Evidence for a Multiverse?

[Charlemagne_III]

Just going to pipe in and say that intelligent design doesn’t just refer only to an intelligent designer but to a specific conception of creation that views creation as a mechanical device and a group of artifiacts. Aquinas would likely not have agreed with Intelligent Design in that sense.

If there is a God, and God dreamed intelligently designed an infinity of universes, what would be his purpose if he could accomplish any purpose he liked with just one universe?

 

[Bradski]

If there is a God, and God dreamed intelligently designed an infinity of universes, what would be his purpose if he could accomplish any purpose he liked with just one universe?

You seem to be unaware that you would have said exactly the same when people thought that existence consisted of just this planet. And then the same when it was just a solar system. Then a galaxy. Then multiple galaxies. Then unobservable and effectively non existant parts of existence.

You simply expand what you think God needs to have done fo encompass all that you consider to be required. Maybe that’s what they mean by a personal God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You seem to be unaware that you would have said exactly the same when people thought that existence consisted of just this planet. And then the same when it was just a solar system. Then a galaxy. Then multiple galaxies. Then unobservable and effectively non existant parts of existence.

I don’t know that anyone ever thought existence consisted of just this planet. I don’t know when anyone thought there was just a solar system or just a few stars beyond the sun in outer space. The Old Testament constantly praises the grand design of God, which would hardly be so grand if the universe had been neatly compact and created in a few seconds by waving a magic wand.

As you say, we have a vast universe. So large it boggles the imagination sufficiently enough to give us some idea of the power of God and why we should show a little respect, never mind a little bow of humility and gratitude now and then.

The advocates of infinite universes have a rather more impressive show in mind than one mere universe, but no real reason for respect, humility, and gratitude for an infinity of them, never mind the one they inhabit.

 

[Bradski]

I don’t know that anyone ever thought existence consisted of just this planet.

Really? It wasn’t that long ago that people in one hemisphere had no idea that anyone (or anywhere else) existed and thought that if you sailed far enough you would drop off the edge of the world. Then it was ‘turtles all the way down’.

Depending on when you personally were born, you would either be suggesting that ‘a New World’ over the horizon was either an atheists ruse (because why would we need so much more than we’ve got), or an example of God’s munificence.

Then you would flip and flop between the two arguments when it was pointed out that there were other planets. And then likewise when the pretty lights in the sky turned out to be suns. And so on and ever on.

You would have always been keen on this argument: ‘What would be his purpose if he could accomplish any purpose he liked with just one of these?’

‘One of these’ being whatever it was at that stage you didn’t believe existed. Then when it was shown to actually exist, we would get: ‘it boggles the imagination sufficiently enough to give us some idea of the power of God and why we should show a little respect’.

The two arguments contradict each other and you use them in the same post. How about you pick a position and stick to it?

 

[inocente]

You failed to deal with the Aquinas quotes directly and called upon someone else as if that someone else could read Aquinas’ mind if he were alive today.

That Benedict and Francis seem to disagree on Intelligent Design means nothing. They are not disagreeing on theology, for certain. But only on whether there is room in science for theological implications. There used to be in the days of Newton a century before Darwin, and then the evolutionary fascists took over and forbade any mention of the god-of-the-gaps as if it were a mortal sin…And here you are seemingly agreeing with the atheists that God had no plan (intelligent design) for the universe. The only difference between you and the atheists is that they say there is no God, whereas you seemingly only say there is a mindless God who just threw the dice and hoped that Natural Selection would do the trick?

I give you the Aquinas quote again and ask you to explain why Aquinas would be opposed to Intelligent Design today. Be not evasive and refer to modern Catholic philosophers as if you could stir up trouble between us and them. We are only interested in stirring up trouble between us and you!

“Nature is nothing but the plan of some art, namely a divine one, put into things themselves, by which those things move toward a concrete end: as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship.” Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Aristotle’s Physics, Book II, Chapter 8

Francis is also a very godly man. That does not make him an expert on Intelligent Design.

By the way, which advocate of Intelligent Design has referred to a magic wand?

Again you capitalize intelligent design, as if. You do realize that it was theologians, not atheists, who invented the term god-of-the-gaps to describe a failed apologetic which revels in ignorance?

You already told me you’re better at interpreting scripture than all the bible scholars, and that scripture isn’t about salvation, no sirree, it’s to be interpreted through the lens of science. Well, not the real science, no sirree, but a 1980’s TV show script. And now apparently, not including evolution. Have you got a list of which bits of science I must accept and which bits I must reject?

And you already told me not to listen to a Catholic philosopher published here on Catholic Answers, no sirree, you know better. I’m not going to argue for him, send your quotes to Dr. Michael W. Tkacz, the Bernard J. Coughlin S.J. Professor of Christian Philosophy, Gonzaga University, 502 E. Boone Ave. AD Box 062, Spokane, WA 99258. Let us know his reply. (By the way some theologians use some of Aquinas’ arguments as examples of god-of-the-gaps thinking.)

And you already told me you know better than the Pope. I can’t answer for him either, send your question to His Holiness Pope Francis, Apostolic Palace, 00120 Vatican City.

So in summary, I’ve accepted the views of Catholic bible scholars, Catholic theologians, a Catholic professor and the Pope. And you’ve rejected all of them. And yet you say you’re not stirring up trouble, no sirree.

I’ve often noticed that you make this point, disparaging older articles as if there was no truth in them.

That article was the journalist’s opinion about possible differences in the Vatican at the time, eleven years ago. It may not even have been true back then, let alone true today.

You linked it, I knew nothing about it. Now you say “Benedict and Francis seem to disagree on Intelligent Design”. Why are you making these claims? Are you only interested in stirring up trouble?

If a multiverse exists, for theists it would have to be by God’s design

No, you don’t get to make claims for all theists. Especially when you keep disagreeing with most of us.

Moreover, the multiple universes would have to be infinite in number, an absolutely unprovable hypothesis that mocks science by reducing it to science fiction.

Multiverse hypotheses are written by scientists with PhD’s and lots of other relevant qualifications, but you once watched a TV show. I only pointed that out to stir up trouble.

Their hypotheses are only scientific if they can be tested of course. Here’s a paper which suggests some of them can be tested (It’s from 2003 but I think still relevant ) - space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.pdf

 

[Wesrock]

I’m not sure why we must needs object to a multiverse hypothesis on principle. Aquinas’ five ways, Liebniz’ argument from PSR, and other classical arguments would still be argued. A multiverse doesn’t do away with that.

The multiverse hypothesis is more physical and mathematical speculation at the moment than real science, true, but there’s no reason to oppose it on principle.

I would argue that it still would be by design, according to classical theist arguments.

We might have no rational reason to accept the hypothesis given the current data, but that does not mean it is excluded from rational possibility.

I just made myself chuckle with that.

 

[inocente]

I’m not sure why we must needs object to a multiverse hypothesis on principle. Aquinas’ five ways, Liebniz’ argument from PSR, and other classical arguments would still be argued. A multiverse doesn’t do away with that.

The multiverse hypothesis is more physical and mathematical speculation at the moment than real science, true, but there’s no reason to oppose it on principle.

I would argue that it still would be by design, according to classical theist arguments.

We might have no rational reason to accept the hypothesis given the current data, but that does not mean it is excluded from rational possibility.

I just made myself chuckle with that.

I think multiverse is a problem for intelligent design fans. I mean 400 years ago it was found that the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Then evolution dispensed with supposed spontaneous generation. Then big telescopes found billions and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, making it a little difficult to believe all of that is just for us. Now multiverse makes that even harder to believe, and dispenses with their fine tuning arguments.

But other theists argue that a multiverse is closer to perfection, and a god who creates an infinite number of universes is far greater than one who only creates a single universe. For instance Klass J Kraay (pdf) “In this paper, I argue that if theism is true, we should expect the actual world to be a multiverse comprised of all and only those universes which are worthy of creation and sustenance. I further argue that this multiverse is the unique best of all possible worlds.”

 

[STT]

I think multiverse is a problem for intelligent design fans. I mean 400 years ago it was found that the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Then evolution dispensed with supposed spontaneous generation. Then big telescopes found billions and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, making it a little difficult to believe all of that is just for us. Now multiverse makes that even harder to believe, and dispenses with their fine tuning arguments.

But other theists argue that a multiverse is closer to perfection, and a god who creates an infinite number of universes is far greater than one who only creates a single universe. For instance Klass J Kraay (pdf) “In this paper, I argue that if theism is true, we should expect the actual world to be a multiverse comprised of all and only those universes which are worthy of creation and sustenance. I further argue that this multiverse is the unique best of all possible worlds.”

Great post.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

The two arguments contradict each other and you use them in the same post. How about you pick a position and stick to it?

Here is the position I will pick and stick to it.

While you are mulling over the genius of modern science and mocking the madness of ancient prophecy, put this in you pipe and suck on it.

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.”

 

[edwest2]

I’m not sure why we must needs object to a multiverse hypothesis on principle. Aquinas’ five ways, Liebniz’ argument from PSR, and other classical arguments would still be argued. A multiverse doesn’t do away with that.

The multiverse hypothesis is more physical and mathematical speculation at the moment than real science, true, but there’s no reason to oppose it on principle.

I would argue that it still would be by design, according to classical theist arguments.

We might have no rational reason to accept the hypothesis given the current data, but that does not mean it is excluded from rational possibility.

I just made myself chuckle with that.

At this point, it’s just a “paper idea.” That’s it. It’s not a rational view as least from the standpoint of the scientific method.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

I think multiverse is a problem for intelligent design fans. I mean 400 years ago it was found that the earth isn’t the center of the universe. Then evolution dispensed with supposed spontaneous generation. Then big telescopes found billions and billions of galaxies each containing billions of stars, making it a little difficult to believe all of that is just for us. Now multiverse makes that even harder to believe, and dispenses with their fine tuning arguments.

But other theists argue that a multiverse is closer to perfection, and a god who creates an infinite number of universes is far greater than one who only creates a single universe. For instance Klass J Kraay (pdf) “In this paper, I argue that if theism is true, we should expect the actual world to be a multiverse comprised of all and only those universes which are worthy of creation and sustenance. I further argue that this multiverse is the unique best of all possible worlds.”

I think the multiverse is an atheist idea.

Ed

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think multiverse is a problem for intelligent design fans.

More of a problem for atheists since it can never be proved, and therefore so far as they are concerned falls in the same class of subjects that are not to be given credence … such as God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think the multiverse is an atheist idea.

Ed

A product of imagination more so than intellect.

It would require substantially more faith than Catholics require to believe in God.

 

[omgriley]

In short, no. There is not evidence for a “multi-verse” because at the end of the day, such evidence would have to be found outside our own universe. I use the term “universe” not in the classical sense, but in the modern sense, which is sort of a bubble-verse.

Even if science could detect energy beyond the known-universe, how would we even know if it truly was what we’re looking for, namely, a bubble-type reality beyond our own presupposed bubble-type reality? What properties would we be looking for? How could we confidently say “Yes, this is surely a second universe!” if we don’t even know where/if our own universe ends?

IMO, the multi-verse concept is baseless, a fun idea for comic books.

FYI, Jimmy Akin handles this topic here

 

[omgriley]

If your universe is infinite, it must also be eternal, for there would be no way for it to begin and expand.

But the Big Bang shows the universe and time began, and the universe is expanding.

So the universe cannot be either eternal or infinite.

The proponents of an atheistic universe need an infinite universe to exist.

Your atheistic philosophy is getting in the way of your physics.

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.”

Even if the Universe “always” existed, it still doesn’t answer the question “why does this exist at all?” Which is something that science cannot answer.

 

[buffalo]

We all know the universe exists. Some people offer the hypothetical that many universes could co-exist. What concrete proof is there for a multiverse?

Has our universe ever bumped into another one?

There is no evidence and cosmologists and physicists know they can never observe one.

In addition, the multiverse is an attempt to evade the implications of fine tuning. This will keep the research money flowing.

Consider, even if a multiverse is real, it only pushes the question back. Who and why were they crated. Also, consider the lunacy of this idea: fake universes exist, one with a God exists, one with a God exists without unbelievers, or all believers. What ever you can imagine has to exist. Even a nonsensical universe.

 

[omgriley]

In order to prove the God of the bible, you would need to prove that every possible world is contingent on the existence of God, by proving that out of the infinite number of possible worlds, none of them, not even one of them, could exist without God. .

inocente, I think you’re placing the cart before the horse. One would first need to prove that such worlds exist, and then analyze their contingency upon a creator.

Classical theism simply says “reality” which is just all that is, is contingent upon God because God is Ipsum Esse Subsistens, the Uncaused Cause.

 

[edwest2]

I do a lot of work creating plausible science fiction and that means a lot of reading. We don’t know how big the universe is. Even the latest Hubble deep space image shows faint galaxies in the background, and how far back does that back go? We have no idea.

If we live in a bubble-shaped universe, where is our galaxy? Near the top, bottom, middle? Closer to one side than the other? And what is outside this bubble? Is it floating in a sea of zero energy and zero gravity that is invisible or something we can’t imagine?

I have a genius level friend with contacts with other genius level people. He said there can’t be literally nothing outside our universe.

Ed

 

[buffalo]

I do a lot of work creating plausible science fiction and that means a lot of reading. We don’t know how big the universe is. Even the latest Hubble deep space image shows faint galaxies in the background, and how far back does that back go? We have no idea.

If we live in a bubble-shaped universe, where is our galaxy? Near the top, bottom, middle? Closer to one side than the other? And what is outside this bubble? Is it floating in a sea of zero energy and zero gravity that is invisible or something we can’t imagine?

I have a genius level friend with contacts with other genius level people. He said there can’t be literally nothing outside our universe.

Ed

It would be infinite?

 

[edwest2]

It would be infinite?

Unknown.

Ed