Hawking theory about something coming from nothing

[Abba]

P.s. I just want to provide the exact Bible verses here. I understand that greylorn claims to be repulsed by the Bible. Nonetheless, this is for him and the lurkers. I do not want to mis-quote and it seems as though I have. So, I AM CORRECTING MYSELF.

Ah, yes, hooray, hey, hey for science and let’s not waste time with that stupid book. It’s a funny thing, as the mathematician, John C. Lennox points out. Science began to be really valued in the 17th century and the Bible ridiculed right up to the 1960s. It seems that the attitude was how can a book that starts with an obvious untruth have any value? It starts… IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. Bah, myths, legends and inventions of human imaginings; In the beginning… Then, there was that ‘scientific’ theory of the Big Bang .

Hebrews 13:5-6
For He Himself has said, “I will never leave you nor forsake you.” So we may boldly say: “The LORD is my helper; I will not fear. What can man do to me?”

2 Timothy 1:7
For God has not given us a spirit of fear and timidity, but of power, love, and self-discipline.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Ah, yes, hooray, hey, hey for science and let’s not waste time with that stupid book. It’s a funny thing, as the mathematician, John C. Lennox points out. Science began to be really valued in the 17th century and the Bible ridiculed right up to the 1960s. It seems that the attitude was how can a book that starts with an obvious untruth have any value? It starts… IN THE BEGINNING, GOD CREATED THE HEAVENS AND THE EARTH. Bah, myths, legends and inventions of human imaginings; In the beginning… Then, there was that ‘scientific’ theory of the Big Bang .

63. According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

Source:

*COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:

Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

Official document of the Catholic Church from 2002, ratified by Cardinal Ratzinger, the current Pope Benedict XVI.

Note: the widely accepted scientific account of which the document speaks is not questioned.

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html

 

[Abba]

Note: the widely accepted scientific account of which the document speaks is not questioned.

Indeed, the Big Bang theory is what we have now. Hence, there was a 'In the beginning…" and so, the Bible should not be found to be so ridiculous, after all. That is, by those that worship science.

Yeap, we have the Big Bang theory and I do not think it is going to be replaced by the Hawking Bubbles and Baby Bubbles theory any time soon.

Btw, Al Moritz, I am just wondering, according to the bubbles and baby bubbles theory of multiverses is there room in there for the Big Bang or are there multi-big-bangs and a denial of an original Big Bang that brought about the multiverses?

Well, the universe is still expanding with or without Hawking’s bubble theory. It doesn’t look as though it is slowing down or that it’s speed is constant nor is it going to stop expanding nor start retracting and crunching us all. I will admit I have not read much of Hawking’s latest theory but, if he is not referring to dimensions in the same space and the universes are expanding wouldn’t these universes collide?

The Nobel Prize in Physics this year went to scientists whose research confirmed that the universe is expanding at an accelerated rate.

Quote from Dr. H. Frederick Dylla, Executive Director and CEO

“It’s really a fitting prize. This year’s Nobel Prize in Physics recognizes a startling new revelation in our understanding of the cosmos. Based on measurements from the last 15 years, we now know that the expansion of our universe is not slowing, as was believed since the Big Bang theory first emerged, but that its expansion is actually accelerating. This acceleration has been the dominant force in the cosmos since our universe was about half its current age. This discovery also provides additional insights into Einstein’s theory of general relativity, a cornerstone of physics and our understanding of the universe. So this discovery not only helps us understand the evolution of the universe, but it also gives us new insights into how it may end. It shows science at its best, where a startling discovery was made and confirmed by two independent teams.” journals.aip.org/Nobel2011.html

Thank you for the link to documented I will read it in its entirety later.

 

[JDaniel]

By the way, my article also makes some comments about Occam’s Razor.

Al:

By the way: excellent article - and not just because I am partial to the views. Also impressive is your writing style, which you seem to be demonstrably capable of carrying with you to this forum despite its relentless, hectic pace.

jd

 

[Abba]

Nice article. I had not notice. I skimmed it and have started to read it. I am also going to read your article on the origin of life from when you were an atheist. Are you working on the third article? It seems as though it should be how you arrived at a personal God (although you cover this a little already) and chose Catholicism.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Al:

By the way: excellent article - and not just because I am partial to the views. Also impressive is your writing style, which you seem to be demonstrably capable of carrying with you to this forum despite its relentless, hectic pace.

jd

Thank you, I am glad you liked the article. As to this forum, I have learned to restrict myself to the essentials and not try to answer each and every question like I would have in the past, but mostly just the ones that I can answer best – if I choose to invest time. That is how I can keep up with pace, if I choose to get involved at all, and spend my time on other things in life that are important. Others can answer certain questions equally well or, in many cases, provide much better answers or rebuttals than I could.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Abba,

I am afraid you misunderstood. I was never an atheist, but came close to being one. Here is my story:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8447072&postcount=12

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8447074&postcount=13

I am still firmly of the conviction that an origin of life by natural causes (for a theist, these are created by God of course, and are not “godless” causes) is highly probable, now more than ever. I wrote the article on cosmological arguments for the existence of God in 2009, and had the update to my origin-of-life article posted in 2010. I remain a die-hard evolutionist, but also subscribe to the Argument from Reason which, among other things, holds that human rationality cannot have evolutionary origins since it requires an immaterial component, even though I believe that the human brain is fully explained by evolution (the brain is an integral part of the mind, but it is not identical to it). Here is a contribution of mine to the issue, in which I also argue that metaphysical naturalism defeats itself:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

Now perhaps you can understand why I describe myself under “Religion” as Roman Catholic/Freethinker/Skeptic.

 

[greylorn]

Whew! Great reply!

—to an excellent, thoughtful post. Do you realize that after at least two years of irrelevant squabbling, you and I are having a fine conversation? Thank you!

As a matter of fact, I do believe you mentioned something about this in one of our earlier discussions. Yet, I must ask some questions in light of Wikipedia’s article on electricity:

In general usage, the word “electricity” adequately refers to a number of physical effects. In a scientific context, however, the term is vague, and these related, but distinct, concepts are better identified by more precise terms:

Electric charge: a property of some subatomic particles, which determines their electromagnetic interactions. Electrically charged matter is influenced by, and produces, electromagnetic fields.
Electric current: a movement or flow of electrically charged
particles, typically measured in amperes.
Electric field: an influence produced by an electric charge on other charges in its vicinity.
Electric potential: the capacity of an electric field to do work on an electric charge, typically measured in volts.
Electromagnetism: a fundamental interaction between the magnetic field and the presence and motion of an electric charge.

For the record, I must quibble with one part of the Wiki definition:

Electric field: an influence produced by an electric charge on other charges in its vicinity.

The existence of an electric field is independent of the existence of other charges.

Do you foresee my questions?

No. This often happens in face-on conversations, however, where psi effects can operate.

Question: is it the “interaction of particles” that are non-material aspects of the physical universe?

I think not, While I don’t believe that “particles,” or LHBs (Little Hard Balls) actually exist at the subatomic level, they are at the core of what is commonly known as matter. Therefore they are best regarded as “material.” aspects of the universe.

Question: if it turned out that God is Spiritual, not physical, not
material, yet created the universe, because the material universe had to have a beginning that was/is necessarily outside of it, would one still insist the God must be physico-material?

I’ll assume that by “one” you mean me. This question is a bit convoluted, so it warrants a kind of convoluted reply. Your snarky question is similar to asking, “How do you like not being in prison?”

I’ve never insisted that God is, as you put it, “physico-material.” The term I use is simply physical. There is no implication in any of my statements that God contains any material components.

You know better than to reinterpret my statements, and I know that you know better. So let’s get a little straighter-upper, okay?

Notice how your natural tendency is to spin my writings in the direction of your non-beliefs? People commonly do this, which is why the world’s belief systems are such a rat’s nest of convoluted nonsense.

It is okay to simply have your beliefs. Not okay to spin my ideas to suit your doctrinal agenda.

Question: do you not think your adherence to the dogmas of science and physics (usually relied upon by atheist scientists) is somehow not dogma?

If I did adhere to dogmas of science and physics, I would be guilty as charged. Let me try to explain my positions.

With respect to my Catholic teachings, I accept many aspects. For example, God and soul. However I do not accept the Church’s explanation for the existence of those entities, or the description of their properties.

Likewise, I accept the experimental evidence of physics, and often I accept the mathematical models designed to explain such evidence— but not always.

I apply most of Christ’s teachings as models for personal behavior, just like I use the working laws of physics when building a structure or repairing a computer or TV, or installing plumbing or electrical wiring. I don’t regard any of these practical applications as having squat to do with dogma. They are about how the universe works at the practical and human levels.

Dogma comes in when people make poor guesses about the core nature and causes of things, and in those respects I regard all religions and all pseudo-scientific theories as equally wrong.

For example, I don’t believe that God created the soul, or that God is omniscient, omnipotent, all-present, and singular. Likewise I figure that the Big Bang theory is vying with Darwinism for my personal award— Stupidest Theory Since Phlogiston..

 

[greylorn]

Your post doesn’t tell me that you have any more of an understanding of science; certainly not one valuable to the progression of science. If you had more than an adequate grasp of anything beyond the pseudo-science and the cellulite farms swimming around in your behe clone of a brain, then perhaps instead of insults you could have actually formed an intelligible rebuttal instead; which although would have almost certainly been flawed in one of its premises (those pertaining to the nature of energy), it would have at least bordered on the capacity to form coherent syllogisms.

You speak of us as being uncritical and dogmatic, but you’re the one that dogmatically rejects the existence of anything beyond the nature of space time and energy, and you’re the one that uncritically asserts that the first theory of thermodynamics is a logical necessity. You seem to pick and choose the objects of your critique by whim and fancy alone.

I’ve tried intelligent rebuttals on you and your ilk many times, verifying the truth of Christ’s admonition, Throw not thy pearls before swine.

I’ve long since given up expecting to get dogmatic troglodytes into a coherent conversation in which the rules of critical thinking are respected.

However, I have noticed that the only way to get a trog’s attention is to insult it. Trog’s have big egos. Thinking that they know everything (meaning their dogmas) the hair on their furry little backs seems to rise up at the hint of personal fallibility.

Sorry if you felt insulted. Kindly don’t take it personally, since I regard you as merely a representative of the majority. I’m certain that you are a kind and wonderful person, a credit to your community. It is difficult, and not necessary to think for yourself when others have informed you of the truth, so why even pretend to trouble yourself with such things?

 

[greylorn]

Question: Would god lie to His creatures?

Absolutely. I lied to my kids about Santa Claus, at the behest of my programming, as I was lied to by my parents. Dumb? I do not know, because I compensated with heavy doses of reality, later.

We commonly lie to others who, in our opinions, cannot competently deal with the truth. The government does not tell us about Roswell or other mysterious events, for fear that we cannot deal with them. And they are correct in that wretched assessment of the quality of the human mind.

Years ago I met J. Allen Hynek at a dinner party populated by very intelligent people, one of them my boss, whose science dogmas were so challenged by Hynek’s real life, in-field observations, that this normally gentle, thoughtful scientist/engineer became so violently drunk and angry that he felt compelled to apologize, even to me, later.

It does not work to tell people more information than their tiny, programmed minds can absorb. Suppose, for example, that my theories are correct. What would have happened if Christ had tried to teach them? He’d have only put people to sleep, as I have done way too often. As it is, despite our supposedly well educated and technologically advanced society, my ideas will be accessible to no more than 1% of the population.

The best that God could do, if He even tried to teach us what the universe is all about (which I do not believe he’s done) would be to offer snippets of truth and clues as to where we can look for more, if interested. We rarely are, for it is our nature to prefer reliable dogma to uncertainty, no matter how absurd the dogma.

Question: (Relative to the aforementioned question) God has imparted to hundreds if not thousands of our predecessors His properties (determinants), were they lies, or were all of those people so insipid that they could not have really known - until the advent of Physics?

First off, with all due respect to your beliefs, previously my own beliefs, I do not believe in divine revelation. I don’t think that God inspired Jim Jones, or the nitwits who predict the end of the world hundreds of times every century. IMO the angel Moroni who gave Joseph Smith some golden tablets was a fiction invented by J. Smith— yet look at the millions of Mormons who bought into the notion and did a lot of good in the name of their religion. IMO the prophet Mohammed was indeed the very ordinary thief and worse depicted by honest secular history, whose teachings were the channelings of some evil and stupid spooks— not God. I don’t believe in the teachings of Seth, Kryon, or Ram Das, nor do I believe that Abraham and Moses spoke to the Creator of the Universe.

I propose that all of these things are stories invented by humans, some of them removed from the planet by a death or so. You obviously have chosen to believe the beliefs you were programmed to believe, just like a good Muslim, Bahi, Hindu, Buddhist, Jehovah’s Witness, Mormon, or whatever.

It is all too easy for people to make things up. If we know anything for certain, it is that some humans are masters of inventions and lies, and others are so stupid that they will believe anything. Don’t believe me? Half the network TV programming comes with laugh tracks to tell people what’s funny. Still unconvinced? Try distilling any honest intellectual content from a TV commercial or an Obama speech.

Humans can easily invent religious beliefs, declare them to be the Word of God, and get others to buy into that. But humans cannot invent atoms, stars, planets, and critters. It is in those mysterious places and inspiring creations where I seek God’s revelation.

Earlier you asked, essentially, Would God lie to us? I answered yes.

In this comment you get a bit closer to the bone, implying the possibility that God actually did lie to us.

I think not. IMO God has paid little attention to us, perhaps stopping by the planet at two or three billion year intervals to see if the angels to whom He’d entrusted its development were following orders.

There are way too many contradictions in the Bible for its so-called revelations to be blamed upon the Creator of the universe.

God, IMO, hasn’t bothered with us. He does not give a hoot what we believe. He turned us loose to develop some measure of consciousness, and it is up to us to do so or not, and to make what we can best make of it.

Except for occasional bits of contrary nonsense inserted ex post facto, the first three books of the New Testament show Christ as teaching exactly that— self-reliance, personal responsibility, and acceptance of reality,

 

[greylorn]

Question: Is it impossible for omnipotence to accomplish that?

Omnipotence itself is logically impossible.

Question: How could anyone know that?

I don’t think that anyone can know God’s reasons for creation. Nonetheless, the Church and other religions have no compunctions about making up simplistic reasons and declaring them to be God’s own truth. e.g:“God made man to know him, love him, and serve him, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” (Baltimore Catechism) Really?

Those who are not committed to dogma can speculate, and develop credible possibilities which make more sense than religious teachings. My book includes three distinct theories about the purpose of creation, and invites others to do better.

Someone else mentioned that we want you to do what you are doing, but, we sincerely want you to get it right.

I appreciate that. But I cannot get it right by myself, and have relied upon the ideas of others in development of my own.

I fear that your notion of “getting it right” means preservation of your current doctrines. That is not happening. If it was possible to reconcile Catholic theology with science, better minds than I would have done so long ago. Don’t worry about that, because my goal is not to convert you or fellow Catholics, or any other believers to my ideas. Won’t happen.

My targets are the disbelievers, the rational people who would like to believe in something beyond themselves and beyond the mundane, but simply cannot accept religious dogmas which they perceive as non-rational. While I don’t do religion, my ideas provide a physics-compatible theology, and an empirically verifiable soul-concept.

Now, greylorn, you also insist upon altering accepted definitions, from time to time, do you not?

Yes, when the original definitions are either too vague to be useful, or logically untenable. In my book, I am careful to assign different words to things which I’ve significantly redefined, such as God and soul, so as to avoid neurolinguistic confusion.

Simplicity sometimes results in overly simplistic results that are far off the mark.

That happens when incompetents and know-nothings try to make things simpler than they are, to avoid exposing their own ignorance.

IOW, energy has existed for “infinite past time?”
continued . . .

That kind of statement comes from someone who thinks in conventional terms about time, as if there is some mysterious clock that goes on ticking even when nothing is happening.

Imagine a universe composed entirely of unformed and undifferentiated energy-- no matter whatsoever. Within such an unformed universe there is no way to define space or time… There are no “points” to mark space, and no events which might be used to clock the passage of time.

In such a universe, space and time are irrelevant constructs.

 

[MindOverMatter2]

so why even pretend to trouble yourself with such things?

You know yourself well Greylorn. Its surprising that you choose to project your inadequacies on to your opponents rather than finding a more mature outlet for your frustrations that doesn’t harm other peoples education (ever try punching a boxing bag instead of insulting people that disagree with your pseudo-science?).

Even more surprising is that i thought you were reasonable enough to answer my question about why you dogmatically appeal to the absolute metaphysical necessity of physical laws with out presenting physical or logical proof to back up your claim? It disturbs me that somebody who writes books for public consumption refuses to maturely address this issue. But i know why you can’t. It’s because there is no physical proof and there is no metaphysical proof; and certainly none that is worthy of being included in the echelons of scientific knowledge. Seems i was wasting my time with you. But then again perhaps your book sales are dependent upon your talented attempts to blur the lines between fiction and reality. I can only hope that your writing style makes up for what is evidently just pure speculation on your part.

And oh; don’t take this personally. This is just fighting talk.

 

[ManOnFire]

alright for a show discovery channel called curiosity. For their first show they brought in Stephen Hawking and the entire show he talked about could our universe have a creator.

It was very obviously skewed to bash religion. They talked about how the vikings had a clearly false idea about the wolf God in the sky who created the solar eclipses.

it even talked about how JPII said we can’t question the idea the God created the universe, and it was painted in a light to try and discredit JPII

but we eventually get to an example of a cup of coffee. HE says well we know its made of milk and coffee and some other stuff, and that comes from places and such. Then the show goes down into the subatomic level and he says that at this level we can see where something is created from nothing. Apparently protons can create themselves out of nothing but only in the short term. He says then now that we know something can come from nothing, he never explains why it happens just just explains that it happens, it must be possible for the universe to come from nothing because at one time it was smaller then protons.

Now my question does this theory hold much water, does he actually have a good theory for the how the universe can come from nothing?

if he does then the first 3 of Aquinas’s proofs loose lots of credibility. Actually I would find it very difficult to find a place for God in this universe if a universe can create it self from nothing.

is there anyone here who can actually explain how protons can create themselves out of nothing or where someone may come up with that idea. Its far beyond my basic understanding of the science.

No, protons can’t come from nothing. Spontaneous generation was disproved over a hundred years ago. The moral of the story is that there are always smaller particles that haven’t been discovered and named yet. That’s why we have a long history of discovering new ones. The smaller particles go on infinitely smaller, but it’s convenient for the ego to close the mind and claim they don’t exist, that is, until a new one is discovered. Then the scientists eat crow just like the vikings. The joke is on the less humble.

 

[catholictiger]

Omnipotence itself is logically impossible.

is this the common objection that God can’t create something that he can’t life so he isn’t all powerful

or God can’t create a square circle

well see the problem with your argument is that you can’t use an illogical statement to disprove a logical statement

It is illogical to say that if God was powerful he should be able to create a square circle.

well creating a square circle is intrinsically impossible mean that NOTHING can possible ever create something like this

So God in omipotent in that he can do anything that isn’t intrinsically impossible. Which would be God could never create a square circle, because a square circle can never exist. Or God can’t create something that exists and doesn’t exists at the same time. You get the idea. Pretty much God can’t create things that no matter the physics of the universe can’t exist. The classic example of this there is no possible universe where a square circle can exist.

I don’t think that anyone can know God’s reasons for creation. Nonetheless, the Church and other religions have no compunctions about making up simplistic reasons and declaring them to be God’s own truth. e.g:“God made man to know him, love him, and serve him, and to be happy with Him forever in heaven.” (Baltimore Catechism) Really?

we know these reasons through divine revelation, and we try to get an understanding of it

one example is we know from divine revelation that God is a Triune God, we know this to be the truth because well the truth told us it was the truth :lol: circular logic yes I know, but I’m sure one of us here can show you why Jesus must be the truth just might take a while.

I would respond to the rest but I have a test to study for that is in the morning and I need to get my sleep have a blessed night

 

[Reivax]

Russell’s teapot is fatally flawed. The argument makes a comparison between a teapot orbiting between Earth and Mars, and God, the ground and basis of all existence, without whom there would be no universe, no solar system and no Earth and Mars between which a teapot could orbit in the first place.

In other words, the argument compares one thing among many things with the very basis for everything. It thus commits a grave categorical error, and completely misses the point.

The argument is utterly irrelevant, and I fail to see how anybody should in the slightest be impressed by it. It is mystifying to me that this argument is a favorite among atheists.

This analogy can only attempt to explain the myth of God because it limits itself reasonably to the physical (which I suggest is all there is and has been). To say God is simply beyond the universe is what I can only refer to as special pleading. When the universe began, time began, how then can God create the universe? This would imply that God came before, which is simply an inability to understand the notion of time. Time allows chronology, an absence of time, does not. I don’t see how you can answer this other than using the fallacy of special pleading. No matter how you equivocate God, the problem still remains, and requires ‘faith’ that God does in fact have these pleaded ‘illogical’ characteristics.

So far the only definition of God that I would ever accept, and often do (but I don’t like the term God, because the term God implies a creator) is the pantheistic God. Non-personal, singular, and material. On what basis do you reject and disprove a pantheistic God, or Spinoza’s God, or the God of Einstein? As for the cosmological arguments for God, how does one come to the conclusion that this necessary cause of the universe has to be intelligent?

Isn’t the detection of imprints in the background cosmic radiation of the big bang a scientific demonstration that other ‘universes’ may exist? You’re deeming it inconclusive when it has not happened? While mutliverse does not disprove God, it does solve ‘fine-tuning’. Simply that a seemingly ‘fine-tuned’ universe is a statistical probability. Also, it is possible that our physical laws are not ‘fine-tuned’. Our understanding of physical laws still remains inductive, they may fall apart yet.

I simply see it this way, you will always be able to create arguments for God and justify God’s existence (by changing the definition of God, through equivocation), but so will non-believers. This follows from the idea that you cannot prove or disprove God. You have made it clear that you believe God can be proven. If God has been proven, why don’t we see this logical philosophical proofs stand. There are numerous youtube videos and blogs endlessly exchanging and defending criticisms to deductive an inductive arguments for and against the existence of God, I believe this to go on forever. This is possibly due to the problem of induction in which all deductive arguments are based on inductive arguments, and induction is essentially unreliable. It is unavoidable and very useful, but not certain.

 

[You]

This analogy can only attempt to explain the myth of God because it limits itself reasonably to the physical (which I suggest is all there is and has been). To say God is simply beyond the universe is what I can only refer to as special pleading. When the universe began, time began, how then can God create the universe? This would imply that God came before, which is simply an inability to understand the notion of time. Time allows chronology, an absence of time, does not. I don’t see how you can answer this other than using the fallacy of special pleading. No matter how you equivocate God, the problem still remains, and requires ‘faith’ that God does in fact have these pleaded ‘illogical’ characteristics.

So far the only definition of God that I would ever accept, and often do (but I don’t like the term God, because the term God implies a creator) is the pantheistic God. Non-personal, singular, and material. On what basis do you reject and disprove a pantheistic God, or Spinoza’s God, or the God of Einstein? As for the cosmological arguments for God, how does one come to the conclusion that this necessary cause of the universe has to be intelligent?

Isn’t the detection of imprints in the background cosmic radiation of the big bang a scientific demonstration that other ‘universes’ may exist? You’re deeming it inconclusive when it has not happened? While mutliverse does not disprove God, it does solve ‘fine-tuning’. Simply that a seemingly ‘fine-tuned’ universe is a statistical probability. Also, it is possible that our physical laws are not ‘fine-tuned’. Our understanding of physical laws still remains inductive, they may fall apart yet.

I simply see it this way, you will always be able to create arguments for God and justify God’s existence (by changing the definition of God, through equivocation), but so will non-believers. This follows from the idea that you cannot prove or disprove God. You have made it clear that you believe God can be proven. If God has been proven, why don’t we see this logical philosophical proofs stand. There are numerous youtube videos and blogs endlessly exchanging and defending criticisms to deductive an inductive arguments for and against the existence of God, I believe this to go on forever. This is possibly due to the problem of induction in which all deductive arguments are based on inductive arguments, and induction is essentially unreliable. It is unavoidable and very useful, but not certain.

From what I understand multiverses exist as a means of increasing the odds that our particular universe could exist. If one believes there are an infinite number of universes possible then the eventual existence of ours becomes more bearable, it seems.
It is as if this persons humanity is somehow appalled and insulted by the very material existence of such a wonderfully perfect universe, containing the mystery of life. A common enough solution to such wonder is the creation of odds. Creating infinite odds. But creating odds isn’t real it is just running away from the fact. Accepting the wonder of what is before our eyes and realizing its undoubted wonderful origins is an honest approach. The wonderful origin is that power which created such wonder.

 

[Al_Moritz]

This analogy can only attempt to explain the myth of God because it limits itself reasonably to the physical (which I suggest is all there is and has been). To say God is simply beyond the universe is what I can only refer to as special pleading. When the universe began, time began, how then can God create the universe? This would imply that God came before, which is simply an inability to understand the notion of time. Time allows chronology, an absence of time, does not. I don’t see how you can answer this other than using the fallacy of special pleading. No matter how you equivocate God, the problem still remains, and requires ‘faith’ that God does in fact have these pleaded ‘illogical’ characteristics.

I hear that argument from atheists over and over again, but it is a non-starter. There is a difference between being ontologically prior to something, and being chronologically prior to something. This is basic philosophy, and I don’t see an issue here at all.

So far the only definition of God that I would ever accept, and often do (but I don’t like the term God, because the term God implies a creator) is the pantheistic God. Non-personal, singular, and material. On what basis do you reject and disprove a pantheistic God, or Spinoza’s God, or the God of Einstein?

Why God needs to be personal and non-material that is a matter of classical metaphysics. I suggest you study them (e.g., begin with Feser’s Aquinas). As for choosing a specific religion: As I say in the link to my cosmological article that I provided, cosmological arguments for God can only arrive at the God the philosophers, the attributes of which are contained in the God of the great monotheistic religions, but not vice versa. The choice for a religion is best based on historical considerations of divine revelation, which then can also be aided by philosophical ones. That divine revelation took place at all is a reasonable assumption once you assume the existence of God.

As for the cosmological arguments for God, how does one come to the conclusion that this necessary cause of the universe has to be intelligent?

Basic metaphysics. Also, if, as I argue in my cosmological article, the apparent fine-tuning of the laws of nature requires a designer, he must be intelligent.

Isn’t the detection of imprints in the background cosmic radiation of the big bang a scientific demonstration that other ‘universes’ may exist? You’re deeming it inconclusive when it has not happened?

I answer that in my cosmological article. You should read it.

While mutliverse does not disprove God, it does solve ‘fine-tuning’.

No, it does not, see my cosmological article. You should study it in its entirety before we keep on discussing.

I simply see it this way, you will always be able to create arguments for God and justify God’s existence (by changing the definition of God, through equivocation), but so will non-believers. This follows from the idea that you cannot prove or disprove God. You have made it clear that you believe God can be proven.

I have not claimed that. God cannot be proven as in a mathematical proof. But reasonable arguments for the existence of God can be given, and in my view these arguments are far more reasonable that the arguments for metaphysical naturalism. By the way, even if metaphysical naturalism were true, we could never know it, and we could not reasonably assume it, as I argue here:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/naturalism_is_true.htm

If God has been proven, why don’t we see this logical philosophical proofs stand.

They stand if you accept the premises and conditions of reasoning, which are reasonable. Again, you should study Feser’s Aquinas for the classical arguments for the existence of God.

There are numerous youtube videos and blogs endlessly exchanging and defending criticisms to deductive an inductive arguments for and against the existence of God, I believe this to go on forever.

Of course it will.

 

[Reivax]

From what I understand multiverses exist as a means of increasing the odds that our particular universe could exist.

We don’t know they exist, they are currently theoretical. This theory is being tested as we speak. If they did exist however, they would increase the odds that our particular universe could exist. So would the theory of perpetual big bangs and big crunches.

If one believes there are an infinite number of universes possible then the eventual existence of ours becomes more bearable, it seems.

Bearable? We live in the universe, the universe does not live for us. I don’t accept things because I want to, I accept them because they can be proven. Otherwise, I would believe in a life after death, and whatever fantasy that appealed to me most. Science is indifferent and unbiased, it does not ‘care’ for us. If you don’t believe in science, or think of it as something we use as an emotional tool, then you do not understand science. God is what makes life more bearable for you.

It is as if this persons humanity is somehow appalled and insulted by the very material existence of such a wonderfully perfect universe, containing the mystery of life.

It is not this way at all, as I have explained before, I am a spiritual person, I find the universe to be beautiful, without the need for a God. The universe is wonderfully perfect, regardless of statistical inevitably, a multiverse would only emphasize and increase this beauty. And I agree, life is a mystery.

A common enough solution to such wonder is the creation of odds. Creating infinite odds. But creating odds isn’t real it is just running away from the fact. Accepting the wonder of what is before our eyes and realizing its undoubted wonderful origins is an honest approach. The wonderful origin is that power which created such wonder.

Odds are not really a creation, probability governs your life whether you like it or not; flip a coin. How is it running away from a fact? Show me the fact, and I cannot run from it unless I am being irrational.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I don’t accept things because I want to, I accept them because they can be proven.

No you don’t. Metaphysical naturalism cannot be proven. Also, I do not accept things because I ‘want to’, but because they seem most reasonable to me. If metaphysical naturalism would seem reasonable to me, I would accept it, even if I would not ‘want to’.

Otherwise, I would believe in a life after death, and whatever fantasy that appealed to me most. Science is indifferent and unbiased, it does not ‘care’ for us. If you don’t believe in science, or think of it as something we use as an emotional tool, then you do not understand science. God is what makes life more bearable for you.

False dichotomy. I accept science (I don’t ‘believe’ in it), but I do not accept metaphysical naturalism. You also seem to imply that your worldview is somehow more ‘scientific’ than the theist’s view. I show in below article that this is not so:

home.earthlink.net/~almoritz/scientist-belief-god.htm

 

[Al_Moritz]

This analogy can only attempt to explain the myth of God because it limits itself reasonably to the physical (which I suggest is all there is and has been).

My objections to the teapot argument would hold also if God were physical, yet outside our universe, just like a multiverse. There is no use in trying to defend this terrible argument.