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 ...
Then the a;iens would be gods
So now what? *Because* is more meaningful that *God*? An unknown cause is more meaningful than God?
Both.
The idea of the multiverse, in my opinion, gives the phrase “mental masterbation” it’s definition.The Fabric of Reality by David Deutsch. He makes the compelling argument for the existence of the multiverse, based upon shadows.
It is where; it dosen't come from where.
Where is the universe located? Into what is it expanding? Where was the singularity located before it Big Banged? Can a finite number of subatomic particles ultimately disperse themselves equally through an infinite space, or is space not infinite, therefore contained by something?
These questions hurt my head and do not, in any way, imply that God does not exist.
"Disproving" some literal concept in the Judeo/Christian Scriptures is *often* confused by atheists as somehow proving that there is therefore no God.
Also, positing that there are a *lot* of universes instead of one also does not imply that God did not create the aggregate "multiverse."
If logic is important to you then you must recognize that this approach to proving the non-existence of God is completely fallacious.
Inside the multiverse
Into what is it [the universe] expanding?
The multiverse
...and on and on like a Russian Doll or around and around like a multidimensional torus. I get the spiel.
Now, where, exactly, is this aggregate multiverse located? Infinity, again? The number of universes doesn't change the basic question and doesn't imply a lack of God in the creation or design of the multiverse.
For example, chinese fireworks can be designed to create a recognizable pattern after explosion in the air. I always thought it would be cool if the Big Bang (assuming it is an accurate theory...) were God's firework and we were the recognizable and intelligent patten He created.
My theory is just as valid as string theory, but without all the unprovable (and macro/micro irreconcilable) math.
Why is it intellectually acceptable to say God is infinite, but not the multiverse?
I didn't actually make that particular claim but I could. Everything material is finite. Its quantity can approach but not reach infinity. I believe this is a mathematical reality.
I do not claim that God is material any more than I claim that "intelligence" or "life" is necessarily material. Something immaterial actually *can* be infinite.
But your argument is stuck with a material universe and all the limits that implies.
Plus, you haven't addressed the existence of God in any way, you've changed the subject.
It isn't.
Compelling.
I haven't read that particular book, but I'm familiar with the theory. The idea has been around since the 50's. It seems a bit much to manufacture an infinite number of universes to satisfy a theory. It's fascinating to think about, it fits the behavior of subatomic entities, but to me, it's just too far fetched. And besides, there are several other competing theories. So, take your pick, I suppose.Well, I suppose we do not really have to call them separate universes. The fact remains is that there are "shadow" particles which sometimes interferes with particles that we see, and sometimes interfere with them.
Well of course you would Soliton! But note well: Neither the benevolent designer nor the multiverse is an observable datum, and thus neither is susceptible to test and falsification by means of the scientific method. Steven Weinberg is "philosophizing" here; and so are you!
Certtain aspects of the observable universe suggest that large objects are being affected by gravitaional effects outside our universe. Maybe we will have to redifine universe.
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.