Click the Pic Thank you, JoeProBono
Harriet Shows Off Her New Maternity Shell
Follow the Exciting Adventures of Gary the Snail!
Abolish FReepathons -- Go Monthly
If you sign up, a sponsor will donate $10
Posted on 10/23/2011 4:30:28 PM PDT by freejohn
I hope that it's okay to post this in the Religion forum!?
I have been thinking about this for quite some time now and have come to my own conclusion and that is .. GOD HAS TO EXIST and not only does he exist .. He is the main argument Against the now popular 'Multi-verse' scenario!
Scientists from many different areas are pondering an infinite number of universes to explain our existence.
They talk about 'string theories' and 'infinite universes' where anything and everything can and does exist!
An example may be that in one universe, I am alive but in another I never was.
In one universe, I am a doctor while in others I may be a lawyer or an Indian Chief while in THIS one .. I'm just another 'smuck'! *)
IF the multi-verse theory were correct then GOD would HAVE to exist simply because 'Scientists' say ALL things MUST take place in 'Infinite Universes'!
Now .. Wouldn't it make sense that if GOD were to exist in even one of these universes then NONE of the rest of those universes could or would exist!?
GOD is a GOD of ORDER and Not a GOD of DISORDER so-o-o .. HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?
I believe that Science has backed itself into a hole on this one!
(or maybe just created another paradox?)
What do you think?
If you were able to get beyond the multi-use of the word 'exist' in my ramblings .. I would Really like you Scientific and Religious thinkers input on this! 8)
Selah
At the moment of first expression of dimension Time, it was volumetric. When linked to dimension Space is when dimension Time took on variable expressions, and linked to Time, Space took on variable expressions, thus the Universe God created came to be and express the variables in combinatorics. That I think of it all that way is probably why I like Dr. Schroeder’s explanation for the Age of the Universe since God Created ‘it’.
Oh, it is more than mere encouragement. I am in awe ...
My dear sisters in Christ, Betty and Alamo, I am blessed by your discussions. BB, your first response to 21st connects with where I am going with my sermon for this week, so I fastened onto it. The theme is from James 1 in which poor and rich are encouraged to acknowledge the fragility of their own existence...their morality. Instead, we are to focus on being “rich in the Lord.”
The discussion ranging from Anselm to Plato does that for me, but I especially liked the “concreteness” argument you made, that Michelangeo is not somehow imprisoned in the Sistine Chapel. It’s connection to the theme of the sermon is irrelevant to your discussion, but I do appreciate the tie-in you provided, that God is simply “outside” those things. They would not and could not move Him at all. So insignificant is gold, for example, that the streets of heaven use it for mere paving stones, and so insignificant are precious stones, that they are walls and foundations in the heavenly city.
21st century, just a bit of an encouragement that is off topic, as well. HTML. The lines you draw on the page really don’t present your arguments very well. You would do well to use italics, blockquoting, lists, etc. to set off your arguments as opposed to those you quote.
When I read your statement that readers simply weren’t understanding what was you and what wasn’t, without backtracking to your original posts and relying on these recent ones, I knew a big part of the problem could have been formatting.
Clarity in formatting is such a huge aid for those of us reading anything said by another. Perhaps you have all these html skills already and just avoided them because you were in a rush. That’s fine.
The bottom line, though, is that clarity is the responsibility of the message sender and not that of the receiver.
acknowledge the fragility of their own existence...their morality morTality
For me the most fascinating theories in Geometric Physics posit that there are additional dimensions of time (e.g. Vafa's f-theory and Wesson's 5D2T). The expanded dimension theories are more elegant than the compactification theories based on Kaluza/Klein (i.e. string theories) and simplify the challenges of such things as non-locality at a distance and superposition.
Many scientists become quite unsettled over such theories because as a volume instead a line (an arrow of time) - past, present and future are concurrent. And that of course suggests that cause>effect could also be effect>cause, etc.
But to a Christian that could make perfect sense:
According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: - Ephesians 1:4
God's Name is I AM.
And I join you in appreciating betty boop's illuminating insights! Truly, I cannot thank her well enough for all of them for she seems to ever have the forest in view while I am engrossed with a single leaf.
The Fallacy of Misplaced Concreteness sheds light on many of my leaves.
Indeed it brings to mind Max Tegmark's Level IV Parallel Universe model which posits that everything we observe "in" space/time is actually a manifestation of mathematical structures which really do exist outside of space and time. Or to put it another way, what an observer "in" space/time perceives as real is actually a manifestation of reality which is not subject to space, time, energy-momentum, etc.
Of course the Physicist must not under the principle of methodological naturalism allow God the Creator to be mentioned in his theory. But to a Christian it is obvious:
I wrote —
I think the ‘Multi-verse’ conjecture is a bogus exercise as there is NO basis for proliferating ‘Universes’ in order to overcome a purely human inability to comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’.
You replied —
Aw come on, 21stCenturion, do you mean to suggest that you do have the ability to “comprehend the concept of ‘infinity’?” On the possibility that you might so comprehend (though that certainly seems doubtful to me), I suspect “infinity” in your sense would just be a stand-in for God.
Seems I didn’t actually say anything that resembles your conclusions. I DO comprehend the definition of ‘infinity’ — that is no great accomplishment, I think. Whether I can, in my limited mind, grasp the significance or meaning of an expression like ‘an infinite number of Universes’ is questionable. I did NOT assert possession of such an insight.
Further, ‘infinity’ in ‘my’ sense has to do with an exercise in counting, nothing more. Nowhere did I imply some being / existence / personality / whatever that could reasonably be construed as ‘God’. That presumption originates with you.
You wrote —
Just who is it that (seemingly) claims to know future events (at least in general if not in each and every particular) and all the details of what is needed — “all possible combinations of matter, energy or whatever” — because they “...MUST somehow be permitted to occur, somehow, someplace, sometime.”
That person evidently has a most exalted, God-like view of things. Kinda reminds me of Laplace....
Laplace ? I assume you refer to “Je n’avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là” ( I did not need this hypothesis then ) ? I never went there, except, I suppose, to the extent that I made no appeal to the supernatural at any time to justify or explain myself.
I never asserted ‘an exalted God-like view of things’, as you so cheerfully provided me with. I humbly view myself as a bit too modest to claim such an exalted opinion or myself or my ‘notions’ as stated herein.
You conclude —
In the end, I gather we disagree about this: You believe that faith and reason are mutually exclusive; I do not.
Rather I believe they are necessary complementarities. Truthful human knowledge requires the light of both.
NOT my words, you’ll quickly realize —
“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” Hebrews 11:1
For once, you nailed me. I absolutely DO believe that faith and reason are absolutely incompatible — mutually exclusive, to use your terms. To that extent, you’re right, our ‘world views’ ARE ‘mutually incompatible’.
In my chosen profession ( engineering ) we would rightfully condemn someone who filters / modifies / corrupts data in order to fit a predetermined conclusion. It’s certainly NOT honest; it doesn’t change the underlying reality; and the results must, inevitably, produce failure. Passing reality through a lens of ‘faith’ and claiming the results are equivalent to the product of ‘reason’ looks a lot like that.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
You do not grasp my point, friend. Even you are "a man of faith" within the meaning of that term as I understand it. Every scientist or engineer who ever lived and thought is "a man of faith."
The scientist's faith is that the world is intelligible. If the scientist did not believe that, then all his science would be in vain; indeed, there could be no science at all. And the engineer faithfully believes in the complete adequacy of the mechanistic principles of his calling. If he doubted them, he would not be an engineer at all.
It seems to me that all human knowledge rests on faith at its very foundation. That is, without faith there is no spur towards knowledge, no scope for the operations of logic and reason, nothing for intelligence to work on. Without faith in something, there is really nothing at all for a man to do. He might just as well curl up in the fetal position and resign from the human race.
But this rarely happens for the very simple reason that every man believes in something, whether it is true or not. If he didn't, he wouldn't even be a man.
Yet evidently you have been trained to cast a cold eye on belief in God. This seems to pass as quite fashionable nowadays in certain circles.
And yet for countless millennia by now, belief in God has been universal to all mankind everywhere. Doctrinaire atheism is quite a contemporary phenomenon. And I note that where you find it, you find not only contempt for God, but also contempt for mankind in general — but especially that part of mankind that believes in God, and particularly the Christians among them.
But back to my opening comment, that every scientist must believe the world is intelligible or there couldn't be any science at all; science per se would be a pointless exercise if the fundamental intelligibility of the world was in doubt.
And yet I know of no scientist, offhand, who asks the question: Why is the world intelligible? What is it that embues it with intelligibility? From whence do its laws arise? And other questions of that kind — the answers to which cannot be found within the spacetime reality of ordinary existence and experience, of the direct sensory perception on which the scientific method ineluctably depends.
Science does not ask these questions. Indeed, such questions seem a bit above science's paygrade, given its utter dependence on sensory perception/observation/measurement which is its fundamental, even sacrosanct method.
I might add that there are plenty of "non-observables" of the greatest importance to human beings. Indeed, the ability of man to detect them is a sign of his categorical superiority to the lower animals.
But to not ask such questions doesn't mean the questions disappear. Plus by its own methods, science cannot disprove, or falsify the eternal Presence of God — the God Sir Isaac Newton called "The Lord of Life with His Creatures."
I just wish you guys would stop behaving like the Dog in the Manger.... The rule there being what the dog cannot eat himself must be denied to all other creatures for which it is the most suitable and nourishing fare.
Anyhoot, back to my claim that faith and reason are NOT mutually exclusive: If you were to scrupulously, honestly analyze your own thought processes, I think you would find I am right about this.
But hardly any person does that sort of thing nowadays.... Few people understand their own thinking. But then critical thinking is getting to be a lost art it seems.
Thanks so much for your reply, 21stCenturion!
freejohn, you have kicked off a wonderful discussion. Anytime this group of participants engage it is beneficial to us all.
I see this particular argument as a contradiction in terms. What does Uni-verse mean? It means one. Therefore, if we are to consider the whole, then multiple “universes” must themselves exist within an even larger Universe. Once there, to the larger whole, don’t think you have arrived at the end of your journey. God does not exist within that Universe. It exists within God, for God IS existence. Of everything! And more!
It is natural to try to make our beliefs consistent with our knowledge of the external for the key to belief is understanding. When we try to understand God we are going beyond that, going beyond our understanding of “the world.” The door to that understanding is Faith. It is normal to try to make things coherent within what we already know but when it comes to God, forget that. It is a whole new world that you can only understand through experience, but once you experience it the Bible unfolds its mysteries to you.
Once you believe and study God’s message in the Bible, you will see lessons about life you didn’t know were there. You will see the answers to questions which have sold millions of self-help books and made hundreds of authors wealthy simply by explaining what is already explained. They are just explaining them to non Bible readers.
21st Centurion does a wonderful job of explaining the common fault of Begging the Question. That and Hasty Generalization are the two most common errors in thinking. Yet, in this case it is just of ancillary interest. To prove God destroys that which you just proved, so why bother if that is your purpose. To understand God you MUST beg the question, but don’t let that bother you. Logic is of the natural, physical world, man’s world, but God is of the Spiritual world, within which the natural world exists. God is More.
My learned friends have given you much to contemplate. They have explained the natural, scientific reasoning of why God exists. Yet, that is simply explaining God’s existence, not who God is. What does it matter that God exists if we are not going to embrace Him and learn His message? Learning that He exists is just academic. To make it meaningful you need the experience of which I spoke. Can you experience beauty and not feel God? Can you love and not feel God? What about poetry, even sensual pleasure? A delightful aroma? Can science explain that? Sure, scientists can talk about the senses and what senses the sensation, but can they explain the delight, the awe, the reverence, the sadness, the pity, the kindness, etc., which result from those sensations. For that you need something more. I am not saying that you cannot experience those emotions in a secular manner but for a believer they come naturally. For a believer they also evoke a desire to say “Thank you, Lord.” in recognition of the Source. I doubt a secularist feels a need to say, “Thank you, body.” To make God meaningful you must experience Him and His Love and that will lead you to the Truth and Life.
As I said, belief opens up a whole new world. What is the purpose of a static belief that God exists? It is more important that you know God. To know God you must experience God. Faith is the door to that experience and Faith is gained through Grace. Grace is granted following Bible study and prayer. Do it! Nothing else matters. Then, you don’t need these discussions, although they are still fun and helpful. Then, when you encounter evolutionists and non-believers who mock your belief you can just smile, secure in your belief. If you choose to engage them, fine for with the help of these Freepers you will be well armed, but you need not engage them if you don’t want. You will have the Truth. They won’t.
God is not a hypothesis. He lives. His Name is I AM. I've known Him for a half century and counting.
The atheist claim is therefore as absurd to me as someone saying that my brother does not exist simply because he does not know him.
Yes, in fact your claim is that the multiple universe idea is not falsifiable empirically: “unmeasurable, intangible beyond the scope of observation or demonstration...cannot test these predictions.”
This precisely describes the definition of the empirical process—observation, measurement, prediction, demonstration.
Science is dependent on logic (language)—in the absense of logic, science can do as much as—or more probably, far less than—a ship on dry land.
Logic, on the other hand, is independent of empiricism and completely viable without it.
When I said “This leads to the likelihood of intelligent design,” I was not asserting or arguing for the likelihood of intelligent design. Rather, I was explaining that such a likelihood is necessarily a logical possibility once the reality of Big Bang was established through observation in 1965.
Again—the fact that intelligent design is a logical possibility is very intimidating to atheist scientists. But ironically, this is an example of being intimidated by the very thing by which they presume the existence of their own ultimate identity and credibility—the discovery of truth.
Jeepers, dearest sister in Christ, it certainly seems that way at times! Talk about "flatlanders!"
Thank you so very much for your kind words!
Thank you oh so much for your wonderful insights, dear Mind-numbed Robot!
I particularly liked your observation that if we can "prove" the existence of God, then what we are testing wouldn't be God.
It's sort of analogous to the situation in which a biologist is trying to understand what life is. The "scientific" way to go about the problem would be to take a crittur down to its parts, then study them. But if this done, then of course, one is dealing with a non-living crittur — "You can't get there from here."
Or as the poet said [Blake]: We murder to dissect.
Life itself is not a direct observable. But one definitely knows when it is absent.
Thank you so very much for your outstanding essay/post!
I, too, would love to be able to hear your sermon!
Thank you, BB. I always enjoy these threads and I appreciate your pinging me to them.
The Jewish mystics use the name Ayn Sof when speaking of God the Creator. Literally it means "no thing." And the point is that any word a person would use to describe God reduces his own concept of God to the word that he used.
Logic for instance is part of the creation, not a property of the Creator.
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.