Multiverse or Multiverses

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Besides, it’s a lot of fun to imagine the exciting, glamorous, care-free life my alternate-self is living right now!
 
0Scarlett_nidiyilii said:
Besides, it’s a lot of fun to imagine the exciting, glamorous, care-free life my alternate-self is living right now!
Click to expand...
It’s also exciting to imagine seemingly endless amounts of multiverses burping out seemingly endless amounts of multiverses. What are the odds me and you are alive right now? Pretty powerful.
 
That’s called a parallel universe. Could there really be alternate versions of us?
 
But you’re not saying the multiverse contradicts our faith or Bible though, right?
 

I don’t know what they mean by infinite here becuase i don’t think an actual infinite is possible. Only a potential infinite is possible. But this is an interesting documentary non-the-less.
 
I don’t know, but I just like to imagine, when I’m having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day, that my alt-self (or several of them), are doing amazing cool things with their amazing cool entourage, without a care in the world (oh, and my hair is totally awesome in these alternate universes, too)
Can we just let a gal have some fun? 😆😆😆
 
The multiverse was explicitly concieved to solve the problem of a “fine tuned” Universe that seemed to imply the necessity for a “fine-tuner.” So it was created as an atheistic back-stop (much like evolution).

That means I definitely don’t want to be caught believing in it, but I suppose as of yet there hasn’t been an explicit condemnation of it that I know of, so I guess one might be able to “get away” with believing it.

Seems strange though for Christians to have faith in atheist religions that are completely unfalsifiable.
 
Last edited:
If a multiverse is real it doesn’t do the cause of materialism any good. What if atoms were explicitly conceived as an atheistic-backstop. That in itself would not prevent it from being a genuine hypothesis.There is a possibility that other universes exist. We cannot ignore that possibility just because it circumvents the idea that God is the direct cause of this particular Universe.

The only problem i see with it is whether not it can be tested. Is it a genuine testable hypothesis, or is it just somebodies philosophical point of view.
 
Last edited:
I agree the existence of a multiverse wouldn’t disprove God. However, the idea (not a theory or even a hypothesis) was invented as a way to circumvent the “fine-tuning” that was implied by the scientific data. I am uncomfortable beliving in things atheists specifically invented as an idea to discount evidence of God.

Hollow Earth has as much scientific validity as the multiverse. One cannot even observe a multiverse, much less subject it to experimentation. It is pure fantasy right now. Actually, Hollow Earth might have more scientific validity because at least it is theoretically possible to falsify it. Maybe a multiverse does exist, but maybe Mt. Shasta actually is the dwelling place of inter-dimensional lizard people who control the world and planned 9/11. As of now, neither qualifies as science.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
I agree the existence of a multiverse wouldn’t disprove God. However, the idea (not a theory or even a hypothesis) was invented as a way to circumvent the “fine-tuning” that was implied by the scientific data. I am uncomfortable beliving in things atheists specifically invented as an idea to discount evidence of God.
Click to expand...
Even if the idea of a multiverse is not testable (and neither is God), the mere possibility of a multiverse still accounts for the fine tuning of this particular universe. Which means the fine tuning argument is not a very good argument for God’s existence because fine tuning can also be presented as an argument for the existence of a multiverse. A good Argument for God’s existence leaves no possibility of a physical explanation.

That’s why i tend to stay away from theistic arguments that are based on scientific data because they always allow for the possibility of a physical cause. They’re just probability arguments at best.
 
Last edited:
ChunkMonk said:
The multiverse was explicitly concieved to solve the problem of a “fine tuned” Universe that seemed to imply the necessity for a “fine-tuner.” So it was created as an atheistic back-stop (much like evolution).

That means I definitely don’t want to be caught believing in it, but I suppose as of yet there hasn’t been an explicit condemnation of it that I know of, so I guess one might be able to “get away” with believing it.

Seems strange though for Christians to have faith in atheist religions that are completely unfalsifiable.
Click to expand...
Once again, no, multiverse theory was not invoked to explain any variant of the Anthropomorphic Principle. It born out some string theorists trying to explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other fundamental interactions by invoking the notion that the hypothetical gravity-carrying particle, the graviton (which nobody has yet seen, btw) can “leak” into other branes, thus in effect making gravity weaker in our universe. Out of this has grown a set of hypotheses about what these branes are, whether laws of physics can vary between branes, and how branes can interact (ie. two branes colliding might lead to a “Big Bang”).

It’s all hypothetical and I’d wager the bulk of physicists and cosmologists remain unconvinced not only of brane and multiverse theories, but of string theory itself. So let’s get our history straight, multiverse theory does not exist to deny God or anything of the kind. It stems out of a longstanding problem in physics, why is gravity so weak?
 
IWantGod said:
40.png
ChunkMonk:
I agree the existence of a multiverse wouldn’t disprove God. However, the idea (not a theory or even a hypothesis) was invented as a way to circumvent the “fine-tuning” that was implied by the scientific data. I am uncomfortable beliving in things atheists specifically invented as an idea to discount evidence of God.
Click to expand...
Even if the idea of a multiverse is not testable (and neither is God), the mere possibility of a multiverse still accounts for the fine tuning of this particular universe. Which means the fine tuning argument is not a very good argument for God’s existence because fine tuning can also be presented as an argument for the existence of a multiverse. A good Argument for God’s existence leaves no possibility of a physical explanation.

That’s why i tend to stay away from theistic arguments that are based on scientific data because they always allow for the possibility of a physical cause. They’re just probability arguments at best.
Click to expand...
The fine-tuning argument is never very good. The weak form of the Anthropomorphic Principle is just a truism, and the strong form, if taken to a sort of theological or metaphysical level, basically says “God’s hands are tied, and only a certain small group of universes can ever be created that can support life.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top