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 ...
Damn!
I was hoping you might have gotten banned for the nine posts in a row that you had removed from a legitimate string theory thread.
I am going to pause for a moment, and reflect.
Yes.
This was the single-most lucid and cogent sentence ever posted on FR.
Well done.
The existence of both free will and predestination as truth. It may be a decent theological/philosophical discussion if it doesn't get sidetracked by the usual commentary on crevo threads.
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...
Of course that would be as weak a claim against evangelizing as predestination would. Perhaps it would be wisest to have the confidence [in God] that predestination affords while holding to the caution-for-righteousness that “lose-your-salvation” encourages... we could apply this idea to the universe/multiverse theory and hope that God will save [a version of everyone] while behaving as if this is the only universe we can know.
Ok, I'll give you that much, but I fail to see any science either.
To stretch a few observed quantum uncertainties into Multiverse is wild conjecture at best. Where is the emerging empiricity? (it isn't)
>> Multiverse? A mathematical speculation; and an approach to physics that introduces more dimensions into the equation. If one remembers that mathematics is language describing reality and not reality itself, then one may put things into perspective a little easier. <<
Indeed and if multiverses exist and if, even bigger if that people can travel to them, The it would prove that God created them too, making God far more powerful glorious and great than we could even imagine.
The old game that used to be played with infinite time is now being played with infinite space.
+1 good post..
I cx’d my subscription to this a while ago after they went whole hog for “global warming”. I’m afraid that their science has become a joke.
However, the multiverse theory is indeed a logical conclusion if certain physics givens are taken as a start.
In no way does this theory eliminate God. One must always remember that by definition, God will always be hidden from us. I’ll leave that logic to you...because it’s quite beyond a good many of the New Scientist writers.
Perhaps you meant “hyper-calvinism” then?
I consider myself to be calvinistic in the general sense, but its also plain that God in no way intended to create a race of puppets.
Here is a lesson in free will vs. predestination for you. I have to bug out of this discussion for the moment because I promised to cook dinner for my wife!
I think that you may have something there.
See, I don't care what they (or I ) say, there is a decent fella in there somewhere.. Maybe if you knock off the name calling and quips you could be a better witness.
Multiverse theory is the gospel of indecisiveness.
When you make a choice, no other choice was made somewhere else, and no alternate universe springs into existence where an alternate you made a different choice. Reality is that you just have to deal with the consequences of your choice.
>>To stretch a few observed quantum uncertainties into Multiverse is wild conjecture at best. Where is the emerging empiricity? (it isn’t)<<
I am with you on this one. It sounds like a bunch of drunk sophomores in the dorm on Saturday night to me.
The good news is I don’t think they have tried to actually publish this in any peer-reviewed journals.
Then God is bound to our timeline of action/reaction and He doesn’t know or determine the future?
>>When you make a choice, no other choice was made somewhere else, and no alternate universe springs into existence where an alternate you made a different choice. Reality is that you just have to deal with the consequences of your choice.<<
I checked with my nVerse counterpart and he tells me you didn’t post that over there. But he says you are considered good-looking by the criteria there, so maybe the Multiverses are always a zero-sum game?
;)
Perhaps the multiple universes exist simultaneously and the most important differentiation is whether or not you have chosen to have faith. More pity to the atheist then who has chosen to be not saved. With faith, the journey continues...
>>Then God is bound to our timeline of action/reaction and He doesn’t know or determine the future?<<
Probably, but he is like a good critic and never posts spoilers...
..and what is wrong with that? Some of the greatest minds, from Aristotle to C.S.Lewis were known to discuss philosophy over a few too many.. Even Luke says that the Phrasees complained Jesus drank too much (Luke 7:34 et al)
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.