Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? (multiverse invented to replace God?)
CMI ^ | Gary Bates

Posted on 11/18/2009 5:58:48 PM PST by GodGunsGuts

New Scientist magazine is generally regarded by the secular community as one of the top-ranked science magazines in the world. However, a published opinion by a regular columnist demonstrated how “unscientific” and anti-God some of their articles have become—something we have documented before (see Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions).

Amanda Gefter wrote an article discussing multiverse theory, or the idea that our universe may be only one of many that currently exist. Such speculations attempt to explain away the appearance of design in the universe, because of, as we shall see, the spiritual implications. In an article called What’s God got to do with it she wrote: ...

(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: astronomy; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; christianity; christianright; cosmogony; cosmology; creation; electricuniverse; evangelical; evolution; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; multiverse; nasa; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; space; spammer
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last
To: metmom
I am humbled by your amazing ability to see into souls across the internet.
121 posted on 11/19/2009 12:52:13 PM PST by starlifter (Sapor Amo Pullus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

ininformed=uninformed


122 posted on 11/19/2009 12:52:13 PM PST by Wacka
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: metmom

See. You are very defensive of your position and comments.

Not angry, as another poster claims, just strongly defensive.

Stay strong.


123 posted on 11/19/2009 12:55:51 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law
Why would you impose the limitations and constraints of human comprehension on a creation of God?

Is not science an imposition of the limitations and constraints of human comprehension on the creation of God?

124 posted on 11/19/2009 12:57:49 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
We have no proof the Universe is finite. Every day we look deeper and deeper, and all we find is more and more. Our 'problem' with dark matter comes from the fact that the 'mass' we calculate for the Universe is based on the assumption that all we currently 'see' is all there is. Which, again, we prove every day is completely wrong.

Wow, where do I start. It is one of the basic ramifications of the Big Bang theory, (plus others.) From which we get Space-Time is finite.

125 posted on 11/19/2009 12:59:45 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: D Rider

Basing the concept of the Universe being finite (a theory) on the concept of the The Big Bang (another theory) is fairly presumptuous.

Even were the Universe to be finite, what makes you think we have actually found the outer bounds, and that we are even capable of knowing it’s mass?


126 posted on 11/19/2009 1:13:15 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
"Is not science an imposition of the limitations and constraints of human comprehension on the creation of God?"

Actually, I see science as a lens through which to better observe the beauty and majesty of His works. There is a reason Ansel Adams never took pictures of sunsets.

127 posted on 11/19/2009 1:25:18 PM PST by Natural Law
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
Basing the concept of the Universe being finite (a theory) on the concept of the The Big Bang (another theory) is fairly presumptuous."

Even were the Universe to be finite, what makes you think we have actually found the outer bounds, and that we are even capable of knowing it’s mass?

Seriously? If the Univervse was considered ifinite, then why would anyone screw around with the multiverse concept? The concept of infinity is a purely mathematical construct, of which there is no evidence that it is anything but an effective mathematical tool.

So the let take a try at your rhetoric, "the concept of the Infinity (another theory) is fairly presumptuous.

If we continue down that path then who is to say that we can really know anything, since everything we know or understand is based on unknowable or unprovable theories?

128 posted on 11/19/2009 1:30:08 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: starlifter

Likewise, I’m sure.


129 posted on 11/19/2009 1:47:57 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Natural Law

Is it still not limited by the constraints of human comprehension?


130 posted on 11/19/2009 1:53:50 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
who is to say that we can really know anything, since everything we know or understand is based on unknowable or unprovable theories?

Not everything is based on unknowable or unprovable theories.

There are many things we accept in theory, that we may never 'know' because we will never be able to prove them scientifically. It is not necessary that we 'know' in order for things to be, or to work.

Take magnetism or gravity, for example.

131 posted on 11/19/2009 2:00:16 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
It is possible to read anger into the words of others, especially if (as in this case) you are lacking the facial expressions and tone of voice that usually accompany a conversation.

Especially if one wants to.

132 posted on 11/19/2009 2:02:08 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Wacka

Like all the lawsuits trying to keep anything but evolution out of the public schools?

Perfect example.

Science is being used and misused by those with an agenda against Christianity and all we hear from the evos on this forum is support for the efforts of the ACLU and big government control of public schools.


133 posted on 11/19/2009 2:05:20 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: D Rider
If the Univervse was considered ifinite, then why would anyone screw around with the multiverse concept?

(someone already answered this) Because the theory the Universe is finite does not fit with the scientific evidence and mathematical calculations. (i.e. why they had to make up Dark Matter). Therefore, they came up with the multiverse theory to explain the inconsistencies.

The concept of infinity is a purely mathematical construct, of which there is no evidence that it is anything but an effective mathematical tool.

As are the roots of negative numbers, yet they are used in science.

134 posted on 11/19/2009 2:07:52 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
Actually a “multiverse” doesn’t preclude the existence of God. Doesn’t the Bible say that it is the will [desire] of God that none should be lost? If so, then God could have it set up so that at least one instance of any given person does place his trust in God via Jesus...

I've often wondered if our physical plane isn't somewhat like the television band - many different frequencies are possible, but you can only 'see' one at a time. Perhaps universes are set up in the same way - we only see what we're tuned for.


135 posted on 11/19/2009 2:15:52 PM PST by reagan_fanatic (Hope....Change...Unemployment!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Especially if one wants to.

Point of view is everything.

136 posted on 11/19/2009 2:20:26 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic
I've often wondered if our physical plane isn't somewhat like the television band

That is very possible. And, likewise, our physical plane may only be a teeny tiny part of the entire Universe(s), like the TV band is a teeny tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

137 posted on 11/19/2009 2:25:02 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

P.S. Rereading my comment, I realize I said nothing different or additional than what you said.

Maybe I should just have said , “I AGREE”.


138 posted on 11/19/2009 2:28:34 PM PST by UCANSEE2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2
As are the roots of negative numbers, yet they are used in science.

Yes, imaginary numbers are useful, to solve problems, but do we leave the answer in imaginary land?

139 posted on 11/19/2009 2:33:39 PM PST by D Rider
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: goodusername
Can you recommend a couple of good websites on Smolinand lvl2 vs. lvl3 multiverses?

Short on time, long on interest.

Cheers!

140 posted on 11/19/2009 4:09:09 PM PST by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-173 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson