is it just fantasy?

Indeed, what is the reason for positing so many universes, not just so many, but an infinity of them, since many would not settle the problem of origin…

I have give a reason previously.

The reason is to avoid encountering a Creator God.

 

[Bradski]

Indeed, what is the reason for positing so many universes, not just so many, but an infinity of them, since many would not settle the problem of origin…

I have give a reason previously.

The reason is to avoid encountering a Creator God.

Yet you have no examples of this. Even when it is agreed that it would be nonsensical argument.

And as to multiple universes and the question as to what they would be for, then you would have to ask God. He made billions of galaxies, some of which disappeared from the observable universe long before this planet was even formed (and are even now disappearing as you read this).

When you find an answer to the purpose of things which we cannot access, then you’ll have the answer to your own question.

I’m keen to hear it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Yet you have no examples of this. Even when it is agreed that it would be nonsensical argument.

You are right. I cannot find an atheist who will admit to this line of reasoning. That does not prevent me from suspecting that multiverse is precisely devised by atheist scientists to skirt the question of God. Can you find me a reason why scientists are so keen on positing a multiverse when there is no evidence that one exists?

After all, we only have scientific proof on one universe that began with the Big Bang.

 

[Bradski]

You are right. I cannot find an atheist who will admit to this line of reasoning. That does not prevent me from suspecting that multiverse is precisely devised by atheist scientists to skirt the question of God. Can you find me a reason why scientists are so keen on positing a multiverse when there is no evidence that one exists?

Some scientists are keen because the discovery of gravity waves last year very strongly suggests that inflation occurred during the Big Bang. And mathematical models of inflation generally lead to the multiverse. As Alan Guth of MIT said:

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse. It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.” space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html

No-one is pulling this suggestion out of their butt in some nefarious attempt to discount God. Notwithstanding, as we have already discussed, it wouldn’t anyway. God is just as likely to have made different universes that we cannot access just as easily as you are convinced He made parts of this universe inaccessible.

In fact, the parts of this universe that were accessible might as well be now considered an entirely separate concept. Which, to be pedantic, it already is.

‘For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it’s so far away Earthlings can’t see it, and never will.’ livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

And that ‘whole regions of space’ may well be infinite:

‘Meanwhile, there’s the issue of whether the universe is infinite in space to begin with, which Mack said is still an open question.’ livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

So if you think that a multiverse is nonsensical because why would God create something we cannot access, you are left with most of what you think He created in the first instance.

I’m eagerly awaiting your explanation for it.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Some scientists are keen because the discovery of gravity waves last year very strongly suggests that inflation occurred during the Big Bang. And mathematical models of inflation generally lead to the multiverse. As Alan Guth of MIT said:

“It’s hard to build models of inflation that don’t lead to a multiverse. It’s not impossible, so I think there’s still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking [the idea of a] multiverse seriously.” space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html

No-one is pulling this suggestion out of their butt in some nefarious attempt to discount God. Notwithstanding, as we have already discussed, it wouldn’t anyway. God is just as likely to have made different universes that we cannot access just as easily as you are convinced He made parts of this universe inaccessible.

In fact, the parts of this universe that were accessible might as well be now considered an entirely separate concept. Which, to be pedantic, it already is.

‘For a brief fraction of a second after the Big Bang, there was a period of accelerated expansion called inflation, during which the universe grew at a much faster pace than it is growing now. Whole regions of space will never be observable from Earth for that reason. Mack noted that assuming inflation happened, the universe is actually 1023 times bigger than the 46 billion light-years humans can see. So if there is an edge to the universe, it’s so far away Earthlings can’t see it, and never will.’ livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

And that ‘whole regions of space’ may well be infinite:

‘Meanwhile, there’s the issue of whether the universe is infinite in space to begin with, which Mack said is still an open question.’ livescience.com/33646-universe-edge.html

So if you think that a multiverse is nonsensical because why would God create something we cannot access, you are left with most of what you think He created in the first instance.

I’m eagerly awaiting your explanation for it.

theatheistconservative.com/tag/alan-guth/

carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

 

[Charlemagne_III]

theatheistconservative.com/tag/alan-guth/

carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”

 

[Bradski]

theatheistconservative.com/tag/alan-guth/

carm.org/atheism-and-the-multiverse

Ye gods and little fishes…is there some compulsion to quote Sagan every bloody week? It doesn’t even have any relation whatsoever to the discussion.

And it is a complete waste of time simply pasting links to web sites without making some sort of comment. One of the sites is simply repeating what we’ve already agreed and the other is years out of date.

Maybe it’s simply a deflection so that you can avoid answering the question I have asked three times so far and which I will now ask yet again:

If you think a multiverse is a waste of space - God wouldn’t create something we cannot access, then why is so much of this universe inaccesssible? And always has been, well before we existed.

 

[Aloysium]

The problem with modern astrophysics is that there is no explanation as to the cause of all this. Gravity had to come from somewhere when presumably a singularity was all there was. There has to be a cause external to this universe. People who believe all is material, whatever that may be, must formulate a process to explain all this. Multiverses is one such possibility either sequential or concurrent or both. Yet, we don’t even have a good grasp of the universe, our knowledge including only the 5% that is not dark energy and matter.

It takes faith to believe that the nature of this world can be discern through empiricism, that it could ever explain what lies beyond our origins. Restricting our knowledge and reducing everything to physical structure, since no explanation is and ever will be forthcoming for the complexity and ultimate mystery of reality, both our existence and our reason could not but be as absurd as the world from which they would have sprung.

The immensity of the universe reflects God’s glory. It is impossible to conceive of ourselves as god’s in the face of such an infinite wonder. But, try to form, we continue to do so, imagining God to be blind matter.