God or a multiverse?

Guardian ^ | December 8 2008 | Mark Vernon

[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.

[metmom]

Your post 35 only says,.....Recently it has been suggested that we have detected gravitational effects FROM OUTSIDE THE BOUNDaRY OF OUR UNIVERSE

*suggested* only. Not determined, not a fact.

If you want to grasp at that in a desperate attempt to nullify God, you are certainly entitled.

It certainly gives new meaning to *grasping at straws*.

[Soliton]

While no one can exhaustively "define God," the common, enduring insight of Israel, classical philosophy, and Christianity is that God cannot be internally inconsistent with himself

You have just put a limit on God

[metmom]

God puts limits on Himself if you read Scripture.

He cannot change and He cannot lie.

[PeteePie]

Oh man, that’s weak. Try this just for starters...

I am the maker of the Heavens
I am the bright and morning star
I am the breath of all Creation
Who always was
And is to come

I am the One who walked on water
I am the One who calmed the seas
I am the miracles and wonders
So come and see
And follow me
You will know

Chorus:
I am the fount of living water
The risen Son of man
The healer of the broken
And when you cry
I am your savior and redeemer
Who bore the sins of man
The author and perfecter
Beginning and the end
I am

I am the spirit deep inside you
I am the word upon your heart
I am the One who even knew you
Before your birth
Before you were

Chorus:

Before the Earth (I am)
The universe (I am)
In every heart (I am)
Oh, where you are (I am)
The Lord of love (I am)
The King of Kings (I am)
The Holy lamb (I am)
Above all things

Chorus:

Yes, I am almighty God your father
The risen son of man
The healer of the broken
And when you cry
I am your savior and redeemer
Who bore the sins of man
The author and perfecter
Beginning and the end
I am

Mark Schultz, Mark Schultz Live
Label: Word / Curb / Warner Bros.

[betty boop]

You have just put a limit on God

Great observation, Soliton! Kudos!!!

In rejoinder, may I observe that no concept of "limit" or of "limited" would be rational without reference to the idea of "limitlessness" or "unlimited?" Rational analysis usually consists of the comparison of things in the light of a standard — which expresses the proper ratio. The properties of limitlessness and unlimited are not to be found in any entity of the contingent, spacetime world accessible to direct human sensory experience. By a process of elimination, if such properties or attributes are characteristic of anything at all, they can only be "characteristic" of God.

And so here we are, "assigning qualities," "attributing characteristics" to that which is ineffable, unlimited, infinite, eternal — which concepts themselves arguably cannot even be fully grasped by the human mind.

You see the problem here I'm sure. :^)

And yet — a person placing a "limit" (or characteristic, attribute, quality) on God does not bind God's perfect freedom in any way. But in so doing, paradoxically, he might add to his own imperfect understanding of the world and his place in it by making such a mistake in good faith.

Sigh. I'm sure that's as perfectly clear as mud, dear Soliton!!! I do so enjoy speaking with you!

[hosepipe]

[ 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. ]

Glad to see you've come around( d;-)..)..
Thats what believing in God(the judeo-christian one) is all about..
Something extra-universal..

[svcw]

Oh please Betty include me in everything you write......my goodness it is brilliant!

[hosepipe]

[ No, because we haven't defined gravity as a distinguishing property of God, but we have defined it as one of matter. ]

According to anything I can find no one has the slightest idea of what matter is.. There is a lot if if'n.. but nothing concrete.. "Strings" are a metaphorical image not something actually thingly..

[Soliton]

By a process of elimination, if such properties or attributes are characteristic of anything at all, they can only be "characteristic" of God.

Philosophically, though, you allow yourself unlimited room to define or redefine "God" whereas I am held to your definition of reality, materialism etc. I don't think that is fair :o). Why can't I define a multiverse as an eternal sea in which an infinite variety of universes bubble away?

In a philosophical dialog, the rules should be the same for birds and frogs.

[Soliton]

Thats what believing in God(the judeo-christian one) is all about.. Something extra-universal..

So God is anything supernatural?

[tpanther]

Several theories allow for the detection of other universes.

Riiiight. Only we keep hearing about testable, measurable and all kinds of standards and so forth that ID is incessantly demanded to confrom to; but not all these other so-called theories, because people with hang-ups about God just ignore their blatant hypocrisy and double standards.

[js1138]

Detection implies testable and measurable.

Oddly enough, in physics, it also implies making testable predictions. Predicting data points before they are measured.

[tpanther]

Then science will have to hold its silence; for God cannot be "reduced" to human categories of thought....

Exactly!

Yup, so nonsense like God doesn't belong in science class is, as you point out, quite ridiculous!

[tpanther]

IOW moving goal posts.

Again.

BTW, I haven’t “detected” that life just up and forms all by itself.

[js1138]

No, the question of whether life can form by undirected chemistry is something to be settled by chemists in the laboratory.

[tpanther]

So now you’re moving from undetected to undirected?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so very much for your excellent points and this fascinating sidebar, dearest sister in Christ!

On the subject of gravity, it should also be noted some have theorized that gravity is so small by comparison to the other major forces because it is inter-dimensional. The root may not be a multi-verse (e.g. foam theories) but rather, another dimension.

On Gravity, Oreos and a Theory of Everything

Such a situation, they realized to their surprise, could provide a natural explanation for the hierarchy problem without invoking supersymmetry. Suppose, they said, that gravity is actually inherently as strong as the other forces, but because of the warping gravity is much much stronger on one of the branes than on the other one, where we happen to live. So we experience gravity as extremely weak.

"You can be only a modest distance away from the gravity brane," Dr. Randall said, "and gravity will be incredibly weak." A result was a natural explanation for why atomic forces outgun gravity by 10 million billion to 1. Could this miracle be true? Crazy as it sounded, they soon discovered an even more bizarre possibility. The fifth dimension could actually be infinite and we would not have noticed it.

It should also be noted that Sir Hermann Bondi back in the late 1950’s posited negative mass (negative gravity) that works theoretically well in general relativity. For more: Anti-gravity and anti-mass

Of course scifi authors and those who hope for warp speed space travel love such theories but we ought to consider Bondi along with Randall and current measurements of dark energy at about 74% of the total mass of the universe.

For lurkers: dark energy can be visualized as the space between galaxies whereas dark matter would be visualized as the high gravity regions, e.g. center of galaxies, black holes. Dark matter is about 22% of the total mass of the universe. The remaining 4% is ordinary matter, that which we can directly see.

When we do, it becomes apparent that dark energy may appear as negative gravity when observed from our position on the brane (inter-dimensional gravity.) Geometrically, the affect would be space/time “outdents” accelerating the expansion of the universe.

One more step. Consider that the fifth dimension might be an expanded time-like dimension (P.S. Wesson) – and all of the particles in the observable four dimensional universe would actually be massless, multiply imaged from as little as a single particle in the fifth time-like dimension.

And that of course brings us right back to Max Tegmark's Level IV Parellel Universe model wherein the four dimensional physical perceptible universe is a manifestation of mathematical structures which actually do exist outside of space and time.

Obviously to many of us Christians, that brings it all back to the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics, the rational structure of physical reality, Logos, the Word of God, its Creator, Jesus Christ, Who is God.

In the beginning was the Word [Logos], and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. – John 1:1-4

And, as you have pointed out, although the scientific theories are quite fascinating, precious few aspects can be tested under laboratory conditions (e.g. CERN's LHC) or observed by sensory perception. Moreover, the scientific method is an inadequate toolset to answer the deepest questions, e.g. what is there something instead of nothing? And “methodological naturalism” is a narrowed field of inquiry. Only theologians and philosophers can “go there.”

Scientific theories cannot obviate God. Multi-verse (or any other scientific theory) is not an either/or to God.

To God be the glory!

[js1138]

So now you’re moving from undetected to undirected?

That's what you did in post 154. Were were discussing the detection of multiverses, and you shifted to the undirected formation of life.

Take your pick of what you want to talk about.

[hosepipe]

[ So God is anything supernatural? ]

Depends on what natural means.. to you..
But the truth is literally no one knows much about WHO God is..
In that sense God is super normal.. that is if any man could conceive of WHAT God is.. Mans thinker could be really inhibited.. since his experience is so linear..

[Aquinasfan]

Then God is the multiverse.

No, because God created the universe. The universe depends on God for its existence --for its creation and its existence from moment to moment. Logically, God has the power to annihilate the universe at any moment.