R
ribozyme
Guest
My preference is a multiverse, not an intelligent designer. A multiverse easily explains why we live in an “improbable” universe.
- Status
But is impossible to prove.
And still has to have a beginning.
Sorry, God is still there.
Smile.
S
Saul.Tentmaker
Guest
The multiverse scenario is a workable, though convoluted explanation for why single particles diffract as waves (they interfere with their same particle through the ten billion billion billion… (fifty more times) universes).
But most scientists consider this only a very temporary theory. Something to fill in the place until a better idea comes along (Science is wonderful).
In any case, though it is good at explaining certain quantum phenomena, and helps to set up an explanation for why superstrings produce spectra, it doesn’t explain away the argument from design any better than Hume already did by saying:
If the universe ended up any different way, we wouldn’t be here to complain about it.
This argument is a valid argument when viewed from efficient causation. It doesn’t address purpose, and so is no real threat to St. Thomas. Nihilism, and certain forms of existentialism are the only valid responses I’ve seen, and neither appeal to a very beautiful sense of the universe.
And it was an argument from beauty that lead to the multiverse scenario, and to string theory. Beauty drives much of discovery. Beauty, resting in a deeper purpose. I find that very interesting, myself.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Beginning?
Nope…
See this page: physics.princeton.edu/~steinh/cyclicFAQS/index.html
and this paper:
Steinhardt, Paul J. and Turok, Neil. 2002. A cyclic model of the universe. Science** 296:** 1436-1439.
Their proposal has not been universally accepted, but it postulates that the universe undergoes a perpetual cycle of creation and annhilation, which this is achieved by the contraction and expansion of branes.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I appreciate your reply and I will say that you have illustrated your point lucidly. But I am curious about whether the argument from beauty gave rise to the multiverse and string theory. I believe you could support this assertion, but I am curious about the etiology of the multiverse hypothesis.
First thing of note, ‘not universally accepted’
Second thing of note, ‘a perpetual cycle of creation and annhilation, which this is achieved by the contraction and expansion of branes.’
So tell me…Where did these ‘branes’ come from?
Sounds like there is a beginning there still.
And that beginning would have to be God.
The more people attempt to remove God from creation, the more nonsensical they become.
R
ribozyme
Guest
I don’t know the details of Turok and Steinhardt’s proposal. The answer is probably they had no beginning, thus, we do not need to explain their origin. But, I’ll rebut by asking where did God came from. You will probably say He had no beginning; He is eternal.
C
calchiquita
Guest
Well, I have to agree here that to claim someone rose from the dead is quite an extraordinary claim. I would say it is reasonable to expect more evidence than “his followers said so”.
Then again, the idea of “mass hallucinations” has always to me seemed to require more faith to believe.
M
mlchance
Guest
Especially when it’s advanced as nothing more than raw assertion devoid of any supporting evidence.
– Mark L. Chance.
R
ribozyme
Guest
Perhaps one of the disciples experienced a hallucination, and the rest believe his account.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
“Too remote to be considered chance ?” That’s not altogether satisfactory as a reply, because while probabilities in the world as so far known to us may point to that conclusion, it is at least possible that there can be an even larger set of probabilities than we know of, in which the chances are less remote than they seem as of now.
Our experience of reality may be experience of no more than a corner of the sum of things we can in principle experience - and that sum of things may include actualities which make theism improbable. The chances against manned flight are astronomical - until someone shows that manned flight is possible by undertaking it; when that happens, the probabilities against it cease to be attractive to a gambling man
And the odds against it cease to be statistically impressive. Arguments for theism are in principle vulnerable to the same sorts of objection.Happily for us, we Christians are required to believe in God even when the most coercive and final proofs against Him come up
When everything in all creation proves to the hilt a thousand times over that God is impossible, we must be cussed enough to believe in Him even so 
Faith is not based on reason after all; sometimes, faith must defy it, and believe what is utterly false - faith must be unethical enough to ignore reason, and to believe in God despite the appeals of reason.
The reasonableness of ID - again - is exactly what makes it unChristian - its “God” is a god of the gaps who is too rational to believed in; he is not the God Who commanded Abraham to sacrifice Isaac, in Whom Abraham trusted, even though he was far past the age for begetting children. Abrahan ignored reason, & trampled it - he had faith instead. Reason is a very poor way to God. ##
Then why would you bother to use this proposal to back your argument? It would seem basic to me to at least be familiar with the facts behind your arguments before attempting to debate them.
No, they actually do not address the issue. Instead they make the claim that the universe itself is eternal, thus there is no need to explain an initial creation.
In actuality the idea that the universe is eternal does not make sense given the physics we know. Everything we have points to some discreet beginning.
What Turok and Steinhardt have is a conjecture that does not represent anything more then faith. There is no evidence whatsoever for their claim. You may want to read their work before using it to back your arguments.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I’m always amazed by the idea that the disciples were so stupid that they managed to mistake Jesus standing on a sandbar or sheet of ice as walking on water (despite the fact that some were fisherman and presumably well-acquainted with natural phenomena), or that they were so simple-minded that they would suffer death for someone else’s “hallucination”. Such is the arrogance of the modern mind. However, Jesus was seen by all of the apostles and many others after his death. So your idea of one nutsy guy’s hallucination believed by other stupid men doesn’t wash.
M
mlchance
Guest
Again: evidence? You can “perhaps” 'til the cows come home, but without evidence, you’ve nothing worth much consideration.
– Mark L. Chance.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
The sandbar theory is at least 250 years old - not modern at all.
It is linguistically, at least, quite possible that “walking on the sea” should be rendered as “walking by the sea” - the point is, not to ensure there is a miracle, but to translate the Greek in its context.An argument against the Resurrection could be made as follows:
People do have hallucinations - it isn’t by any means obvious that Jesus was raised from the dead; that is one possibility, but so is fraud, or plain error. He would not be the only person to have disciples who deluded others into believing fictions - and that can happen without any intent to deceive.
All that need happen is for those whom His immediate followers told of his Resurrection to get the wrong impression about what they were told - then they could perfectly sincerely spread a message which was not quite true, and might even die for it. Other religions and ideologies have their martyrs - is Communism true, because men have died for it ? Or Islam ? No Christian says so - therefore, men can die for what is not true; therefore, there can be martyrs for a cause which is not true, but is thought to be.
It’s the subjective impression, not the actual facts, that matters - as a motive for dying, a subjective & ill-founded impression that Jesus was raised will do every bit as well as an objectively-based & well-founded impression that he was; whether or not he did, is of secondary importance. Belief, not truth, is what is essential as a motive. It would probably be possible to found a religion with “The Lord of the Rings” as its holy book, and to persuade many that it contained nothing but solid facts - but such a religion would still be based on a fiction, even if the entire world came to believe it, & even if a thousand miracles were worked in its favour. Even if a billion people felt renewed & transformed by reading TLOTR, that would not make the book any more than the fantasy it is.
Faith is more important than mere events. It is faith, not facts, that makes missionaries & martyrs. ##
R
ribozyme
Guest
Because there is no need to. I thought I stated that their model states that the universe is eternal. Maybe I did not express myself lucidly.
Is it because of the classic argument that a bouncing universe will retain the enthropy the last cycle? They answered this question in the FAQ and their Science paper. If not, what is your argument against a bouncing universe?
I didn’t say there was evidence towards their conjecture, maybe future investigations will yield such evidence. And I would like to add that you correctly call it a conjecture.
S
Sherlock
Guest
I’d call that modern.The sandbar theory is at least 250 years old
And forget the context of the Gospel? The story is presented, not as Jesus walking by the sea (why would they be terrified?) but as a miracle. Peter’s walking on the water (for a while, at least) is also presented as an amazing thing. Peter strolling with Jesus by the sea is not amazing.
I’ll get to the rest of what you wrote later, but I did want to address this line of yours: “It’s the subjective impression, not the actual facts, that matters - as a motive for dying, a subjective & ill-founded impression that Jesus was raised will do every bit as well as an objectively-based & well-founded impression that he was; whether or not he did, is of secondary importance.” 1 Cor. 15:14 says, “and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.” It isn’t “secondary” at all.
Then what is your point?
J
Jasny
Guest
It is a chep attemt of distracting one from who God is. Basic catechism answer: God is the creator of all things. Yes even snow flakes he created the laws of phisiks wich instrumentally make it.I saw where an athiest asked this on another forum, although the question was not addressed to me. Replying to the argument that the universe is too orderly and structured to have appeared merely as the result of random chance, he/she asks:
Look at a snowflake. It’s uniform shape probably tells you that it’s not formed from water molecules coming together randomly. Do you think there is a god who created it, and every single snowflake that ever existed?
**The reasoning in the question is definitely off somehow, but I can’t quite put my finger on exactly what it is. Please help me LOL**
A strong augument is an Moslem augument found in Peter Kreeft book: Christian Apologetics * calledThe Kalam augument*. do a goole on it. It is a little tricky in the biggining but it is very good.
R
ribozyme
Guest
If their conjecture is correct, it would leave little space for a so-called creator God.Then what is your point?
- Status