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)
As I posted in my other thread .. The Bible itself points out that DAY does not necessarily mean 24 hours.
If someone has a Bible handy, they may want to look up the second part of the Genesis account where it says .. "In The DAY" that all of this was created.
This is written After the six days of creation account is given.
I'm just guessing that this is to point out that GOD has no clock sitting upon his desk!? 8)
My impression is that you appreciate logic. So, in the interest of logic: order under God is defined by God. So it doesn’t make sense to think of God’s order as something that can be defined by anyone but God.
“There are bubbles of steam rising up. There could be no bubbles, or one, or many. Each may call itself a Universe”
A bubble of steam can only be an analogy for a universe, but not an actual universe.
I feel that I must warn you that you're walking into 'CULT' territory here! 8)
All kidding aside .. GOD DID create the heavens for the ANGELS and THE EARTH for MAN to live on Forever!
That is Clearly laid out in Scripture and one other thing .. Whatever GOD sets out to do .. MUST be done for he is GOD!
I haven't seen anywhere where GOD changed his mind on Where Man is to spend eternity!?
“The broadest definition of the universe can be found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that is created and everything that is not created.” (Wikipedia (for what it's worth)).
Consider that there turned out to be more to the Universe than there was thought to be. What was considered to be the Universe turns out to be one of the Multi-verses within the Universe.
*******************
If the “Uni” in Universe derives from the Latin for One, the word “Universes” is kind of contradictory.
*******************
“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’!”
What I've read that they've said is (more or less) that in order for God to be God everything that could happen has to happen. (I may not have quoted that accurately.)
********************
“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!?”
No. First, given what I wrote above, those universes aren't really universes, but multi-verses within the universe. I don't see why he can't exist in all the multi-verses within the universe. (I know that's not the way “they” talk about it, but sometimes you have to kind of translate in your own head what people say in order to make sense of them.)
Second, what you wrote can be read to imply that God is dependent on a universe to exist. I don't see that. He exists independently but within the Universe (including its Multi-verses) He created.
*****************
“HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?”
Granted, you and I are unable to make sense of it, but doesn't mean it's Chaotic. The problem more likely rests with our lack of ability.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/download/id/66526/name/CIRCULAR_REASONING_ ~ this is a shot of the fundamental heat patterns at the limit of resolution at the very edge of the Universe. It’s pretty obviously one of a number of scientific flask brackets ~ so...................
In doing this I was more constructive for God than studying this theory.
We are in the flesh, we are sinners, and we need a savior.
Believe in Jesus Christ, that he is who he claims to be, repent and be baptized in the Holy Spirit, AND LIVE.
I will wait for answers to the mysteries of creation when I see him in heaven face to face.
Time is concurrent with motion. To reverse time would require a reversal of all motion, with each object in the universe going backwards through the same trajectory. Each object, on all levels. And the same thing with forward leaps in time.
And yes, I agree that God is not restrained by time. So what I meant was time travel is impossible in a context of scientists conducting experiments using their own merits.
One point that should be kept in mind, when we talk about the creation account is that Moses wrote what God showed him.
It’s not likely that God provided Moses with charts and graphs to explain what was shown. So Moses would interpret what he saw, as he understood it.
Even if the theory is true, God is not contained by His own creation. God resides outside of space and time, which does not preclude His ability to enter and exit it as He chooses.
A favorite show as a kid and I still like it despite the glaring plot and production problems.
Me and my wife got to meet Martin Landau at the last Dragoncon. He is such a great guy to listen to and be around.
http://tysonneil.smugmug.com/Events/Dragoncon-2011/18887174_vV3p6D#1467656263_fc9cmtB
Yes, that's the current explanation of effects that we observe.
The moment, just prior to the singularity,...that point in the history of the universe when time, space, energy and matter came to be....what caused it. Why would nothing suddenly create...it is not a scientific concept or a valid philosophical concept.
Quite the opposite, it's a very simple thing to understand - at least there is a simple explanation; nobody knows how close such explanations are to the reality.
Some people theorized that our 3D universe appeared as a spark from the collision of higher dimensional planes (or objects.) Remember Flatland? How would we, 3D beings, create one out of nothing?
A 3D world contains an infinite number of 2D worlds. I don't mean to tie the Multiverse here, it's just a side effect. Any section of a 3D object with a 2D plane defined in a 3D space results in a new 2D world within that plane. While the plane is a mathematical construct, take an apple, slice it in two and you get a very real brand new 2D surface that didn't exist before. Well, it was there as a possibility but nobody knew which path your knife will take until it took it. Now the possibility turned into the reality. You can draw Flatlanders on that slice of the apple and they will live there happily ever after, wondering what created their Universe. And it was you, after all, just cutting an apple for your dessert. Congratulations, you are now the Creator of Universes - for tiny teeny flat Flatlanders, but you have to start somewhere :-)
To creeate everhything from nothing. Nothing exist at that time...science tells us
The science doesn't tell us anything about what happened before the Big Bang. There was no time in this Universe, and there was no Universe for the time to exist in. Take a pencil and draw a line on paper. Imagine that there is life in this line. How that life can comprehend what was before you put the pencil to the paper? It would require awareness of your 3D world. Now, how can a line-dwelling life form, necessarily restricted to that and only that line, explore and find out at least that there are other lines on the same paper - let alone lines on other pieces of paper.
To create 10 to the 78th power number of atoms calculated to exist in this universe....out of nothing....this is what Biblical scolars reference as the power of His Word. Creatio ex nihilo.
The count of objects is really immaterial. Your fingerprint on a glass of water contains millions of atoms, but that doesn't strike you as something exceptional. The principle in itself is far more interesting. If we postulate that our Universe is created by something or someone, then what could possibly create that?
That had to be great meeting Landau. Here’s trivia for you: Do you know why Series 3 was scuttled (even with cast in place and 10 scripts written?)
Great pictures!
I’ve read an article by Schroeder in which he talks about his book on this topic.
The concept is associated with Einstein’s idea that time is relative—two minutes on earth correspond with two years somewhere else in the universe.
As Schroeder explains it, God created the universe at an initiation point. Six days at that initiation point correspond with 15 billion years our time—which due to the expansion of the universe is a very far distance from the intitiation point.
This is my understanding of it, which is admittedly simplified compared with that of Schroeder. But these are some of the important aspects of it.
Thank you for sharing that. He looks really good for 75 and I thought I had read somewhere years back that he had died. Glad to know he is still around and active.
I would guess the Gerry/Sylvia divorce or Lew Grade pulled the plug on it?
It was a highlight to me. The one panel of his I caught drew a large full room, lots of audience interaction, and plenty of standing ovations.
He has a firm grip too and I wouldn’t write him off anytime soon and I hope he stays around a lot longer.
Not really, it's easy to explain on an example. Let's build a very simple Multiverse that conforms to the original requirements (that every combination of everything is.)
Our Universes will contain only two objects - the sky and the earth. The sky can be blue or green; the earth can be brown or yellow. We don't need to increase the complexity because as you will see it works the same way for any number of objects and any number of events on the timeline.
We will have exactly four Universes in our Multiverse:
That covers all possibilities that could mathematically exist in our simple Multiverse. You cannot add one more Universe to the set - it is complete.
As you see, the sky in our example can be of only one color or the other. It's to keep the list short :-) But this is also an example of a binary property: it can be this or that and nothing else. It has only two possible settings.
Now you see that existence of God is also a binary property. God may only exist or not exist. God can't partially exist or somewhat not exist. This property is equivalent to choosing between two colors of the sky.
Now go back and count what percentage of our Universes have blue sky? It's 50% - two out of four. Is it a freak occurrence? No, it's just math and logic, as we know them.
My GOD would Have to exist in ALL universes simply because he is or was the creator.
Not really. There are two possibilities, and none of them help you.
Possibility #1 says: God is local to a Universe, just like the sky's color. Some Universes have God, other Universes don't. If this is true then God will be present in half of all Universes, per our definition of the Multiverse. Your statement is incorrect.
Possibility #2 says: God is above a Universe; he resides above the collection of Universes. That's what you are hinting at. But then the existence of the Multiverse is irrelevant and you can't use it to prove existence (or non-existence) of God. That God could create one Universe just for us, or he could create two, or an infinite number of them. Your statement is not proven.
I can only go on what the Bible has to say and that is
That certainly doesn't hurt. However the Bible is not going into the cosmological details. Even if somehow Jesus would spell it all out, none in his audience would be able to understand him - and nothing of that would be written down decades after the fact. Bible was physically written by humans, and as such it contains only what humans could comprehend at that time (not much of cosmogony, that's for sure.) The only record of the creation is in the sky above us.
We will be so ignorant to those that live 200 years in the future. We cannot image what that would be like.
Explain to the prilgrims telephones, TV electricity, refrigerators etc. There would be no frame of reference for them to relate to..
And the greatest invention of all the flush toilet...
Unfortunately, this major motion picture was budgeted at $36 million...twice the budget for an entire season of Space:1999. He wanted it badly though, so it was the end of Alpha and the gang.
Lew Grade's pride and joy opened in the summer of 1980 and made a whopping....$7 million. The title of this debacle?
Raise The Titanic.
Some people theorize? Where does the spark reside...another dimension....that is another universe.....give me the science for that please.
The science doesn't tell us anything about what happened before the Big BangYou and I agree on this. But you spent half of your post stating nonsense as if it was science or math. (By the way, as you must know, an actual infinte does not exist. It is an abstract concept used in philosophical mathematics).
My point in my last statement was no so much the number as the mass of the creation.
HE quite well knows you exist, and awaits your FINAL decision.
There are no mulligans, nor can you ask for a moment to “consider”.
Your deeds are wholly secondary: DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS THE CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOUR?
Your answer is your fate.
I honestly want to share everlasting life with you and folk of your philosopical bent, simply for the arguments we’ll have!
I do but .. There is more to accepting Christ as savior than most would acknowledge.
I think the point when stated strictly from a logical standpoint is that if the God of Abraham exists, then there is necessarily only one universe.
Well I just think man can't see the trees thru the forest when it comes to what God chooses to reveal to man in the Bible.
An example is for years man thought the world was flat....science etc. debated all the "details" depending on what side of the issue they were on..... However, interesting is there's a scripture verse which reads..." He sitteth on the 'CIRCLE' of the world".....which would've indicated to any who might have seen that the world was indeed round. But they all missed it. Still it was there all that time.
1) All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes’
2) The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician).
3) Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes.
But the existence of God rules out the possibility of multiple universes because God’s creation of the heavens and the earth includes everything.
So it’s not an example of a circular argument. It’s an example of an argument in which the conclusion contains a necessary premise which contradicts an essential component of the initial premise, #1.
Interestingly, I just finished the first two books of the Bright Empires series by Christian author Stephen Lawhead, in which he explores that very question.
The third book won't be out for another year, and there will be two more after it ... but I'm looking forward to see where he goes with it.
Possibility #1 says: God is local to a Universe…
Possibility #2 says: God is above a Universe;
And why not a third possibility?
Possibility#3 says: The existence of God is common to and throughout the Universe or all the universes or the multi-verse, however you want to put it.
Your example of four Universes in a Multi-verse has things common among them. One thing is “color”. It manifests itself in different ways but it is still color. The other thing is “objects”, which manifests as sky and earth.
Because each of your Universes has sky and earth each intrinsically has objects, the sky and earth being a manifestation of the existence of objects.
Because each of your Universes has some binary combination of blue, brown, green or yellow each intrinsically has color in it, the blue, brown, green or yellow being a manifestation of the existence of color.
Is it such a leap to say that because each of your Universes has objects and color that God exists in each of them, the objects and color being a manifestation of the existence of God?
Amazing how speculation takes on a life of its own. Given that—really—much of what we know about electrons, for instance, is hypothetical, it is certainly ok to come up with wild and woolly stuff. But, whereas so far our knowledge of electrons is confirmed, or rather NOT disproved by our experience, the multiverse so far ranks right up there with Descartes “Vortices.” as a flight of fancy.
Sounds good to me. Sort of like an electron being at once a particle and a wave.
Genesis presents a unique theory: the creation of all things by a single creator. Babylonian, Greek, and Roman mythology did not posit this at all. So the question is: where did the idea come from?
bflr
“So it’s not an example of a circular argument. It’s an example of an argument in which the conclusion contains a necessary premise which contradicts an essential component of the initial premise, #1.”
Sorry, sport. You can handwave and borrow the form of a logical argument to dress it up BUT ... What that IS is a busted syllogism. Pure and simple.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
Good book and horrible movie. I think I heard it said lowering the Atlantic would have been better.
God is the Creator of the cosmos, which is everything that exists. That will inclued multiple universes, etc. I don’t have a problem with any of that. If it exists in the natural world, God made it.
Your possibility #3 is equivalent to my possibility #2, with the only minor difference of where God chooses to be - above Universes or within all of them.
Your example of four Universes in a Multi-verse has things common among them. One thing is “color”. It manifests itself in different ways but it is still color.
It's just an example. You can invent a Multiverse that has color in one group of Universes and doesn't have it in another. I only wanted to illustrate a single bit of information. If you want to be exact, each such Multiverse can be described by the n-dimensional space where each coordinate vector defines the property. Binary properties are quantized and have only two states; other properties may be also quantized, or they could be contiguous with all kinds of distribution.
Is it such a leap to say that because each of your Universes has objects and color that God exists in each of them, the objects and color being a manifestation of the existence of God?
Non sequitur. My toolbox contains screwdrivers and hammers and a measuring tape, but this says nothing about existence of God in it or above it.
The most important - if not the only valid - point of this exercise is to prove that existence or nonexistence of the Multiverse (as in several Universes vs. only one) does not help, theologically, to prove existence of God. God may well be there, as an external observer with a microscope or as an internal observer (like an ether) in all Universes, but the Multiverse theory is orthogonal to that hypothesis.
Perhaps it would help if we prove that Multiverses exist (being created naturally or supernaturally.) Then perhaps we can travel between them and study them. Then if we find certain "signatures" that are common to all of them we can start thinking why is that - and that might lead us to more theories, if not to the proof. But a mere theory that Multiverses might exist doesn't buy us anything at this time.
The civilization was large enough to implement many different worldviews. Some of them were weaker and died out. Some of them were stronger and they survived. A church of a single creator is unified and as such is stronger than a bunch of temples of different Gods, each with their own mini-religion.
The paradox is that such a powerful idea came from one of the weaker nations in that world. But it was more than an idea of course. The ancient Egyptians came up with the idea of a single god, but Aton was not a creator. Nor was the God of Plato. What made the idea so powerful was that this creator was also a person like the several gods of the pagans. It basically swallowed up the many gods, reducing them to lesser beings, such as angels and demons.
“...evolution and time travel are linked...who’d a thunk that?”
Certainly not a dinosaur.
“I broke wind today.”
Whenever the opportunity to exorcize my demons presents itself, I take full advantage.
Imagine if there were no way out.
“What that IS is a busted syllogism”
This is only another way of stating what I said.
Again, the argument at the start of this thread is not a circular argument. It’s an example of syllogistic logic in that the conclusion follows from the premise. However, due to certain facts inherent to the conclusion, the premise is refuted.
Therefore, the multiverse theory is untenable.
“the question is: where did the idea come from?”
The nature of the answer to your question depends on whether or not the idea is true.
Sure, one has the right to claim the idea that God created the universe is a myth and then to establish this as a premise—as your question appears to do—but we must remember there is no logical or empirical proof that it’s a myth.
Therefore, one possible answer to your question, one completely consistent with logic, is that the idea came from God when he actually did the thing.
“the question is: where did the idea come from?”
The nature of the answer to your question depends on whether or not the idea is true.
Sure, one has the right to claim the idea that God created the universe is a myth and then to establish this as a premise—as your question appears to do—but we must remember there is no logical or empirical proof that it’s a myth.
Therefore, one possible answer to your question, one completely consistent with logic, is that the idea came from God when he actually did the thing.
One is tempted to resurrect the old saw about ‘People unclear on the concept ...’
You are SO ‘confused’ about what you are saying, the mind boggles.
An argument / syllogism / ‘proof’ that ‘refutes itself’ is, BY DEFINITION, defective and useless. And it don’t matter, no how, what the subject may be or how urgently you NEED said proof to fly.
You can put lipstick on it but it’s still a pig ...
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be sound reasons why you can’t seem to sway or impress anyone who doesn’t already agree with you ?
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
A) G-d would have to "fake" putting photons in motion all across the universe, just to give the appearance of old age. G-d doesnt fake...or decieve.
B) The words in Genesis are Yom Echad..Day one..etc. The word Yom is like the word day in english. It can apply to an era. As in..." in the dinosaurs day...it was warmer" refering to an era of time.
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.