Infinite Universes

[Charlemagne_III]

Lennox even mentioned infinite universes by saying “whatever that means,” but he didn’t elaborate. For certain he’s fine with the possibility of a multiverse.

Everybody is fine with the possibility.

Hardly anyone is fine with proof positive for the possibility.

Do you think possible theories are necessarily true, especially when there is no way whatever to confirm the proof?

Or do you think, as most living and dead scientists would agree, that a theory without proof is utterly useless?

 

[Faith1960]

Are only living scientists qualified to be heard?

So does that mean that when Dawkins and Hawking are dead, their views are no longer relevant?

After Aquinas died, did his theology become passe? We can no longer quote him?

I’d say Newton alone was a lot smarter than all the living scientists put together.

But I guess you know better.

IMO with discoveries happening every day one must be willing to keep up, if their opinions are to be taken seriously.

 

[Faith1960]

Are only living scientists qualified to be heard?

So does that mean that when Dawkins and Hawking are dead, their views are no longer relevant

By the look of things their views don’t carry much weight for many posters now, so I imagine that after their deaths it would be even less so.

 

[Faith1960]

Everybody is fine with the posibility

Ok then let’s talk about a hypothetical possibility, even though the most recent information against the possibility for eternal universes was written two years ago and I’ve yet to find anything more current.
What if they do exist? What does that do to the concept of God?

I don’t know if they exist or not but it’s the possibility that they do that has me worried because I’d like to know what eternal multiverses would mean for our faith.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

IMO with discoveries happening every day one must be willing to keep up, if their opinions are to be taken seriously.

It’s fine to keep up. It’s just not fine to get sucked in by the newness of a theory.

 

[Faith1960]

Theres actually quite a bit of evidence for multiple dimensions/ universes…I was just reading a theory about this today in a news article, its truly amazing what they can learn thru mathematics and science today!

Its late here and getting ready for bed, but I will put a few very credible links tomorrow regarding multiple dimensions/universes and the evidence they have for them.

I’m looking forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Faith1960]

Ok then let’s talk about a hypothetical possibility, even though the most recent information against the possibility for eternal universes was written two years ago and I’ve yet to find anything more current.
What if they do exist? What does that do to the concept of God?

I don’t know if they exist or not but it’s the possibility that they do that has me worried because I’d like to know what eternal multiverses would mean for our faith.

*infinite, not eternal

 

[Charlemagne_III]

*infinite, not eternal

How could an infinity of universes not be eternal? If there is no first universe then there is no last universe; there is no start and no end. In other words, this infinity of universes would be as eternal as God.

Such discussions have to defy the scientific method. There is no way to observe the infinity or eternity of universes, not even any way to confirm the existence of a universe other than our own. The scientific method has placed limits on scientific thought. To throw those limits out the window is to embrace pure science fiction rather than science. But since atheist scientists are confronted with a creation moment in the universe … the Big Bang, they have to flail about unscientifically imagining something far less obvious and more unprovable.

 

[Gorgias]

I don’t know if they exist or not but it’s the possibility that they do that has me worried because I’d like to know what eternal multiverses would mean for our faith.

Well, I don’t think that they mean anything (let alone anything detrimental) to our faith.

Non-believers want the theory of multiverses to imply that our universe has no special meaning. After all, if there is only one universe, then we have to ask why there’s such an improbable, amazing universe out there that seems custom-made to support life. On the other hand, if there are an ‘infinite’ (that is, a really really big, uncountable) number of universes, then our universe isn’t ‘amazing’ and unique – it’s just the inevitable result of the ‘law of large numbers’. In other words, if you have one monkey and one typewriter, and he churns out the works of Shakespeare, you’ve got something to talk about; but, with enough monkeys and enough typewriters, even a copy of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ becomes an inevitable occurrence.

So – atheists hope – proof of multiverses leads to the possibility of claiming that God isn’t necessary. After all, if we don’t need to posit God, we can get away with positing that God doesn’t exist, right?

But, on the other hand, multiverses don’t disprove God, any more than a helio-centric solar system, or evolution, or the Big Bang disprove God. Maybe they give people an excuse for disbelieving in God, or give them an opportunity to make a case against Him. But, in the end, if you want to believe in multiverses, you still have to explain where the Big Bang came from. No matter what the Big Bang produced (universe or multiverses), there’s still the question of where it came from and what set it in motion. Even with the question of multiverses out there, what this question means for our faith is that we still need an uncreated creator…

 

[Faith1960]

Well, I don’t think that they mean anything (let alone anything detrimental) to our faith.

Non-believers want the theory of multiverses to imply that our universe has no special meaning. After all, if there is only one universe, then we have to ask why there’s such an improbable, amazing universe out there that seems custom-made to support life. On the other hand, if there are an ‘infinite’ (that is, a really really big, uncountable) number of universes, then our universe isn’t ‘amazing’ and unique – it’s just the inevitable result of the ‘law of large numbers’. In other words, if you have one monkey and one typewriter, and he churns out the works of Shakespeare, you’ve got something to talk about; but, with enough monkeys and enough typewriters, even a copy of ‘Romeo and Juliet’ becomes an inevitable occurrence.

So – atheists hope – proof of multiverses leads to the possibility of claiming that God isn’t necessary. After all, if we don’t need to posit God, we can get away with positing that God doesn’t exist, right?

But, on the other hand, multiverses don’t disprove God, any more than a helio-centric solar system, or evolution, or the Big Bang disprove God. Maybe they give people an excuse for disbelieving in God, or give them an opportunity to make a case against Him. But, in the end, if you want to believe in multiverses, you still have to explain where the Big Bang came from. No matter what the Big Bang produced (universe or multiverses), there’s still the question of where it came from and what set it in motion. Even with the question of multiverses out there, what this question means for our faith is that we still need an uncreated creator…

Since God is infinite, how could an infinite multiverse be explained, if, indeed it exists? Doesn’t that go against our faith?

 

[wcknight]

There is evidence of other universes… Astronomers have noted a Flow of galaxies along the edges of our universe suggesting there is something beyond…
How many is not known…

The universe is so vast that this is irrelevant to the existence of God…
The fact that anything exits is evidence of God because something can not originate from nothing…

The evidence of just other galaxies to us is also irrelevant because a single galaxy is so vast that no human will ever be able to travel across it… Traveling to the closest star will not be archived inany of our lifetimes nor in any of the next hundred generations lifetimes…

It is mote to argue most of this. All we need worry our little heads about is here on earth and the next hundred or so years should you be lucky enough to live that long…worry about here and now tomorrow will take care of itself.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

scientificamerican.com/article/multiverse-controversy-inflation-gravitational-waves/

This article in *Scientific American *may interest you.

It argues that a multiverse, if it exists, would be eternal.

It also points to the impossibility of scientifically confirming the existence of a multiverse no matter how many signs might suggest its existence.

So we are back to the limitations of science and the very real possibility that people who want to argue a multiverse do so because they can get rid of the necessity of a Creator God.

There is no getting around Hawking’s intention. He has made himself very clear.

space.com/20710-stephen-hawking-god-big-bang.html

 

[Gorgias]

It argues that a multiverse, if it exists, would be eternal.

Umm… no, not precisely. One of the debates that has plagued contemporary cosmology is the question of whether the universe will expand forever; that is, physicists had debated whether the universe would be in a constant state of growth outward, or if it was like a rubber band (and at one point would stop and then start collapsing on itself). One of the theories was that there wasn’t one Big Bang, but an infinite number of successive Big Bangs. (Do you see the similarity? The first attempt at saying “this universe isn’t special” was to say, “we’re only one in a sequence.”)

Therefore, if scientists posit eternal inflation, then they can posit multiverses. And, if they posit multiverses, then they can claim the law of large numbers and conclude “not special” and “no creator necessary.”

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Therefore, if scientists posit eternal inflation, then they can posit multiverses. And, if they posit multiverses, then they can claim the law of large numbers and conclude “not special” and “no creator necessary.”

They can posit all they like. They cannot prove because the scientific method will not let them.

 

[Gorgias]

Since God is infinite, how could an infinite multiverse be explained, if, indeed it exists? Doesn’t that go against our faith?

I don’t think so. It’s important to use the word ‘infinite’ in a way that doesn’t lump all ‘infinite’ things together as if they were equivalent. If I pointed to a number line, and asked you to count all the natural numbers between 1 and 10, you’d say “10”. But, if I asked you to count all the natural numbers, you’d tell me that they were uncountable – i.e., there is an infinite number of them. Then, suppose that I ask you to go back to the segment between 1 and 10, and count all the real numbers there. Again, you’d tell me ‘uncountable’. Now, real numbers and natural numbers are both ‘uncountable’, but real numbers are ‘more’ uncountable, as it were – that is, natural numbers get bigger ‘faster’ than real numbers – there are more real numbers in any finite segment of the number line than there are natural numbers. So, if we were comparing cardinality (that is, the number of members of a set), we’d say that real numbers are a set with greater cardinality than the set of natural numbers, but that both are uncountable.

How does that help your question, though? Well, the issue is based on the question of how to compare the notion of ‘infinity’ in the universe and as applied to God. With the universe, we might suggest infinity in its extent – that is, it goes on as far as we can see, and it seems that, if it’s expanding, it will be without limit. So, if we tried to count the number of miles of breadth or width or height of the universe, we might say that it’s uncountable. But, when we say that God is ‘infinite’, do we mean that He is big? No, that doesn’t make sense – after all, God is spirit, so he doesn’t have physical extension. So, we can’t say anything about the ‘size’ of God, let alone attempt to compare God’s ‘size’ to the size of anything physical.

But, what if we tried to count the number of ‘things’ in the universe – galaxies, stars, planets, even atoms – would we say that these are uncountable and try to compare them to the number of parts of God? Again, no: God is simple, not compound, so there are not ‘parts’ to God. If we tried to ‘count’ God, we’d say that He is ‘1’. So, we can’t mean a comparison that deals in the cardinality of God.

In other words, when we speak of God being infinite, we mean something different than when mathematicians or physicists talk about infinity; when they talk about it, they’re counting things (members of a set, physical size, etc), but when theologians talk about God, they’re not attempting to count anything physical about Him.

Therefore, in response to your question: no. When physicists posit infinite anything, it doesn’t conflict with God or challenge His majesty. It’s not absurd to posit an infinite God who creates infinities in the physical realm; and the mere presence of an infinity in creation doesn’t mean that the creation is greater than the creator!

 

[Gorgias]

They can posit all they like. They cannot prove because the scientific method will not let them.

It seems that way. Yet, we’ve seen advances in science in which things that were thought to be unmeasurable or even unobservable have later been able to be quantified. So, the proper response here, I think, isn’t “you can’t prove that”, but rather, “your theory doesn’t accomplish what some say it does” – since, after all, the notion of uniqueness and ‘specialness’ of the universe isn’t a proof of God, such that disproving uniqueness likewise disproves creation by God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It’s not absurd to posit an infinite God who creates infinities in the physical realm; and the mere presence of an infinity in creation doesn’t mean that the creation is greater than the creator!

It is possible for God to create an infinite multiverse, but then you have to ask why it was necessary. Occam’s Razor suggests that God creating a multiverse seems an extravagant explanation.

And I don’t think your answer would satisfy Hawking, who seems to posit that not only is the creation greater than the Creator, but that there is no need to even posit a Creator.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

It seems that way. Yet, we’ve seen advances in science in which things that were thought to be unmeasurable or even unobservable have later been able to be quantified.

Yes, but that was within the limits of our single universe, any part of which is now or someday will be observable.

Once you try to get outside our universe, I think all bets are off, especially the extravagant claim that multiverse proves we don’t need God to explain anything.

 

[CHCL]

There is no such thing as an infinite amount of universes. This is simply because there is no such thing as an actual existing infinite series. Multiplicity is always actually finite, and only potentially infinite.

/thread.

 

[Faith1960]

It is possible for God to create an infinite multiverse, but then you have to ask why it was necessary. Occam’s Razor suggests that God creating a multiverse seems an extravagant explanation.

And I don’t think your answer would satisfy Hawking, who seems to posit that not only is the creation greater than the Creator, but that there is no need to even posit a Creator.

I don’t think it was necessary, maybe He just wanted to do it that way.