Multiverse or some other physical reality outside the Universe: Why Not?

[catholic1seeks]

The size of the Universe has never posed a challenge to me. In fact, I think it makes sense for it to be so huge. Imagine if physical reality was confined to our solar system alone, or to just to earth and the sun and moon. If this were then case, God’s presence would be so obvious that it would seem there was some conspiracy - as if were made for God’d entertainment. Freedom to search and follow God would be asbsolutelty restricted because in a physical reality like the one mentioned, the reality of God would be undeniable.

The size of the universe, then, almost symbolizes so-to-speak the freedom to search for and follow and the freedom to not search and follow God. I feel as if the Universe is exactly how it is – its vastness, its nature of having physical evils and even human suffering – precisely to have the perfect opportunity to either deny God or find him. It’s all in the will. NOTE that Christianity is not about believing in this or that fact for salvation. That is a huge misunderstanding and straw man non Christians will say: “Why doesn’t God doesn’t just make himself known to everyone? Why doesn’t he write in the sky? What about a native African who has never heard of the Christian God” etc. Those questions mean little. Just accepting God’s existence like a fact is not salvic. Many do not believe in God, and they sincerely do not. Yet even an atheist may attain Heaven – because salvation is not about how we receive facts. We largely cannot help that. It is rather in the will: are we choosing the greater good that has shown itself to us? Are we therefore following “God” and his Logos in this way, by following the promptings of his grace?

But I’d like to stick to the main topic of this thread:

Why is a spiritual mind rather than something physical a better explanation as the eternal necessary substance that causes all other things, such as the universe?

 

[IWantGod]

NOTE that Christianity is not about believing in this or that fact for salvation. That is a huge misunderstanding and straw man non Christians will say: “Why doesn’t God doesn’t just make himself known to everyone? Why doesn’t he write in the sky? What about a native African who has never heard of the Christian God” etc. Those questions mean little. Just accepting God’s existence like a fact is not salvic. Many do not believe in God, and they sincerely do not. Yet even an atheist may attain Heaven – because salvation is not about how we receive facts. We largely cannot help that. It is rather in the will: are we choosing the greater good that has shown itself to us? Are we therefore following “God” and his Logos in this way, by following the promptings of his grace?

This is very true. Knowledge alone is not the most important thing. Ultimately God judges the heart of humanity.

Of course, as you say, that’s another topic for another thread.

 

[Partinobodycula]

 

[catholic1seeks]

Everyone should agree that there exists something that exists necessarily, or else nothing would exist at all.

Some would say our particular universe itself just is – it exists necessarily, in eternity.

That aside,

I’m having trouble seeing how a necessary BEING with a MIND is more likely over and against a necessary physical whatever - something without a mind ( a mind chooses to create).

That is, why is GOD —> leads to —> our universe more likely than something like NECESSARY PHYSICAL REALLTY (or reality without a mind) —> leads to —> chain of events that —> eventually produces a universe like ours, capable of having evolved biological intelligent life.

In other words, why is the idea of a necessary physical reality (without intelligence) that produces multiple universes (for example) not the preferred option? I see no reason why, eventually by chance, a universe like ours could come along via a chain of events, or multiple universes, that has its ultimate origin in some necessary reality – but that ultimate reality is not a personal God with mind and intelligence. Aren’t “mind” and “intelligence” and “will” just human projections, anyway? We primarily experience them through our material brain, which has parts. But God by definition is spirit and simple.

Help!

 

[IWantGod]

In other words, why is the idea of a necessary physical reality (without intelligence) that produces multiple universes (for example) not the preferred option? I see no reason why, eventually by chance, a universe like ours could come along via a chain of events, or multiple universes, that has its ultimate origin in some necessary reality – but that ultimate reality is not a personal God with mind and intelligence. Aren’t “mind” and “intelligence” and “will” just human projections, anyway? We primarily experience them through our material brain, which has parts. But God by definition is spirit and simple.

Help!

A chain of events…

We know how natural events generally work. A chain of events has contingent parts, that is each event is dependent on the actuality of every part of the chain, even if some of those events are random. but you cannot have a random act of existence that just comes out of absolutely nothing - absolutely no reality at all. Even chance requires the existence of actual events that are ordered and not by chance. Natural causes only make sense within a chain of natural activity. But what causes natural activity in the first place as such that we can speak of a natural cause? It cannot be a natural cause because first you need natural activity. If it is not a natural cause then the only other kind of cause it can be is something analogous to a human mind or intellect. But of course one can only say something analogous to a human intellect since it would be something beyond what we could possibly comprehend an intellect to be. But it is certainly not natural, rather it is a super-nature.

 

[catholic1seeks]

A chain of events…

We know how natural events generally work. A chain of events has contingent parts, that is each event is dependent on the actuality of every part of the chain, even if some of those events are random. but you cannot have a random act of existence that just comes out of absolutely nothing - absolutely no reality at all. Even chance requires the existence of actual events that are ordered and not by chance. Natural causes only make sense within a chain of natural activity. But what causes natural activity in the first place as such that we can speak of a natural cause? It cannot be a natural cause because first you need natural activity. If it is not a natural cause then the only other kind of cause it can be is something analogous to a human mind or intellect. But of course one can only say something analogous to a human intellect since it would be something beyond what we could possibly comprehend an intellect to be. But it is certainly not natural, rather it is a super-nature.

I assume some necessary reality. I do not say that the Universe came from nothing when I refer to the ultimate reality being physical, or at least not spiritual in the sense of having a mind.

What I am saying about chain of events is that the ultimate reality may not have as its single, “natural” result to bring about a Universe capable of producing intelligent life. That outlook would smell of a personal God with an intelligent mind. But I am saying that perhaps this necessary reality did not choose* to create a single universe for the sake of intelligent life (humans); rather, something in the nature of this necessary reality brings about a plentitude of effects, say multiple universes, and by chance one happens to bring about intelligent life.

 

[IWantGod]

I assume some necessary reality. I do not say that the Universe came from nothing when I refer to the ultimate reality being physical, or at least not spiritual in the sense of having a mind.

What I am saying about chain of events is that the ultimate reality may not have as its single, “natural” result to bring about a Universe capable of producing intelligent life. That outlook would smell of a personal God with an intelligent mind. But I am saying that perhaps this necessary reality did not choose* to create a single universe for the sake of intelligent life (humans); rather, something in the nature of this necessary reality brings about a plentitude of effects, say multiple universes, and by chance one happens to bring about intelligent life.

Consider this. For the sake of argument, lets assume that the nature of the first cause is love, and nothing other than the first cause has a natural right to exist (this is to say the first cause exists necessarily) . Such a being by its very nature is creative in the sense that love shares its existence because that’s what love does. But since no other being has in and by-itself an independent natural right to exist, the creative act itself does not discriminate between potential beings. In a sense the existence of any being other than perfection itself is a merciful act. This is to say that while the human race may very well-be the crown jewel of creation, humanity is no more likely to exist than any other created being. Thus assuming that the first cause has a will to create, what is likely to be the case is that God created a seed of potential. This seed may very well have sprouted into a potentially infinite number of universes. The more universes, the more likely that events would produce the foundations required for life.

But this is just speculation of course.

 

[catholic1seeks]

But why does the creative act imply a Creator? That is, how do we infer that the necessary reality whose nature is to exist is in fact a “Who” – a spirit with a will. How do we infer that creation was in fact a choice of this necessary, eternal reality?

My problem still remains. I’m having a hard time understanding how the “creation” of everything outside the necessary, eternal reality was in fact a choice sprung from a Mind.

Also, couldn’t the Universe itself just be a manifestation of the eternal reality? That is, couldn’t the Universe itself be necessary and eternal.

I think that’s a separate issue. So I guess I’ve highlighted two difficulties.

 

[IWantGod]

My problem still remains. I’m having a hard time understanding how the “creation” of everything outside the necessary, eternal reality was in fact a choice sprung from a Mind.

Also, couldn’t the Universe itself just be a manifestation of the eternal reality? That is, couldn’t the Universe itself be necessary and eternal.

I think that’s a separate issue. So I guess I’ve highlighted two difficulties.

Physical-reality cannot be a necessary being. Because physical reality is changing. It is in a continuous act of becoming. That which is necessarily real does not change in essence or form or become more, since everything that it is in essence is already actual and necessarily real. What is true of a necessary being is eternally true and does not change. It is pure-actuality. It is the fullness of being.

 

[Bradski]

The size of the Universe has never posed a challenge to me. In fact, I think it makes sense for it to be so huge. Imagine if physical reality was confined to our solar system alone, or to just to earth and the sun and moon. If this were then case, God’s presence would be so obvious that it would seem there was some conspiracy - as if were made for God’d entertainment. Freedom to search and follow God would be asbsolutelty restricted because in a physical reality like the one mentioned, the reality of God would be undeniable.

You argument is then that God purposely made it big so as to hide His existence behind the complexity. He COULD have made it simple but thought He’d better make us work a little to find out the truth of the matter.

Something tells me that if it WAS simple you’d formulate an argument that showed that it couldn’t have been any other way because…and fill in the gaps here with whatever seems to make sense to you.

This IS all for us. That’s what everyone believed. Maybe what most still believe. But it becomes increasingly difficult to hang on to that fact the more we realise how much there is and how much we cannot access and how much will be forever hidden from us. That in effect serves no purpose whatsoever as far as we are concerned. And that doesn’t make you stop and ponder?

You might as well shrug and say ‘Who can know the mind of God’ and forget about it. It would have saved Peter all that typing if nothing else.

 

[catholic1seeks]

You argument is then that God purposely made it big so as to hide His existence behind the complexity. He COULD have made it simple but thought He’d better make us work a little to find out the truth of the matter.

Something tells me that if it WAS simple you’d formulate an argument that showed that it couldn’t have been any other way because…and fill in the gaps here with whatever seems to make sense to you.

This IS all for us. That’s what everyone believed. Maybe what most still believe. But it becomes increasingly difficult to hang on to that fact the more we realise how much there is and how much we cannot access and how much will be forever hidden from us. That in effect serves no purpose whatsoever as far as we are concerned. And that doesn’t make you stop and ponder?

You might as well shrug and say ‘Who can know the mind of God’ and forget about it. It would have saved Peter all that typing if nothing else.

I am unsure as to what your objection is. Is it that the Universe is too big? I’m not sure how one could determine how big is too big. Is it that we can’t possibly comprehend everything there is to know about the the universe?

Also I never said that the universe could not be any other way.

 

[IWantGod]

You argument is then that God purposely made it big so as to hide His existence behind the complexity. He COULD have made it simple but thought He’d better make us work a little to find out the truth of the matter.

Something tells me that if it WAS simple you’d formulate an argument that showed that it couldn’t have been any other way because…and fill in the gaps here with whatever seems to make sense to you.

This IS all for us. That’s what everyone believed. Maybe what most still believe. But it becomes increasingly difficult to hang on to that fact the more we realise how much there is and how much we cannot access and how much will be forever hidden from us. That in effect serves no purpose whatsoever as far as we are concerned. And that doesn’t make you stop and ponder?

You might as well shrug and say ‘Who can know the mind of God’ and forget about it. It would have saved Peter all that typing if nothing else.

So your argument is that because we cannot access the entirety of physical existence that therefore God didn’t create the universe? Or are you saying that the vastness of physical reality is not consistent with the idea that God did it all for us?

 

[meltzerboy]

Everyone should agree that there exists something that exists necessarily, or else nothing would exist at all.

Some would say our particular universe itself just is – it exists necessarily, in eternity.

That aside,

I’m having trouble seeing how a necessary BEING with a MIND is more likely over and against a necessary physical whatever - something without a mind ( a mind chooses to create).

That is, why is GOD —> leads to —> our universe more likely than something like NECESSARY PHYSICAL REALLTY (or reality without a mind) —> leads to —> chain of events that —> eventually produces a universe like ours, capable of having evolved biological intelligent life.

In other words, why is the idea of a necessary physical reality (without intelligence) that produces multiple universes (for example) not the preferred option? I see no reason why, eventually by chance, a universe like ours could come along via a chain of events, or multiple universes, that has its ultimate origin in some necessary reality – but that ultimate reality is not a personal God with mind and intelligence. Aren’t “mind” and “intelligence” and “will” just human projections, anyway? We primarily experience them through our material brain, which has parts. But God by definition is spirit and simple.

Help!

I don’t mean to disturb you even more, but you just added the phrase “personal G-d.” Prior to this, you were debating physical reality vs. mind reality in the form of G-d. A personal (caring, loving, involved-in-the-function-of-His-creation) G-d adds yet another layer to the debate.

 

[Bradski]

So your argument is that because we cannot access the entirety of physical existence that therefore God didn’t create the universe? Or are you saying that the vastness of physical reality is not consistent with the idea that God did it all for us?

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

People used to be able to say: ‘this is all for us’. But that’s when they didn’t know what ‘this’ entailed. Now it is literally impossible to say that this is all for us because we don’t have access to any of it except for 0.00000 etc 000.1 of it.

So what is it for if not for us? And I’m expecting nothing more than than a variation of ‘who can know the mind of God?’. Which is another way of saying: ‘I have no idea’.

Which is actually a good answer.

 

[IWantGod]

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

People used to be able to say: ‘this is all for us’. But that’s when they didn’t know what ‘this’ entailed. Now it is literally impossible to say that this is all for us because we don’t have access to any of it except for 0.00000 etc 000.1 of it.

So what is it for if not for us? And I’m expecting nothing more than than a variation of ‘who can know the mind of God?’. Which is another way of saying: ‘I have no idea’.

Which is actually a good answer.

If there is a personal God, and I certainly believe there is, then we only know what has been revealed by faith in regards to what the particular purpose of our existence within the universe is. What you seem to be talking about is cosmic status. I for one don’t believe that we are the only intelligent beings in physical existence. Scientists are in fact discovering earth like planets as we speak, washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/07/23/scientists-discover-12-new-potential-earth-like-planets/ .

So I doubt that life is merely a local phenomenon. Neither do I see scripture as revealing everything about the purpose of the universe. It just reveals our purpose in the universe.

The truth is no one knows what the full purpose of the universe is. But it does seem to be doing something, and one of the things it is doing for a fact is producing life.

 

[PRmerger]

The more we learn about the universe, the more incredibly complex it becomes.

We used to think that we were just one planet and a few sparkly lights and things were made up of basic elements and we were brought into existence shortly after everything else. One has to ask why that isn’t actually the case.

That is, why God has deemed it necessary to make the whole shebang as vastly complex as it is. And have almost an infinite amount of creation inaccessible to is. And growing increasingly inaccessible as you are reading this.

It makes zero sense to me whatsoever. It would be like me building you a house so big that you could only access 0.00000000000000000001% of it (there’s actually a LOT more zeros, but you get the point).

Occam’s razor needs to be brought to bear on ocassions like this. As someone a lot brighter than me once said: ‘The stage is too big for the drama’.

The older I get, the more I know about the universe (which prompts me to realise how much I don’t know), the more this fact overrides almost all other reasons why I don’t believe in God.

This conclusion is only logical if you already presuppose that God doesn’t exist.

“The universe is too big for God to exist”.

Suppose the universe were rather small…I suppose you would also say, if you already have the presupposition that God doesn’t exist: “The universe is too small for God to exist”.

This prompts the question, of course: what size is the right size to indicate that God could exist?

 

[meltzerboy]

It’s not an argument. It’s an observation.

People used to be able to say: ‘this is all for us’. But that’s when they didn’t know what ‘this’ entailed. Now it is literally impossible to say that this is all for us because we don’t have access to any of it except for 0.00000 etc 000.1 of it.

So what is it for if not for us? And I’m expecting nothing more than than a variation of ‘who can know the mind of God?’. Which is another way of saying: ‘I have no idea’.

Which is actually a good answer.

Is what you are saying, explicitly or implicitly, that the enormous size of the universe means we humans are not really the center of G-d’s creation and purpose, and that the spiritual messages we were given by Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, are too human-centered or have been misinterpreted as applying uniquely to humans?

 

[IWantGod]

washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/01/27/newly-found-star-system-has-5-earth-sized-planets-the-oldest-ever-seen-in-the-milky-way/?tid=a_inl

 

[IWantGod]

Is what you are saying, explicitly or implicitly, that the enormous size of the universe means we humans are not really the center of G-d’s creation and purpose, and that the spiritual messages we were given by Jesus, Moses, Muhammad, Krishna, Buddha, are too human-centered or have been misinterpreted as applying uniquely to humans?

Even if the universe was infinitely large it still would not mean we are not the centre of God’s creation. I think its simply a matter of interpretation.

 

[meltzerboy]

Even if the universe was infinitely large it still would not mean we are not the centre of God’s creation. I think its simply a matter of interpretation.

But I think the case could be made then that we think too highly of our own preeminence in the eyes of G-d compared to possibly other intelligent creatures scattered across the universe, or multiverse. Perhaps we have a motivational need to think this way, since otherwise we would have to be content (or discontent) with our very small role in the universe, or at least a role equal to those of other beings but not superior. We may still be loved by G-d, but we are not the only ones and we are not loved any better than the rest of G-d’s creation.

And when we subdivide ourselves even further according to religious faith, that is, the “mine is the truth; yours is not, or only partially so” mentality, I believe you may be able to see the problem.