Posted on 12/25/2008 7:02:01 PM PST by tpanther
'Multiverse' Theory Fails to Explain Away God by Brian Thomas, M.S.
New discoveries continue to reveal the life-friendly properties of our universe, in which physical laws are seemingly fine-tuned to allow life to exist. To get around the appearance of design, secular scientists have to invent naturalistic explanations that exclude the possibility of supernatural origins. The latest of these inventions is “multiverses.”
The force of gravity, the specific masses of subatomic particles, the exact strengths of fundamental physical forces, and the distance of the earth from other galaxies and from the sun are all essential for the delicate balance needed to sustain life. Bernard Carr, cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London, told Discover, “If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.”1
The multiverse hypothesis holds that our entire universe is only one of an infinite number of other universes. In this way, all conceivable fundamental construction parameters could exist in a vast array of alternate realities. Most of these imaginary universes would not have the right conditions for life to exist, but by a cosmic coincidence, all the life-friendly forces of our universe happened to line up correctly.
There is no evidence for the existence of alternate universes, and if a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it is not open to scientific investigation. Stanford University visionary physicist Andrei Linde seemed adamant, however, that though this theory is not scientific, it must be true because it is logically necessary. When asked whether physicists will ever be able to prove the multiverse in the absence of any hope for physical confirmation, he told Discover, “Nothing else fits the data.”
What data? ...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.edu ...
Ping to post 19
P.S. No offense—the paper is not bad—but the paper is not as compelling as it should be. There needs to be more physics in the paper to explain how even the notion of mutliverses is absurd and contrary to the basic pressupositions of scientific reason — in ways that a infinitely more damaging to the prospects of science than the belief in God. In fact, science itself would not exist were it not for a monotheism that allows for belief in a universe that is founded on the notion of a rational universe that is orderly and predictable — a notion that never arose in any pagan culture even when they had the power and resources to take advantaage of it (e.g. Ancient Egypt, Classical Greece, Ancient Aztects, etc etc).
I don't think there's any perhaps about that subject. It really tickles me with the little we now know or maybe with the little we will ever really know, how many people have decided it can only be this way or that way concerning God and science. Some people think way too much of themselves in their knowledge about both God and science. Hubris approaching the infinite IMHO.
I have a feeling it is way, way more complicated than we could ever imagine.
But in some sense, it is far simpler. As simple as a childs toy. As simple as a hula hoop.
And ultimately, if we were ever able to really see it as a totality, with all the BS stripped away, we’d laugh our aces off.
I can’t argue with that. I will disagree though...
The purpose of science is not to “explain away God” any more than it is to blame God for our ignorance. Learning even a small corner of science can be a lifelong journey. Understanding the Universe is far and beyond more than many lifetimes. And it will all be revealed in God’s time, not in Man’s.
Indeed, ever since evidence for the big bang blew away the notion that the universe has always been here, the naturalists have been figuring how to get infinity back into nature. Essentially to figure how nature might transcend nature, so that nothing else need do so.
The general wave models, You think think that a holographric universe can exist without Heisenberg???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
What do you think?
Naturalism therefore Naturalism. Thus evidence is irrelevant except to determine how Naturalism. Oh how smart they are!
They even will occasionally deign to amuse themselves with the ridiculous fantasy notion of something beyond natuarlism. Of coarse, they will do so with great arrogance, blindness, and willful ignorance...just enough to convince themselves they are being honest...before getting back to: Naturalism therefore Naturalism...
I used to be in that trap. But behind it was my unwillingness to face up to my Creator.
Until they have the courage to face it, no amount of evidence will mean anything to them. Even if a man were to rise from the dead.
The point is, the Heisenberg Uncertaintly Principle is not about randomness, but about probability. Big difference.
Sorry, i posted too soon. To expland upon my last point — randomness is linked to probability, obviously, but randomness is a state of the probability of some state of affairs — meaning essentially that all outcomes are equally likely. That’s not what Heisenberg’s principle concludes, as I understand it.
Heisenberg had serious mental problems. I bet he really though his cat could teleport.
It was Schrodinger’s cat. And I don’t believe the thought experiment involved anything to do with teleportation. Not sure where that came from.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, [even] His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified [Him] not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. [Rom 1:20-25]
There is no evidence for the existence of alternate universes, and if a concept cannot be proved or disproved, it is not open to scientific investigation.
The concept of alternate universes has not been shown to be neither provable nor disprovable. The fact that there is currently no evidence for the existence of alternate universes does not rule out the discovery of such evidence in the future.
To be sure, that was one kosmic kitty
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.