Evidence for a Multiverse?

[inocente]

Great post.

Thanks.

I think the multiverse is an atheist idea.

It’s said the idea was first used by Erwin Schrödinger in 1952, to explain quantum theory. I’ve read some of his writing. He was drawn to Hindu Vedanta philosophy and was a deep thinker about spirituality. Like Lemaitre he saw attempts to make God scientific as trivializing God, for instance “I think we know that whenever God is experienced, it is an experience exactly as real as a direct sense impression, as real as one’s own personality. As such He must be missing from the space-time picture”.

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.

No a posteriori argument can be proved, only ever disproved, hence science is based on falsification. An idea is scientific if it’s open to disproof by empirical evidence. I linked a paper in post #65 which suggests ways to falsify multiverse hypotheses, so they are scientific. They may well be wrong, most ideas in science are, but science depends on evidence not opinion. Unlike … intelligent design.

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.

I think we’re on the same page. The claim being made seemed to be that if there are lots of universes, that makes it more likely one of them was created, and so more likely God exists. You appear to agree with me - that doesn’t prove God as the uncaused cause. To do that, no reality and no part of reality could be caused without God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

No a posteriori argument can be proved, only ever disproved, hence science is based on falsification. An idea is scientific if it’s open to disproof by empirical evidence. I linked a paper in post #65 which suggests ways to falsify multiverse hypotheses, so they are scientific. They may well be wrong, most ideas in science are, but science depends on evidence not opinion. Unlike … intelligent design.

Intelligent Design is a philosophical/theological premise and therefore does not submit to the requirements of a scientific theory. The evidence for design is self evident, not scientific. We see it all around us. We even see it when you design a sentence that says there is no evidence for universal Design.

The laws of the universe are a good deal more complex than your sentences, and therefore it is reasonable to infer that it is more intelligently designed than anything you could produce.

“This most beautiful system [the solar system] could only proceed from the dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.” Isaac Newton

“It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” Francis Collins the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal the DNA sequence.

Concerning the Big Bang:
“For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance, he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” Robert Jastrow, First Director of NASA’s Lunar Exploration Committee

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I think we’re on the same page. The claim being made seemed to be that if there are lots of universes, that makes it more likely one of them was created, and so more likely God exists. You appear to agree with me - that doesn’t prove God as the uncaused cause. To do that, no reality and no part of reality could be caused without God.

What brand of coffee are you drinking? :coffeeread:

 

[inocente]

Intelligent Design is a philosophical/theological premise and therefore does not submit to the requirements of a scientific theory. The evidence for design is self evident, not scientific. We see it all around us. We even see it when you design a sentence that says there is no evidence for universal Design.

Fortune tellers tell me that astrology and tea leaves are self-evident but not open to science. You’re telling me the same about intelligent design. Yet every philosophical argument about what we see must be an a posteriori argument, and so open to science, where we find no evidence for design, astrology or tea leaves. You’ve also disagreed with bible scholars and theologians.

When there were large gaps in our knowledge, 400 years ago, many saw what looks like design. And today, anyone with large gaps in his knowledge may still see what looks like design. But anyone who looks deeper sees that design is an illusion, like astrology.

God is light. and far greater than that which can be conceived. The people walking in darkness have seen a great light; on those living in the land of deep darkness a light has dawned (Is 9). For those who have eyes to see.

What brand of coffee are you drinking? :coffeeread:

If the logic that nothing can exist prior to the Uncaused Cause eludes you, you need more than coffee.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

When there were large gaps in our knowledge, 400 years ago, many saw what looks like design. And today, anyone with large gaps in his knowledge may still see what looks like design. But anyone who looks deeper sees that design is an illusion, like astrology.

So is it your view that the design aspects indicated in the seven days of creation in Genesis (self evident to anyone who can read … you cannot build a universe without first designing one) is no more believable than astrology?

Whew! :coolinoff:

 

[inocente]

So is it your view that the design aspects indicated in the seven days of creation in Genesis (self evident to anyone who can read … you cannot build a universe without first designing one) is no more believable than astrology?

Whew! :coolinoff:

It’s the view of your church. Well you say it’s your church, but you never agree with what they say, including this. For anyone new to CAF, you always say the exact opposite of your supposed Church. Don’t know what your game is.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s the view of your church. Well you say it’s your church, but you never agree with what they say, including this. For anyone new to CAF, you always say the exact opposite of your supposed Church. Don’t know what your game is.

Well, since your “you never agree with what they say” is not documented but merely alleged, anyone else reading your post must be puzzled. What’s this business of “your supposed Church”? The Catholic Church is hardly “supposed.” It has been around for 2,000 years, a good deal longer than your supposed Baptist Church.

By the way, post #86 was hardly an answer to post #85. What’s your game?

 

[inocente]

Well, since your “you never agree with what they say” is not documented but merely alleged, anyone else reading your post must be puzzled. What’s this business of “your supposed Church”? The Catholic Church is hardly “supposed.” It has been around for 2,000 years, a good deal longer than your supposed Baptist Church.

By the way, post #86 was hardly an answer to post #85. What’s your game?

You gave a rule: “you cannot build a universe without first designing one”.

I can’t build a universe, nor can anyone else. So your rule and the process you might imagine you’d go through to build a universe is neither here nor there. God is not made in our image. God has powers we don’t. Therefore God doesn’t have to obey your rule.

Your Church teaches that God never changes. So God cannot first have designed and then built. Therefore God doesn’t obey your rule.

And Genesis never mentions design. So your “design aspects indicated in the seven days of creation in Genesis” is you making your own interpretation.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

You gave a rule: “you cannot build a universe without first designing one”.

I can’t build a universe, nor can anyone else. So your rule and the process you might imagine you’d go through to build a universe is neither here nor there. God is not made in our image. God has powers we don’t. Therefore God doesn’t have to obey your rule.

Your Church teaches that God never changes. So God cannot first have designed and then built. Therefore God doesn’t obey your rule.

And Genesis never mentions design. So your “design aspects indicated in the seven days of creation in Genesis” is you making your own interpretation.

Our God is a personal God. Genesis tells us that he made us in his image and likeness. This means that when we think about him we can think about him in ways similar to the ways we think about anything and everything, because God created anything and everything. All that exists reflects the mind of God at work. If that mind does not design its creations to exist in certain ways and to provide harmony and beauty, what’s to stop its creations from being chaos or meaningless?

You haven’t proven that Genesis is a meaningless meditation on the mind of God at work.

I would certainly agree that we are not aware of the entire design, but we were made so that from time to time we could fit pieces of the puzzle together and begin to see what final design God had in mind when he said “Let there be Light!”

As opposed to “Let there be Chaos!”

No one reading Genesis can see a disorganized plan at work, even if we cannot fathom all the pieces that are to be put together and cannot get entirely inside the mind of God. God does not use slide rules and timetables and mathematical equations to make the universe work, but without the mind of God planting the seeds of all those things, they would not even have been possible and we would never have been able to grasp the tools by which God in tended us to understand his Creation.

 

[inocente]

Our God is a personal God. Genesis tells us that he made us in his image and likeness. This means that when we think about him we can think about him in ways similar to the ways we think about anything and everything, because God created anything and everything. All that exists reflects the mind of God at work. If that mind does not design its creations to exist in certain ways and to provide harmony and beauty, what’s to stop its creations from being chaos or meaningless?

You haven’t proven that Genesis is a meaningless meditation on the mind of God at work.

I would certainly agree that we are not aware of the entire design, but we were made so that from time to time we could fit pieces of the puzzle together and begin to see what final design God had in mind when he said “Let there be Light!”

As opposed to “Let there be Chaos!”

No one reading Genesis can see a disorganized plan at work, even if we cannot fathom all the pieces that are to be put together and cannot get entirely inside the mind of God. God does not use slide rules and timetables and mathematical equations to make the universe work, but without the mind of God planting the seeds of all those things, they would not even have been possible and we would never have been able to grasp the tools by which God in tended us to understand his Creation.

Agreed that God is not completely incomprehensible, but at the same time God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived. As Isaiah 55 says ‘“my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD’.

And your Church teaches that God never changes, so God cannot first have designed and then built. Our ways are not his ways.

Not sure what you mean by “meaningless meditation”. All scripture is about salvation. “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go” (Galileo).

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Not sure what you mean by “meaningless meditation”. All scripture is about salvation. “The Bible shows the way to go to heaven, not the way the heavens go” (Galileo).

It is a meaningless meditation to read Genesis and then think God just rolled the dice to see how everything turned out.

“God does not play dice with the universe.” Albert Einstein

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

It seems Einstein is closer to the God of Genesis than you are.

So was Isaac Newton:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Last but perhaps no least: Francis Collins, the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal the DNA sequence.

“It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”

 

[inocente]

It is a meaningless meditation to read Genesis and then think God just rolled the dice to see how everything turned out.

“God does not play dice with the universe.” Albert Einstein

“My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God.” Albert Einstein

It seems Einstein is closer to the God of Genesis than you are.

So was Isaac Newton:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”

Last but perhaps no least: Francis Collins, the leader of the international Human Genome Project, which had labored mightily over more than a decade to reveal the DNA sequence.

“It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.”

Sure, that’s what you get by granting the mutterings of scientists authority on religion.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Sure, that’s what you get by granting the mutterings of scientists authority on religion.

As opposed to your authority? Which comes from where?

 

[inocente]

As opposed to your authority? Which comes from where?

That’s irrelevant, but in any event I’m not the one disagreeing with the Church here. Whereas you’re Catholic yet instead of referring to bible scholars and Catholic teaching on reading scripture, you’re using the selected opinions of scientists. Even then, Newton was not a Catholic and had “unusual” beliefs. Einstein was completely dismissive of theism. And Collins argues against intelligent design and god-of-the-gaps.

 

[Faithdancer]

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.

And if there is a multiverse, why can’t it in turn be the product of an intelligent designer?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

That’s irrelevant, but in any event I’m not the one disagreeing with the Church here. Whereas you’re Catholic yet instead of referring to bible scholars and Catholic teaching on reading scripture, you’re using the selected opinions of scientists. Even then, Newton was not a Catholic and had “unusual” beliefs. Einstein was completely dismissive of theism. And Collins argues against intelligent design and god-of-the-gaps.

Einstein was dismissive of a personal God, but he was not completely dismissive of theism. He was completely dismissive of atheism, and said so on several occasions. It seems odd that you have never heard of this.

Einstein said, “In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views.”

He also said, “The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the ‘opium of the masses’—cannot hear the music of the spheres.” Albert Einstein

Collins quote says it all. He says … “It is humbling for me, and awe-inspiring, to realize that we have caught the first glimpse of our own instruction book, previously known only to God.” Tell me, how do you have an instruction book without designing one?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

And if there is a multiverse, why can’t it in turn be the product of an intelligent designer?

Excellent question, which it no doubt escaped being asked by atheists.

 

[Bradski]

Excellent question, which it no doubt escaped being asked by atheists.

Far from the question being asked, it was answered, by an atheist, in the fourth post. I don’t know who you might think you are arguing with? Someone made of dried grass it appears.

 

[meltzerboy]

And if there is a multiverse, why can’t it in turn be the product of an intelligent designer?

However one might define “multiverse,” and I understand there are several meanings, it would seem to me that the sheer mathematical and philosophical complexity of such a thing might lend more credence toward some sort of creative design.

 

[Faithdancer]

Far from the question being asked, it was answered, by an atheist, in the fourth post. I don’t know who you might think you are arguing with? Someone made of dried grass it appears.

Glad you agree with yourself!