Why do believers in science-only believe they are entitled to one supernatural mulligan which jump started the universe?

[Arizona_Mike]

Is the weakness of the Multiverse model related to a failure to bridge the gap between how absolute nothing could natually evolve into the very first something without a supernatural mulligan? Your paragraph #1 seems to claim that multiverse theory is supernatural. There needs to be a distinction between natural laws of science that have not yet been discovered VS. a true supernatural event. I’m sticking to my claim that a supernatural mulligan had to occur.

I guess I’m arguing from the slightly different perspective of semantics. The term “supernatural” is used by many non-theists who advance the Multiverse model, as a description of events that involve what they would describe as “mystical” elements - God, angels, religious miracles, demons, Heaven, etc. They then use the harbor provided by that semantic exclusion to exclude, a priori, any theistic explanation for events through both a methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

“Supernatural” in the strict definition simply describes an event that is outside of nature. Any description of the nature of things outside of our universe (which is all we can know of nature, that is, our space-time continuum) must be “supernatural” in nature. As we have no natural ability to experience or test the existence of other universes, these do not pertain to natural laws of science that have not yet been discovered, as we are physically incapable of experiencing other universes - they have no connection with ours, and if they exist, we have no way to have empirical knowledge of them, any more than we can of Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory without the aid of divine assistance.

Thus, for a methodological naturalist to posit the existence of another universe as an explanation of cosmological origin, which is clearly supernatural, while denying the possibility of, or the ability to appeal to, another kind of supernatural explanation, is simple selection bias on the part of the naturalist, and is hypocrisy.

I think the evidence for a supernatural (divine) “mulligan” is far better than that for the Multiverse theory. It’s ontologically simpler and less bloated, for one thing, but more importantly there is revelatory evidence that supports it which I find reasonable and well-supported. A supernatural (divine) mulligan would exist beyond our space-time continuum, exist before our space-time continuum, and not be bound by the provincial rules of our space-time continuum. Thus, a theistic explanation for creation, the Resurrection, or any miracle would not violate any rules of our universe, it just would just be explained by a higher ordered reality, outside the particular set of rules in our particular universe,

Multiverse cosmological explanations really only became an obsession of cosmologists (although philosophers, theologians, and sci-fi writers had all considered it) as an attempt to explain the anthropic principle, and to avoid the need for a Creator in the light of increasing evidence for the Big Bang and away from the steady-state universe.

I don’t think the simple existence of multiple universes would necessarily discount the existance of God, by the way, as Christianity (as well as Islam and Hinduism) recognizes multiple planes of existance. God could work in many ways.

 

[ManOnFire]

So science may never know the reason. So what?

So, if God has never existed, do you believe that “all can one day be knowable except this one thing?” How is that logical if the cosmoses exist due to science-only? If we exist due to science-only, then there should be a reason, but there can’t be.

Yeah. It might never be known. Why must there be a reason?.

same as above

Is there now? You want there to be a reason. There is not necessarily a reason though. Lots of things happene without a reason (IMO). Existence is no exception in my book. It might have a reason. It might not. I don’t know. I accept that it is probably unknowable and don’t feel the need to fill in the blank…

If the truth is science-only, then there’s a reason for everything. We just haven’t figured it out yet, except that the Beginning is forever unknowable either way. An intelllectually honest science-only believer would not accept that there’s no reason.

Even if there is a supernatural being, it didn’t necessarily have a reason either.

Here’s the difference: Belief in science-only REQUIRES a reason, but a Belief in the supernatural accepts that the reason “why” is beyond science, and therefore not up to us to necessarily determine. It’s fascinating how close to 50/50 the choice is though. IMO, that’s wonder enough.

 

[ManOnFire]

I guess I’m arguing from the slightly different perspective of semantics. The term “supernatural” is used by many non-theists who advance the Multiverse model, as a description of events that involve what they would describe as “mystical” elements - God, angels, religious miracles, demons, Heaven, etc. They then use the harbor provided by that semantic exclusion to exclude, a priori, any theistic explanation for events through both a methodological and metaphysical naturalism.

“Supernatural” in the strict definition simply describes an event that is outside of nature. Any description of the nature of things outside of our universe (which is all we can know of nature, that is, our space-time continuum) must be “supernatural” in nature. As we have no natural ability to experience or test the existence of other universes, these do not pertain to natural laws of science that have not yet been discovered, as we are physically incapable of experiencing other universes - they have no connection with ours, and if they exist, we have no way to have empirical knowledge of them, any more than we can of Heaven, Hell, or Purgatory without the aid of divine assistance.

Thus, for a methodological naturalist to posit the existence of another universe as an explanation of cosmological origin, which is clearly supernatural, while denying the possibility of, or the ability to appeal to, another kind of supernatural explanation, is simple selection bias on the part of the naturalist, and is hypocrisy.

I think the evidence for a supernatural (divine) “mulligan” is far better than that for the Multiverse theory. It’s ontologically simpler and less bloated, for one thing, but more importantly there is revelatory evidence that supports it which I find reasonable and well-supported. A supernatural (divine) mulligan would exist beyond our space-time continuum, exist before our space-time continuum, and not be bound by the provincial rules of our space-time continuum. Thus, a theistic explanation for creation, the Resurrection, or any miracle would not violate any rules of our universe, it just would just be explained by a higher ordered reality, outside the particular set of rules in our particular universe,

Multiverse cosmological explanations really only became an obsession of cosmologists (although philosophers, theologians, and sci-fi writers had all considered it) as an attempt to explain the anthropic principle, and to avoid the need for a Creator in the light of increasing evidence for the Big Bang and away from the steady-state universe.

I don’t think the simple existence of multiple universes would necessarily discount the existance of God, by the way, as Christianity (as well as Islam and Hinduism) recognizes multiple planes of existance. God could work in many ways.

Mike, you’re awesome!

 

[ringil]

If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?

Faith is faith. It cannot be argued or proven. It is a gift from God. Why do Christians try to use reason to appeal to God whic requires a lead of faith. “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Don’t be afraid to be a “fool for God.” as St. Francis said.

 

[samiam1611]

So, if God has never existed, do you believe that “all can one day be knowable except this one thing?”

No I do not believe that. I think there are other unknowable things.

How is that logical if the cosmoses exist due to science-only? If we exist due to science-only, then there should be a reason, but there can’t be.

While I do not believe in science-only* in the sense that you are saying it, I disagree that there “should be a reason.” Can you elaborate on why you believe there “should” (i.e. must?) be a reason?

I do not believe in the supernatural - so I guess I believe in naturalism - but I would not call my beliefs science-only, bc I don’t think science can provide all the answers. I believe everything is either 1) explainable by science or 2) unknowable by science, and therefore unknowable. The “reason” the universe was started is one of many *unknowable things IMO.

If the truth is science-only, then there’s a reason for everything.

Please explain why you think this. What makes you think there’s a reason for everything?

We just haven’t figured it out yet, except that the Beginning is forever unknowable either way.

True, true.

An intelllectually honest science-only believer would not accept that there’s no reason.

Of course they would, bc science does not ask “why” [did this happen], science asks “how” [did this happen]. They might be frustrated that it cannot be known, but they would still accept it.
To tell you the truth, I do not even think about it much. I just live my life; I don’t have much desire to know “why” and I’m not sure what I would do differently if I did. What bearing does the reason why the universe was started have to do with if I should get up on time for work today, what I should eat for breakfast, or what errands I’m going to run today? No bearing, that’s what. That’s why I don’t concern myself with the unknowable; and that’s why I don’t feel any need to ascribe any supernaturalness to anything in life, including why the universe came into existence.

Here’s the difference: Belief in science-only REQUIRES a reason,

Nuh uh

but a Belief in the supernatural accepts that the reason “why” is beyond science,

…(So do science-only believers if I may speak for them)

and therefore not up to us to necessarily determine.

Yep, science-only (or in my case, natural only) has its limitations.

It’s fascinating how close to 50/50 the choice is though. IMO, that’s wonder enough.

Hey you’re right, I never thought about it that way before. Good observation.

I look forward to hearing your reason you think everything has a reason

 

[samiam1611]

Faith is faith. It cannot be argued or proven.

Now that is intellectually honest

It is a gift from God. Why do Christians try to use reason to appeal to God whic requires a lead of faith.

Why indeed. I assume you meant leap.

“blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Don’t be afraid to be a “fool for God.” as St. Francis said.

“To practice the “virtue” of faith, one must be willing to suspend one’s sight and one’s judgment; one must be willing to live with the unintelligible, with that which cannot be conceptualized or integrated into the rest of one’s knowledge, and to induce a trance like illusion of understanding. One must be willing to repress one’s critical faculty and hold it as one’s guilt; one must be willing to drown any questions that rise in protest—to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to assert its proper function as the protector of one’s life and cognitive integrity.”
~Nathaniel Branden

 

[ringil]

Now that is intellectually honest

Why indeed. I assume you meant leap.

“To practice the “virtue” of faith, one must be willing to suspend one’s sight and one’s judgment; one must be willing to live with the unintelligible, with that which cannot be conceptualized or integrated into the rest of one’s knowledge, and to induce a trance like illusion of understanding. One must be willing to repress one’s critical faculty and hold it as one’s guilt; one must be willing to drown any questions that rise in protest—to strangle any trust of reason convulsively seeking to assert its proper function as the protector of one’s life and cognitive integrity.”
~Nathaniel Branden

Yes, leap is much better than “lead”.

I believe that Christians who feel the need to viraciously argue faith attempting to use reason send the message that they are not entirely comfortable with the total surrender that our Lord asks for. We don’t need to prove that our faith is logical.

You see this manifested in some Catholics who are “miracle chasers” and prophecy buffs.

I am gifted with faith by God’s grace and I pray that atheists may be also. I have many friends who are atheists and agnostics and they are fine people. Some are, indeed more caring than Christians I know. I do not care for the more assertive atheists however, who will mock faith as I feel they have elevated their non-belief into a religion of sorts, quite akin to the fundamentalist Christians who they decry.

 

[samiam1611]

Yes, leap is much better than “lead”.

I believe that Christians who feel the need to viraciously argue faith attempting to use reason send the message that they are not entirely comfortable with the total surrender that our Lord asks for. We don’t need to prove that our faith is logical.

You see this manifested in some Catholics who are “miracle chasers” and prophecy buffs.

I am gifted with faith by God’s grace and I pray that atheists may be also. I have many friends who are atheists and agnostics and they are fine people. Some are, indeed more caring than Christians I know. I do not care for the more assertive atheists however, who will mock faith as I feel they have elevated their non-belief into a religion of sorts, quite akin to the fundamentalist Christians who they decry.

(Hope you didn’t feel I was mocking you. Much respect for y’all - fundamentalist Christians on the other hand…)

 

[ringil]

(Hope you didn’t feel I was mocking you. Much respect for y’all - fundamentalist Christians on the other hand…)

No, no I just wanted to throw that in there. There are what I call “angry atheists” and unfortunately even “angry Catholics” who just need to chill out sometimes.

 

[samiam1611]

Yes, leap is much better than “lead”.

I believe that Christians who feel the need to viraciously argue faith attempting to use reason send the message that they are not entirely comfortable with the total surrender that our Lord asks for. We don’t need to prove that our faith is logical.

You see this manifested in some Catholics who are “miracle chasers” and prophecy buffs.

I** am gifted with faith by God’s grace **and I pray that atheists may be also.

*Yes! People deny this a lot you know!

CCC 153:
"Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him. “Before this faith can be exercised, man must have the grace of God to move and assist him; he must have the interior helps of the Holy Spirit, who moves the heart and converts it to God, who opens the eyes of the mind and 'makes it easy for all to accept and believe the truth.”

People on this site have told me numerous times how atheists “choose” not to believe in God, or “fight what they know to be true” or some other **** like that. When really, if God does exist, it is His own fault for not giving some people that gift! Yet no one ever retracts their statement, they seem very firmly to think atheists choose to not believe which is the farthest thing from the truth, I don’t understand why that is such a common misconception. That’s a tangent we probably shouldn’t get into though.

I have many friends who are atheists and agnostics and they are fine people. Some are, indeed more caring than Christians I know. I do not care for the more assertive atheists however, who will mock faith as I feel they have elevated their non-belief into a religion of sorts, quite akin to the fundamentalist Christians who they decry.

Hope you didn’t feel I was mocking you. Much respect for y’all - now fundamentalist Christians on the other hand…

*added/edited

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

“Science can’t explain it therefore it must have been God” is known as a “God of the Gaps” argument. Just because scientists haven’t worked out how the universe began yet does not mean that God must therefore be invoked to explain it.

People used to think that God governed the motion of the planets. Then Newton invented calculus and later mathematicians invented perturbation analysis. Lo and behold what we once thought was divine governance could actually be explained by physics and mathematics. The same can be said for lots of other natural phenomenon such as eclipses, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.

As to the argument that “everything must have a cause” I ask you this: “did anything cause time?” Cause and effect presupposes a before and after. For example, before there was the universe, there was God. Then God created the universe, afterwards there was both the universe and God. Does this still apply when there is no time with which to determine a before and after?

 

[ringil]

“Science can’t explain it therefore it must have been God” is known as a “God of the Gaps” argument. Just because scientists haven’t worked out how the universe began yet does not mean that God must therefore be invoked to explain it.

People used to think that God governed the motion of the planets. Then Newton invented calculus and later mathematicians invented perturbation analysis. Lo and behold what we once thought was divine governance could actually be explained by physics and mathematics. The same can be said for lots of other natural phenomenon such as eclipses, earthquakes, volcanoes, disease, etc.

As to the argument that “everything must have a cause” I ask you this: “did anything cause time?” Cause and effect presupposes a before and after. For example, before there was the universe, there was God. Then God created the universe, afterwards there was both the universe and God. Does this still apply when there is no time with which to determine a before and after?

Many, many Catholics do not attempt to justify their faith philosophical arguments.

Yes, the Aquinas argument is pretty lame, but what do you expect for the 13th. century?

 

[samiam1611]

Many, many Catholics do not attempt to justify their faith philosophical arguments.

Yes, the Aquinas argument is pretty lame, but what do you expect for the 13th. century?

haha ringil i love your honesty, keep it up!

 

[babylonsfalling]

If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?

I don’t know that they think they’re entitled to this supernatural mulligan. I think they just close their eyes and stuff their ears to the fact that ultimately they NEED the mulligan because they themselves know that nothingness didn’t accidentally make somethingness.

 

[Warrior1979]

If there was never a Creator, then either the infinite gravity (or other) that created the universe unscientifically poofed itself into existence (which is scientifically impossible), OR the universe has always existed in one form or another (in which case there IS NO reason for the universe, by definition, since it must have had NO beginning, and therefore no reason for being made), which is also a FOREVER unscientific and unacceptable explanation if there was no Creator. Either belief is unscientific and illogical.

The only logical start to the universe involves at least one belief in something supernatural (supernatural mulligan) since absolute nothing cannot naturally evolve into the first something. They free willingly close their minds JUST BEFORE they must admit that there can be no other scientific start to the universe that doesn’t involve a supernatural event. So where’s the “better” logic and science behind a science-only belief system when it is inherently and permanently flawed?

I enjoy reading the opinions of a person on a subject that do not understand.

Yes, things can be created from nothing, at least at our current level of understanding. However, it follows from that theory that those particles created from nothing will eventually turn back into nothing within established parameters.

 

[tonyrey]

Yes, things can be created from nothing, at least at our current level of understanding.

Please supply evidence for that assertion.

BTW “can be created” is not synonymous with “can create itself”…

 

[ManOnFire]

I enjoy reading the opinions of a person on a subject that do not understand.

Yes, things can be created from nothing, at least at our current level of understanding. However, it follows from that theory that those particles created from nothing will eventually turn back into nothing within established parameters.

You obviously don’t understand post #13.

 

[TheTrueCentrist]

1. If all the universes and cosmoses had no beginning BY DEFINITION, then there is no beginning and therefore it is impossible to find a REASON for the existence of all the universes and cosmoses (and us). If there’s no reason for our existence, then let’s stop kidding ourselves by pretending that we are capable of one day finding one.

Are you familiar with the work of Escher? He is famous for drawings like this:
zachbart.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/escher-da-circle.jpg

Looking at this diagram it is obvious that the angels and devils are confined to a definite circle. But say you were one of the angels inside the circle. You can fly around inside the circle but you are subject to its rules: as you approach the edge, everything becomes smaller and smaller. If things shrink fast enough, you will never be able to touch the edge of the circle no matter how long you fly towards it. If you were an angel confined to such a circle, you may not be able to tell that your “universe” was finite at all.

Now consider time in the same way. Might it not be that our time has the same property? That inside our universe’s little time circle we observe time to be infinite, to us it seems that the universe has always existed and will always exist, when it really has some very definite borders?

What is the point of all this? Simple, in order to say that our universe had a “beginning” you are essentially saying that there exists a super-universal time that can be used to measure before and after outside our universe. In other words, we know the angels’ circle is bounded because we have a length scale that exists outside their bubble. We don’t play by their circle’s rules, our tape measure doesn’t shrink as it approaches their boundary. When you say our universe “began,” you are assuming that there exists a timescale that is not subject to the rules of our universe.

 

[ManOnFire]

The pseudo-scientific belief that the universe arose from a “singularity” which came from nothing is functionally identical to the religious belief that God created the universe from nothing.

God is the religious equivalent of science’s absurd “singularity.” Neither concept is consistent with our best observations of reality, or with common logic.

Right. Soooo, since a science-only theory will NEVER be logical since it can’t create itself, then the only logical explanation for why we exist is that a supernatural phenomenon created the cosmos. Which supernatural phenomenon you choose to worship is up to you. Science-only doesn’t include anything supernatural.

So what’s your point? Do you have an epiphany to offer? I assume not for the reasons I laid out.

 

[ManOnFire]

Faith is faith. It cannot be argued or proven. It is a gift from God. Why do Christians try to use reason to appeal to God whic requires a lead of faith. “blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe.”

Don’t be afraid to be a “fool for God.” as St. Francis said.

I’m not trying to bully people into having faith. I’m trying to open minds to consider the weakness of academia’s claims that it has a better answer, when it not only has no answer, it has a less logical theory, and it will NEVER have an answer, because it forever can’t solve something from nothing. People are being duped. That’s not enlightenment. If they’re going to come up with a better final answer, at least make it plausible without a supernatural mulligan.