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 ...
No accountability that way.
No
God, for believers, is the condition without which science cannot even get going; divinity is a final explanation for the laws of science, as a philosopher of religion would say.
I saw something of your "first reality" in this statement sister bird
Describe your love for your children and then tell me you indeed love your children.
I can't define such a thing myself and I love my wife and children deeply.
You mean the theory is that there's all these universes and there's like some geometry and material and stuff?
That's a good theory, man.
"Lots of scientific sounding words. Now let’s see his experiments that have validated his hypothesis. Without it, it is philosophy resulting in an hypothesis, not science."
I am glad you do, but believing in things you don't understand is superstion (Stevie Wonder)
"Lots of scientific sounding words. Now let’s see his experiments that have validated his hypothesis. Without it, it is philosophy resulting in an hypothesis, not science."
Source: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2144924/posts?page=19#19
Imagine that......
If God was definable, He wouldn't BE God.
Stevie Wonder? Oh, yes, that great theological giant.
The Bible describes God. Do you read the Bible?
Would it be reasonable to believe that Soliton possesses consciousness?
An astrophysicist reviewer wrote of our book Don't let science get you down, Timothy,
Weak. There is a difference in describing and defining.
He simply misunderstood what I was referring to and either didn't reply to me or I missed it.
Now I see the reason for the confusion. I was referring to your first -second reality dichotomy with God's creation being the first reality (or just reality) and that the laws of physics depending on that reality
But you vote for multiverses.
Are you saying that you understand this?
Do you understand string theory?
Do you understand singularity and the origins of the universe?
Do you understand black holes?
Dark matter?
Job 40:6-8 Then the LORD answered Job out of the storm and said,
"Now gird up your loins like a man; I will ask you, and you instruct Me.
"Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?
I was stalked on FR by a poster who told everyone I was an artificial intelligence program, so maybe not.
You took the words out of my mouth. Hypotheses which can't be tested, even in principle, do not belong to science. It certainly is ironic that atheists are now the principle practitioners of metaphysics. Talking about multiverses is akin to the way medieval folks allegedly debated how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.
Yeah right, I stalked you. I chased you around with a question, framed as an analogy, that you refuse to deal with.
The bottom line is you won’t answer the question because you know it undermines your whole deal here on FR. You demand proof of God yet you can’t even prove the existence of your own mind.
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.