Posted on 01/09/2019 10:29:31 AM PST by Para-Ord.45
Extraordinary Claims Need an Extraordinary Cosmos.
Today the thoughtful scientist finds himself embroiled in an internal war between his devotion to naturalism and his realization that the universe is, as physicist Steven Weinberg put it, "one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident."
...The latest explanation, trotted out by Columbia astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, is that an early, advanced, non-biological civilization "decided to tinker with the expansion" of the universe in a way that made it amenable to the evolution of biological life.
In a critique of intelligent causation, the late Carl Sagan famously quipped, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." However, the extraordinary claims concocted by the science popularizer and his disciples lack any evidence, extraordinary or otherwise.
Sagan, along with mathematician and astronomer Fred Hoyle and DNA co-discoverer Francis Crick, proposed that terrestrial life may have been seeded by extraterrestrials, either intentionally, by sowing, or accidentally, from cosmic pollution produced by their civilization. "Panspermia," they called it. Yet, despite probing the recesses of space for nearly sixty years in his quixotic Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI), Sagan failed to come up with any evidence of those cosmic sowers or their seeds.
Panspermiais a fringe scientific theory, but the multiverse theory has gone mainstream over the last couple of decades. Its proponents, like Neil deGrasse Tyson, assert that our cosmos is part of a "multiverse" that contains an infinite number of universes, ensuring that the intricate network of coincidences necessary for our existence will have been actualized. Accounts of how these universes came about rival anything imagined by H. G. Wells or Gene Roddenberry.
...multiverse proponents assert that an infinite number of universes have to exist, because we're here. Their theory makes no predictions, has no technological cash value, and holds no promise for the betterment of man or the planet, all the while defying Occam's Razor, a cardinal principle of science which holds that the simplest solution to a problem is usually the correct one. Moreover, even ifanother universe did exist with its own unique set of physical parameters, it would be undetectable with instruments constrained by the distinctive parameters of our universe. In other words, the multiverse is unfalsifiable.
But there is too much at stake for naturalism to accept a single universe, because, as cosmologist Bernard Carr warned his peers, "If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner." In other words, "If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."
Thus Carr tipped the hand on the dirty little secret of modern cosmology: the object is not to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but to follow our wishes and boldly go where they lead, hoping it's so. And this from folks who are proud to say that, unlike believers in the Impossible, their beliefs are not based on faith or wish-fulfillment, but on hard evidence.
Those of sober mind will sense that there is more metaphysics than physics going on here. As science writer and journalist John Horgan notes, "Multiverse theories aren't theories, they're science fictions, theologies, works of the imagination unconstrained by evidence."
.... virtual worlds theory shares the one merit of panspermia: it presumes the need for intelligent causation to account for the informational complexity of the universe.
....no matter how sound and robust our theory, there is no way of proving for once and for all that it is true. Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind admits as much: "One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution [to fine-tuning] will emerge is as faith-based as ID" (emphasis added).12
Indeed, when theories depend on "extraordinary claims" about fantastic quantum behavior, imaginary singular events, and principles defying known physical laws, and lack "extraordinary evidence," they can be sustained only by unwavering faith in naturalism.
(excerpted)
There is no ‘multiverse ‘..................This one is big enough for everybody....................
A Vast......Illusion!
;(
GyG@PlanetWTF?
SenperTRUMP.45!
**********************
A friend of mine convinced be that faith in no God is as much faith, as faith in God.
Gotta GROK it.....deeply!
*******************************
First they had to invent the theory of the multi-verse to explain it. An infinite number of universes and we just happen to be in the ONE that is stable enough for us to exist.
Now it has to be spacemen. Anything to deny what the bible teaches us...
Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and earth.
Atheism/Secular Humanism is a faith, therefore a religion:
https://dockets.justia.com/docket/oregon/ordce/3:2014cv00565/116583
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/oregon/ordce/3:2014cv00565/116583/33
James J. Kaufman, Plaintiff-appellant, v. Gary R. Mccaughtry, et al., Defendants-appellees, 419 F.3d 678 (7th Cir. 2005)
How can a scientist be “assertive”?
ANYTHING but God...
Why do they resist so hard? At some point don’t you have to reconsider your position?
“advanced, non-biological civilization decided to tinker with the expansion of the universe”
Just what do you mean by “Non-biological”? robots?
Panspermia and multiverse theories are useless because there is no way to verify them. Science prides itself on experiments proving theories. There can be no experiments with panspermia and multiverse. They are nothing more than science-fiction.
There is one universe. The “uni” part means one. It’s possible that the (one) Universe actually has sub-universes that we can’t see. Possible, but not verifiable, so it is foolishness to talk about it.
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. The eminent Kant scholar Lewis Beck used to say that anyone who could believe in God could believe in anything. To appeal to an omnipotent deity is to allow that at any moment the regularities of nature may be ruptured, that miracles may happen.
(Emphasis mine) Yeah, anything could happen. Like my Savior resigning himself to death to atone for the sins of the world. Or, an ex nihilo creation of the universe. Gloria in excelsis Deo.
In what sense does an “alternate universe” exist if nothing in this universe has or will interact with it? Alternatively, if it does interact in some with with our universe, it’s not really a “universe”, is it? It’s just a part of something bigger. And then what’s that a part of?
[[Why do they resist so hard?]]
Because Satan rules this world for now, and they are His tools used by Him to spread His lies- He has blinded them to the truth
"For two millennia, the design argument provided an intellectual foundation for much of Western thought. From classical antiquity through the rise of modern science, leading philosophers, theologians, and scientists. From Plato to Aquinas to Newton, maintained that nature manifests the design of a preexistent mind or intelligence. Moreover, for many Western thinkers, the idea that the physical universe reflected the purpose or design of a preexistent mind, a Creator, served to guarantee humanity's own sense of purpose and meaning. Yet today in nearly every academic discipline from law to literary theory, from behavioral science to biology, a thoroughly materialistic understanding of humanity and its place in the universe has come to dominate. Free will, meaning, purpose, and God have become pejorative terms in the academy. Matter has subsumed mind; cosmos replaced Creator."
- Stephen C. Meyer
...The latest explanation, trotted out by Columbia astrophysicist Caleb Scharf, is that an early, advanced, non-biological civilization “decided to tinker with the expansion” of the universe in a way that made it amenable to the evolution of biological life.
See Stephan Baxter’s “Xeelee” series for detail.
“Matter has subsumed mind; cosmos replaced Creator.”
“...who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator...” (Romans 1:25)
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.