I take it then you aren’t a Calvinist?
Ping!
OK, you got me on this one.
No way is a “Multiverse” anything other than blue-sky philosophy. It matches the same number of Scientific Theory criteria as intelligent design.
Now, saying it is part of some sort of cabal planning on replacing God is pretty funny, in a Trvther sort of way.
It is just scientists thinking out of the box.
Anything but God!
I am always amused when a scientist discovers some additional complexity to the cosmos and pronounces that, therefore, God must not exist. The logical trainwreck of that conclusion defies explanation and illustrates the ignorance of the scientist. Simply to move from one level of complexity to another in no way ‘disproves’ the existence of God. Instead, it ought to suggest to us that God, if God exists (and I do believe) is even bigger, more powerful and more awesome than we thought before.
In fact, I believe I will continue to be surprised and awed throughout eternity.
Simply stated: the problem is that our universe is finite in size and in time, which makes the self organization of matter into life an impossibility.
If universes are finite entities, but the number of them are infinite then the problem is solved, we don't need God for life. We are just one of the lucky universes in an unlimited number of them.
John 14:2
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.
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.
The old game that used to be played with infinite time is now being played with infinite space.
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.
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.
It seems that much of what is passing for science these days has that goal.
Instead of a search for knowledge to improve the lot of mankind, it's become an agenda driven machine which is being misused for mostly political gain but also for ideological gain.
It's become the most popular tool going with which to attack and belittle religious faith in general, and Christianity in particular.
One only has to scan threads on FR to glean that.
I thought the multiverse theory was discovered by Gardner Fox in an effort to explain the fact that there were two Flashes, one from the Golden Age and one from the Silver Age.
What posssses someone to think they make that the only terms that it can be addressed as?
It’s a multiverse wrapped in an enigma.
“But the many worlds view asserts that there are parallel universes, one for each possibility. The multi-universe idea is a subset of this idea. But it goes further.”
—Wrong. The multi-universe he describes is completely independent of the many-worlds interpretation of QM. One is not a subset of the other - they have nothing to do with each other. Either one could be true and the other wrong, or both could be wrong, or both correct. (In some classification schemes the many-worlds interpretation is referred to as a “lvl 3 multiverse” and the idea that there are many universes each with different constants is a “lvl 2 multiverse”. Lee Smolin’s theory of “fecund universes” fits into that category.)
“Second, why cosmic inflation is used to support the multiverse notion is not understood by the writer of this article (me).”
—What’s being referred to is the “chaotic inflation theory”, another variant of a lvl 2 multiverse. Basically, pockets of dark energy within a universe producing new universes.
“Thirdly, string theory, or the theory that the universe might exist in multiple branes or dimensions, is presently completely unobservable and untestable. However, its advocates would also claim that it is not falsifiable, and therefore, it might be correct. To use this argument is completely circular in its reasoning and short on substance.”
—I challenge anyone to find a string theory advocate ever using such an argument.