Posted on 11/18/2009 5:58:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
I'm sure the same was thought of curved space, black holes and relativity at one time.
There are forces and realities in the universe that we have yet to stumble upon.
>>.and what is wrong with that? Some of the greatest minds, from Aristotle to C.S.Lewis were known to discuss philosophy over a few too many.<<
Hey, I have no problem with it. I think it is a great idea and who knows how many REAL breakthroughs were sparked by fermented grain and/or fruit? I have had a few systems design breakthroughs that way myself...
Are you saying God can only create one universe?
>>I’m sure the same was thought of curved space, black holes and relativity at one time.<<
And I noted upthread I am convinced that quantum theory started in the same way. But, as of now, it is just a concept with nothing but really fun ideas behind it.
It causes a but of confusion when it is called a “theory.” It certainly isn’t a Scientific Theory.
It seems that much of what is passing for science these days has that goal.
Instead of a search for knowledge to improve the lot of mankind, it's become an agenda driven machine which is being misused for mostly political gain but also for ideological gain.
It's become the most popular tool going with which to attack and belittle religious faith in general, and Christianity in particular.
One only has to scan threads on FR to glean that.
Whether or not an infinite number of universes eliminates the NEED for God, since when was anything NEEDED to exist, in order to exist ?
It’s a misleading question, just because there appears to be no NEED for God in Multiverse theory, does not rule out His Existence. In fact, quite the opposite. .
>No way is a “Multiverse” anything other than blue-sky philosophy. It matches the same number of Scientific Theory criteria as intelligent design.
Really? It seems to me that the premise of Intelligent Design is fairly sound: that given a system which is structured and orderly in some way is likely to have a designer at the core.
IE Standard implication; the reverse isn’t true given a “random” system we may not tell whether there was or wasn’t a designer. Look at it this way:
— Ada with a very uniform structure and syntax implies that it was designed.
— C / C++ with its horrid inconsistencies cannot be assumed to have been designed or [exclusive] grown.
No, not scientists thinking outside the box.
Scientists looking for a naturalistic materialistic explanation for the existence of everything.
Then there’s no need for God anymore.
>>It’s become the most popular tool going with which to attack and belittle religious faith in general, and Christianity in particular.<<
Science is generally religion-neutral. Proponents may be agnostic or atheistic, but the % of scientists who lean that way are only a bit moreso than the general public.
I think you may see persecution where none exists. I also think it would lift some of the heaviness in your heart if you were to see the glass as half full instead of 2 times too big.
Where does your anger come from?
Here's Alvin Plantinga shredding of Daniel Dennett's use of an "infinite universe" hypothesis (Dennet was here attacking a version of the theistic Argument from Design):
Well, why is this [belief in an anthropomorphic God] childish? Dennett's answer, as far as I can make it out, is that the traditional arguments for the existence of God don't work. He mentions only one argument, the so-called argument from design: the universe and many of its parts give the appearance of having been designed by an extraordinarily knowledgeable and powerful designer, so probably there is an Intelligent Designer. Dennett thinks Darwinian considerations suffice to dispose of this argument; they show how it could be that all this apparent design in the living world arises without the aid of an intelligent Designer. Nowadays, however, the most popular version of the argument from design involves the exquisite fine tuning of the laws or regularities of nature. The fundamental constants of physics--the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the strength of the weak and strong nuclear forces--must apparently have values that fall within an extremely narrow range for life to be so much as possible. If these values had been even minutely different (if, for example, the gravitational constant had been different in even the most minuscule degree) habitable planets would not have developed and life (at least life at all like ours) would not have been possible. This suggests or makes plausible the thought that the world was designed or created by a Designer who intended the existence of living creatures and eventually rational, intelligent, morally significant creatures. Like its 17th and 18th century predecessors, this version of the argument is probabilistic rather than deductive: given the nature of the world, it is likely that it was fashioned by an intelligent Designer. The premises don't entail the conclusion, but are supposed to give you some reason to accept it.
Dennett's rejoinder to the argument is that possibly, "there has been an evolution of worlds (in the sense of whole universes) and the world we find ourselves in is simply one among countless others that have existed throughout all eternity." And given infinitely many universes, Dennett thinks, all the possible distributions of values over the cosmological constants would have been tried out; [ 7 ] as it happens, we find ourselves in one of those universes where the constants are such as to allow for the development of intelligent life (where else?).
Well, perhaps all this is logically possible (and then again perhaps not). As a response to a probabilistic argument, however, it's pretty anemic. How would this kind of reply play in Tombstone, or Dodge City? "Waal, shore, Tex, I know it's a leetle mite suspicious that every time I deal I git four aces and a wild card, but have you considered the following? Possibly there is an infinite succession of universes, so that for any possible distribution of possible poker hands, there is a universe in which that possibility is realized; we just happen to find ourselves in one where someone like me always deals himself only aces and wild cards without ever cheating. So put up that shootin' arn and set down 'n shet yore yap, ya dumb galoot." Dennett's reply shows at most ('at most', because that story about infinitely many universes is doubtfully coherent) what was never in question: that the premises of this argument from apparent design do not entail its conclusion. But of course that was conceded from the beginning: it is presented as a probabilistic argument, not one that is deductive valid. Furthermore, since an argument can be good even if it is not deductively valid, you can't refute it just by pointing out that it isn't deductively valid. You might as well reject the argument for evolution by pointing out that the evidence for evolution doesn't entail that it ever took place, but only makes that fact likely. You might as well reject the evidence for the earth's being round by pointing out that there are possible worlds in which we have all the evidence we do have for the earth's being round, but in fact the earth is flat. Whatever the worth of this argument from design, Dennett really fails to address it.
http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/library/plantinga/Dennett.html
The whole article by Plantinga is worth reading.
The journey always continues, whether one believes it or not.
It's just a matter of where it continues.
>>Scientists looking for a naturalistic materialistic explanation for the existence of everything.
Then there’s no need for God anymore.<<
You misunderstand the framework. Of course science is 100% materialistic. That is what makes it “science.” It is totally silent about God, although many scientists have commented on the way that seeing the wonders of the Universe unfold in a solid and logical and materialistic way have made them appreciate God all the more (count me in that group).
We need God for our hearts and souls. We appreciate Him for our physical Universe.
I thought the multiverse theory was discovered by Gardner Fox in an effort to explain the fact that there were two Flashes, one from the Golden Age and one from the Silver Age.
Which begs the question of why, if something is impossible in one finite universe, shouldn't it be impossible in whatever number of finite universes you want to posit. Infinity times zero is still zero.
But it's no matter. Multiverse theory is just another example of what happens when you reason outward from mathematical equations instead of travelling in the opposite direction - you end up with a bunch of unsubstantiatable nonsense that ought to be good for at least a couple of pop science books.
What posssses someone to think they make that the only terms that it can be addressed as?
And you've been on these threads for how long?
Oh really? Like the comment you made in this post alone...? Where does your anger come from?
You're making baseless accusations like that about me and think that I see persecution where none supposedly exists?
You fail to see the irony in this post alone.
The scientific method is religion neutral. Scientists aren't. And the evos on FR certainly aren't what with the mockery and derision that occurs daily on anything that GGG posts.
If I see persecution where none exists, then tell me why I keep seeing evos browbeat everyone about relegating GGG's threads to the Religion Forum *where they belong*, like they're being sent to the back of the bus.
>>It’s a philosophical concept, which is useful, but outside the realm of science. So far.<<
As I said — purely philosophical. Maybe I was being too cute in painting a picture of drunken sophomores, but this still remains in the purely conceptual realm.
And applying a real understanding of physics esoterica against this idea would be fascinating. If I could keep up (which I doubt).
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.