Multiverse theory—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? (multiverse invented to replace God?)

CMI ^ | Gary Bates

[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: ...

[goldstategop]

I don't believe a multiverse detracts from the existence of God. Free will in fact demands the existence of parallel time lines with different branching futures. In "Sliders", the idea you can cross realities is the most well known depiction of the idea. In the "Star Trek TNG" episode "Parallels," as a result of accident, Worf finds himself traveling through a multitude of parallel universes.

[GodGunsGuts]

I see your point, but for some reason the multiverse hypothesis makes the evo-atheists feel better because they believe it makes God less likely.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[freedumb2003]

>>No, they aren’t.<<

Yes, they are.

>>If you continue to insist that they’re angry, you are in essence, calling me a liar.<<

No, just self-delusional.

>>What a crock. For one thing, I never said you personally made such a request. Another evo misrepresentation of what a creationist said.<<

Oh. OK. Just so we know the record.

>>You know that creationists haven’t requested to put these threads in the Religion Forum. It would be a simple matter for GGG to post them there. It’s the evos who have been blowing a gasket about where they think all these threads ought to be posted and complaining that that’s where they belong. Even to the point of keyword spamming the threads.<<

Not sure what your point is. But it doesn’t apply to me, so I guess the reading public is on notice that the people who understand science want something. Or something else...?

>>And I find it extremely unlikely that you’ve missed it all. DC is too well connected for all that.<<

But, miss it I did. Go figger. I may get peeved, but I leave obsession to others.

>>Your false piety and wide-eyed innocent act isn’t fooling anyone. Everyone has seen you in action and if they haven’t, they can simply go to your posting history.<<

It isn’t false piety. I am pretty transparent and consistent in my posting. As far as my posting history goes, I suggest they consult your personal stalking database (also a sign of great anger).

My posts are always more in sorrow than anger. What drives you to post more in anger than sorrow is beyond me. Can you not even read your last few responses? Your anger is palpable. It does not please me that this is the case. It saddens me. I have nothing to be gained by asking you to take a breath and excise your bitterness.

I have never hidden my perspective. My agenda has not wavered one iota. This is about science vs. theology, period.

But if it pleases you to make me the bad guy in your passion play, then so be it. I have no malice towards you and, as I said, I pray for you that you may find peace and resolve your issues.

[JDoutrider]

Universes within Universes bump!

[freedumb2003]

>>Cruel!<<

I thought it was just a bit ‘o fun. If someone tagged me like that I would have LOL.

:)

[OneWingedShark]

>>>—unknown science or illogical raison d’être? (multiverse invented to replace God?), grey_whiskers wrote:
>>— Ada with a very uniform structure and syntax implies that it was designed.
>>
>>— C / C++ with its horrid inconsistencies cannot be assumed to have been designed or [exclusive] grown.
>
>Begging the question.
>What are the design specs?

For C/C++ vs Ada? Ada used the Strawman, Ironman, Steelman sequence of specs as a progression during its design (basically a competition sponsored by the DOD) and was “ratified” with an ISO spec afterwards (1986 if memory serves); while C/C++ didn’t have ANY standardization until after 1990. (C basically had two main ‘standards’ R&K or AT&T until that point.)

>Were they agreed upon, and held to, during the course of the project?

Ada: yes. C: no. C++: no. {C & C++ didn’t have a ‘project’ for their design to speak of.}

>Did the builders strictly adhere to the design specs?

Ada: Yes; there is an entire validation process/suite that a compiler must pass to be called an Ada compiler; also super and subsets are not allowed (though there are portions the spec says are optional, such as garbage collection).

C/C++: No. These languages “grew” and were not actually designed, for the most part. There is a parsing-rule in R&K, the developer’s version, which states that when there are multiple tokens possible the longest one is to be taken; thusly *p/*q SHOULD be taken as the token “p” followed by an open-comment, yet many implementations take it to be the dereference of p divided by the dereference of q.

>Did they allow enough time for QA?

For the Ada process, yes, it is well-documented. For the C/C++ processes... not that I’ve heard of.

>Did someone screw up the project as part of a union protest, or through incompetence?

Actually how does this apply to the creation of a/many universe[es]? Either it works [as it was designed to] or it doesn’t.

>If you’re going to mention design, allow for all the regular snafus.

Why? Just because an implementation wasn’t adhered to... or that it was ill-designed doesn’t say anything about its actually BEING designed (except the adjectives show prior-knowledge on our part).

{However, a well-designed system usually has indications of its being designed.}

Are you unfamiliar with the [logical] implication? It is ONLY false (doesn’t hold) when the implicand is false while the implicator is true; that is to say that as a truth-table it is as follows:

A->B| B=T | B=F |
A=T | T | F
A=F | T | T

[freedumb2003]

>>Metmom, angry? Not! She is one of the most thoughtful people on these threads. It could be that you are projecting either your own emotional state, or your own heartfelt desire to make Metmom angry. Think about it.<<

I invite you to reread the thread. The anger is palpable, thoughtful or not. I understand your instinctive desire to rush to the defense of your ally, but, really this time, read the posts and see if they seem angry.

As for me, is there anything that I have posted on this thread that seems in the slightest bit even peeved, much less angry?

I really was hoping this was a thread where we could come together in general agreement, and I have been nothing but cheerful and inviting.

And I will continue to be so. There is no reason for animus when we have a chance to rib our science brethren on an idea that is pretty “out there.”

Oh well — I guess the highway doesn’t go to the light after all. :(

[freedumb2003]

So, let me ask. Does a parallel thread within a thread suggest a parallel Universe? If you posit T0 (the original), then if T1 (the branch) is non-euclideanly permanently parallel to the origination (that is to say there is no further referent to the source) have we in fact stumbled onto a new Universe?

I need more beer to work this potential conundrum through.

And an APL keyboard.

[grey_whiskers]

Cutting to the chase so I can finish Going Rogue:

>>— Ada with a very uniform structure and syntax implies that it was designed. >> >>— C / C++ with its horrid inconsistencies cannot be assumed to have been designed or [exclusive] grown.

Why? Just because an implementation wasn’t adhered to... or that it was ill-designed doesn’t say anything about its actually BEING designed (except the adjectives show prior-knowledge on our part).

There is at least one confusion in language somewhere in the thread: I merely copied the sentences about Ada and C++.

The important thing here is that ADA "implies" it was designed, but C++ "cannot be assumed".

This to me sounds like a different standard for the two different languages.

Unless you are saying that a certain amount of structure and syntax is necessary to *infer* design with some degree of confidence; that Ada meets this threshold, whatever it is, and C++ does not: but that C++ happens to have been (in some fashion) designed anyway?

As in the following quote:

Why? Just because an implementation wasn’t adhered to... or that it was ill-designed doesn’t say anything about its actually BEING designed (except the adjectives show prior-knowledge on our part).

This is what I was trying to say in a roundabout fashion: by explicitly laying out some of the pitfalls in the design/implementation process, I was pointing out that even things which *were* designed can come up looking pretty lousy.

And that therefore, just as you said, something looking bad is not sufficient to declare it "not designed".

(And then there is the further issue of what constitutes "designed" -- is it data types, structures, standardization common features?

We are in agreement, I think.

Cheers!

[grey_whiskers]

That's deeper than you think.

Non-religious:

Does Universe imply self-existence?

If so, what is the "space" in which vacuum fluctuations occur that leads to parallel universes?

What is the relation of time within one multiverse to another; and the relation of time in both to the "pre-universe"?

Religious: "Eternally begotten of the Father" and all that.

I've already had my wine for the night, or I'd join you in the beer.

Labatt's Blue this time.

:-)

See, even the Trinity exhibits features common to multiverses.

[freedumb2003]

>>Does Universe imply self-existence?<<

The nature of reality does not change in a Universe or Multiverse model. Car keys and remote control units get lost equally in all.

>>If so, what is the “space” in which vacuum fluctuations occur that leads to parallel universes?<<

My bet is it the gas we all have after a really good meal...

>>What is the relation of time within one multiverse to another; and the relation of time in both to the “pre-universe”?<<

Picture a tesseract twisted into a Mobius strip. We get proper causality but across n-Space. Besides, it is a great way to kill a 5th of JD.

>>Religious: “Eternally begotten of the Father” and all that.<<

Seriously, my God spans the Universes, Multiverses, Miniverses and Nullverses. The more unbelievable and yet concrete the “everything” we live in, the more awesome is the God who strides across it all, and yet looked with kindness on His Children and sent His Son to die an agonizing and personal death for us. We do not know, nor does it matter theologically, if there are others who have, need or received a Savior. The important thing is he saw us in need and saved us.

>>See, even the Trinity exhibits features common to multiverses.<<

If there is a multiverse that doesn’t have beer, then there is a multiverse me that is very, very unhappy!

Cheers, mate!

[rogue yam]

It’s a multiverse wrapped in an enigma.

[Poe White Trash]

Are you talking about the Earth-One or the Earth-Two Gardner Fox?

[giotto]

Absolutely. We try to define God in terms of our limited understanding, forgetting that the very definition of God is that He is beyond understanding.

[American Constitutionalist]

Whether there is one universe or a multiple of universes, God transcends all that exists, and God transcends time it's self.
God is not bound to time or our thinking as we are as in a " Universe " ..... God is eternal.

[American Constitutionalist]

" It is just scientists thinking out of the box. "
Yeah, either it's free thought ( as in, anything goes, or anything that the imagination can think of ), or taking to much LSD.

[American Constitutionalist]

" Doesn’t the Bible say that it is the will [desire] of God that none should be lost? "

If only that we were in the room while scripture was being written would we know the original intent of what the person who write it meant, or that the Holy Spirit would reveal and teach us these things.


NOT WILLING THAT NONE SHOULD PERISH


We can be assured that we are not the only generation that has dealt with and debated what this scripture means, or meant.
Whether anyone believes in freedom of choice, there will be those who will reject the free gift of salvation that God offers through what Jesus Christ has done for us.

For those who believe in that mankind has free choice can not blame God when they reject salvation through Jesus Christ and stand at the throne of judgment and tell God " why didn't you predestine that I would accept the gift of salvation through Jesus Christ ".

[Natural Law]

"The old game that used to be played with infinite time is now being played with infinite space."

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

[metmom]

It’s a common manipulation technique that I’ve seen non-believers use on believers.

They think that believers are such wimps and so worried about what non-believers think about them, that they can throw a believer into a tailspin by accusing them of *unChristlike* behavior.

I’ve heard the *you’re a bad Christian*, *what kind of Christian are you?*, *Christians aren’t supposed to get angry*, yada, yada, yada. They’ve thrown Bible verses at believers and told them that *real* Christians shouldn’t act like *that*.

They figure that if they can convince the believer that God is not happy with their behavior, the Christian will adjust his or her behavior to comply with what the non-believer wants.

I’ve found that it really has nothing to do with whether the behavior is Scriptural or not. It’s got everything to do with whether the non-believer likes what the believer is doing or saying.

So by invoking the wrath of God, or at least His disapproval, or telling them that they aren’t a *good witness*, they can send the believer into a tailspin in trying to change that behavior into something the non-believer finds inoffensive.

The problem is, adjusting one’s behavior to please another NEVER works. Aside from completely abandoning everything I believe in which would remove any conviction the non-believer would feel, my changing to please someone else won’t please them anyway. Learned that one over the years.

Jesus was perfect and that still wasn’t good enough for many. He told them the truth and they took offense as well, and he heard the same sort of nonsense Himself. I don’t expect to not hear it either, being a follower of His.

Their projecting motives on me does not make it true. And if they don’t like it, in all honesty, I don’t care. They can not like it all the want and I’ll still sleep tonight.