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 ...
I am looking for an article that said that certain newly discovered features in the universe appear to be affected by gravitational effects from outside of our universe.
That hurts my head. :)
Someone is just looking for rationale to justify their *God doesn’t exist* belief and thinks that this is evidence for it.
Where they get the concept that God and multi-universes are mutually exclusive is beyond me.
Heck, the Bible has been talking about other levels of existence for way longer than science has been dreaming up ways to disprove God. But labeling them *heaven* and *hell* just were never very popular with some folks.
A multiverse would be the base material for all of the individual universes to form in. It would have the characteristics of some simple medium that generated laws of physics based on geometry or topography or some other property. The laws of physics would vary in the universe of universe. Some, like ours would be stable. Others would disappear due to instability. Ours may be the only stable one.
All they accomplish is moving the goalpost for the beginning of this universe to prior universes.
At the root, they require real space and time for physical causation. In the absence of space, things cannot exist. In the absence of time, events cannot occur.
And we have seen consistently from cosmic microwave background radiation measurements since the 1960's that there was a beginning of real space and time in this universe.
Bottom line, the universe is finite. Multi-verse theories do not support infinity past, the plentitude argument, anything that can happen did. Ditto for ekpyrotic, cyclic, imaginary time, hesitating, multi-world and other such physical cosmologies.
The only closed cosmology is Tegmark's Level IV universe precisely because it is radical Platonism - that this four dimensional universe is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist beyond space and time.
I’ll go with both...or even more or anything.
I believe God can do anything, even manifest Himself in each of us differently, any way He chooses.
You didn't read the article.
That said, there are other, powerful reasons for rejecting a multiverse. Finding conclusive evidence in support of the hypothesis seems highly unlikely; even its advocates admit as much. Worse, it is not clear a multiverse explains anything anyway – stating instead that everything is possible somewhere. If science routinely proceeded on that basis, it would have to conclude that God exists in some universes, following Richard Dawkins' reasoning that whilst God is highly unlikely, the possibility cannot be ruled out tout à fait. (That said, Dawkins' argument is itself flawed, because if God existed the deity would be a necessary not contingent being, and so not subject to the laws of probability.)
I recall in the finale of 'Quantum Leap", that God was a bartender...
(Or maybe Don Ho?)
Colossians 1:16 & 17 For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether ( thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-- all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Sounds like attraction to me.
Evos have been demanding proof for the existence of God and here all these forces in this universe have been staring them in the face and the Bible addressed them thousands of years ago.
soliton: I am looking for an article that said that certain newly discovered features in the universe appear to be affected by gravitational effects from outside of our universe.
Can you describe what characteristics your outside the universe source of apparent gravitational attraction would have? If not, your theory has no validity. Get back to me when you can tell us what the source of this outside source is and who or what created THAT.
The ToE meets cosmology, eh?
To confuse the two is the fundamental theological mistake made by ID. It is also why you could have God and a multiverse without creating any significant theological problems. Believers don't have to choose. They can have both if they want.”
Zactly! But if you don't define what you mean by "God", or at least try to understand what "God" means, your god may be the same thing as a multiverse
A couple problems with the ‘multiverse’ theory:
1. It’s an obvious cop-out to avoid the laws of probability. It leads to absurd conclusions if applied consistently. For example, it means that somewhere out there amidst an infinite or near-infinite pile of multiverses, perfectly formed dollar bills really do grow on trees. All the events of The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy series are literally true, somewhere. It doesn’t matter how low the odds are, with enough multiverses out there you will find anything eventually.
2. There’s not a shred of evidence for them.
The preference for multiverses is thus purely emotional in nature, out of a desire to avoid God. As far as the nature of God goes, Romans 1:20 is clear enough, and His law is written in our hearts. Those who self-righteously try to judge Him by citing evidence of evil in the universe miss the point that we can only recognize evil because we have God’s moral law inculcated in us to begin with. If there is no God then there is nothing to complain about, the universe is just what it is and morality is bunk.
Not only that, but if there are an infinite number of universes, in all kinds of configurations, then there must be some in which God exists.
Could play this all day. Reminds me of Wittgenstein’s critique of the word “game”. It can’t be adequately defined but is still useful to talk about. God can’t be completely defined by its very nature, but there’s adequate knowledge to talk about and “believe in” if you will.
Sounds good, until you get to the point of trying to define each of those concepts in a way that is not tied to this universe.
What does "medium" mean? What is a "base material?" Where did it come from?
Beyond that, you still haven't told us how they got there in the first place.
You're just speculating: making some assumptions about how you think it might be.
So before you go feeling all proud of yourself for stumping those silly folks who would posit a "Creator," you might give some attention to the fact that you're in the same boat.
No I'm stating the theory
Besides, I don't "believe" in multiverses. It is just one possible explanation. If I were to "believe" that they existed I would need evidence.
All it is is positing a *source* without it being an entity to which one may have to answer.
You're just speculating: making some assumptions about how you think it might be.
Which is NOT science.
I keep hearng that ID has to be measurable, testable and all this, meanwhile how is a multiverse, string theory and M theory any of these?
It boils down to the left's extreme insecurities about God, period. Their incessant lunacy has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
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.