Posted on 12/08/2008 11:56:24 AM PST by Soliton
Is there a God or a multiverse? Does modern cosmology force us to choose? Is it the case that the apparent fine-tuning of constants and forces to make the universe just right for life means there is either a need for a "tuner" or else a cosmos in which every possible variation of these constants and forces exists somewhere?
This choice has provoked anxious comment in the pages of this week's New Scientist. It follows an article in Discover magazine, in which science writer Tim Folger quoted cosmologist Bernard Carr: "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."
Even strongly atheistic physicists seem to believe the choice is unavoidable. Steven Weinberg, the closest physics comes to a Richard Dawkins, told the eminent biologist: "If you discovered a really impressive fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a benevolent designer or a multiverse."
The anxiety in the New Scientist stems in part from the way this apparent choice has been leapt upon by the intelligent design people. Scientists don't like that since it seems to suggest that ID offers a theory that cosmologists are taking seriously. It doesn't of course: ID wasn't science before the multiverse hypothesis gained prominence, just a few years ago; and it hasn't become science since.
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
Although the expansion of the universe suggests that the universe had a "beginning", there is nothing in mathematics that prevents an infinite multiverse
You are correct, I should have said "physical" reality in that no measured physical phenomenon reaches infinity, only approaches it. I stand corrected.
Therefore, we cannot, in principle, know if other universes exists.
Science would once again force us to rethink our understanding of what a universe is. Somehow religionists believe that God can exist external to space-time but be active in space-time. Intellectually, how is that different?
That may seem intuitively true, but it's not true in several theories currently being studied and developed.
There was a time when what we now call our galaxy was considered to be the universe. Then we found that there are multiple galaxies.
The same fate may befall the notion that the big bang describes the creation event for all matter that exists.
Several theories allow for the detection of other universes.
It seems that there is also substantially more evidence for the benevolent creator than the multiverse.
The multiverse has merely some suspected aberrations in gravitational forces suggesting gravitational effects from outside the universe.
God has left a written record, miracles occur, human hearts are changed instantly upon establishing a personal relationship with the Designer.
The same fate may befall the notion that the big bang describes the creation event for all matter that exists.
Several theories allow for the detection of other universes.
And yet not one of those things, should they be proved true, would make the slightest bit of progress in disproving the existence of God.
No matter how immensely huge you make the universe(s) God is bigger.
It's like Einsteins attempt to push back the beginning of the universe so far in the past as to make it appear eternal and thus remove the possibility of a beginning.
Well, a beginning was determined in spite of him and he ended up with egg on his face and had to remove the cosmological constant he inserted into his formulas to fudge them.
Science was forced to admit that Scripture was correct.... *In the beginning....***
So it will eventually be with this as well, if the world survives long enough.
Science can find evidence supporting historical events inconsistent with some literal interpretations of various scriptures, but I can't imagine anyone silly enough to say that the findings of science are relevant to arguments about the existence of God.
Folks could take a lesson from George Bush, who seems wise enough to separate speculation about natural history with religious speculation.
I wouldn't be surprised, but I don't know.
Somehow religionists believe that God can exist external to space-time but be active in space-time. Intellectually, how is that different?
I have no scientific knowledge of these theories, so I can't comment on their scientific value. My point is a simple, logical one.
1) We only have knowledge of things which we apprehend.
2) That which we apprehend exists in our universe.
3) Assuming that other "universes" existed, we could not have knowledge of them because, if we did, they would have to be connected to our universe (2), hence, in actuality, they would have to be another aspect of our universe.
-------
Your question about God's transcendence versus His immanence is a very profound one. Perhaps the following will help.
First, consider what God is. God is Being itself. Being or existence is what God is. Being is God's essence. Everything else that exists participates in God inasmuch as it exists; being or existence is not of the essence of any other thing. (For example, existence does not belong to my human nature, since my human nature is perishable.)
In God, Being and Essence are one.
Therefore, every other thing that exists is in God, inasmuch as it has existence. This explains God's immanence. God is in all things inasmuch as all things participate or share in His being or existence.
Yet God is simultaneously transcendent or "above" all things, since He is the "source" of His own existence, i.e., he depends on nothing else for His existence. He is Existence Itself.
So God is infinitely superior to every other thing that exists (His transcendence), while He exists in all things (His immanence).
Then God is the multiverse.
Yes; but — how on the basis of the scientific method would science actually be able to tell whether the effects in question were caused by an intelligent designer or a multiverse?
If you think we ought to redefine "universe" to accommodate multiverse(s), then we'll have to get a whole new word for whatever we come up with. For "universe" denotes "oneness," an all-encompassing, unified order. Unless we can show that the sum of all possible multiverses constitutes a "one." But this doesn't look like a scientific problem to me, FWIW.
Last time I checked, there were dozens of multiverse theories. As a purely practical matter, how can any of them be tested since all are, in principle, unobservable on the basis of direct perception (just as the intelligent designer is also "unobservable" on the basis of sensory experience)?
Gee, you have to go rain on his parade.....
Science can say nothing about God unless you define God. Gravity outside of our universe suggests matter outside of our universe which suggests a parrallel universe. This supports multiverse theory.
The interesting thing is, deciding that gravitational permutations is caused by multiverses when said multiverses cannot be observed or otherwise detected puts them in the same boat that they criticize Christians and creationists in.
When Christians claim that miracles are evidence of answered prayer, the challenge is given that one cannot know the source of the miracle. Here, there is no way to determine the source of the apparent gravitational permutations. The conclusion that it’s a multiverse has no more substance than they claim that stating God was the source of answered prayer.
It’s a double standard then. If it can’t be determined that the source is God because He’s indeterminate, then likewise it cannot be determined that the source is a multiverse. The *evidence* does not lean one way or the other. Only the preferences of the observer do.
Assumption of gravity outside the universe, *suggests*, *suggests*, *supports*
Speculation, not science.
You nail it, metmom! Well said indeed!!!
No, because we haven't defined gravity as a distinguishing property of God, but we have defined it as one of matter. If you want to describe God as having gravity, fine. I suggest that that would make God part of the materialistic universe, but since God can be anything, including internally inconsistent, I will defer to your judgement.
Then science will have to hold its silence; for God cannot be "reduced" to human categories of thought....
You wrote that effects of gravity emanating from outside the universe suggest matter (mass) outside the universe; which further suggests a universe parallel to our own, which "supports multiverse theory." Well, fine. I'd just like to mention that gravity itself has not yet been fully explained, that it is the only one of the four fundamental forces of nature that so far has resisted unification with the other three. To look for theoretical support in a principle that is not yet fully understood seems rash to me.
Exactly!
As far as I can tell, Spirit has no matter thus no gravity. While no one can exhaustively "define God," the common, enduring insight of Israel, classical philosophy, and Christianity is that God cannot be internally inconsistent with himself, and that he does not lie. The order of the natural world and the moral world of men absolutely depends on these insights being true. Moreoever, this understanding is foundational in the Western and specifically American cultural tradition. Indeed, the American idea of "rule of law, not rule by men" is premised in this understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.