Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/25/2008 7:02:01 PM PST by tpanther
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last
To: metmom; valkyry1; GodGunsGuts; Ethan Clive Osgoode; Fichori; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; ...

ping!


2 posted on 12/25/2008 7:04:27 PM PST by tpanther (The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing---Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
Multiverse theory fails to explain away God

This is good news. God must have been very anxious about the ramifications of this. What if it had gone the other way?!

3 posted on 12/25/2008 7:04:32 PM PST by the invisib1e hand (appeasement is collaboration.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

The theory may explain away some particular fairy tales, but why would one expect it to explain away God?


4 posted on 12/25/2008 7:09:39 PM PST by Moonman62 (The issue of whether cheap labor makes America great should have been settled by the Civil War.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
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.

ABG.

It just goes to show how desperate the evoatheists are to get rid of God. They'll believe stuff that has no evidence to back it up, try to pass it off as science to give it SOME sort of credibility (which really gives science a good name, dontcha know), stretch the truth, ANYTHING but God.

5 posted on 12/25/2008 7:18:37 PM PST by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

“The multiverse hypothesis “

It is a hypothesis — have at it.


6 posted on 12/25/2008 7:19:38 PM PST by freedumb2003 (Der neuen Fuhrer: AKA the Murdering Messiah: Keep your powder dry, folks)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
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.

This proves God IMO.
8 posted on 12/25/2008 7:24:57 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
Let me see if I've got this straight: some scientists honestly believe that science cannot be scientific, in the presence of intelligent design, and so they've embraced this odd attempt at end-running an inconvenient conclusion, thereby permitting the continuance of a priori beliefs. And, these scientists see no conflict in doing so, in the name of a science that forbids the exploration of certain possibilities?

This isn't science, it's propaganda.

9 posted on 12/25/2008 7:28:38 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
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.

Or perhaps life adapted to existing conditions.

10 posted on 12/25/2008 7:28:51 PM PST by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

It’s a crude hologram. No split universes. God is laughing at our obtuse nature. :) Merry Christmas everyone.


11 posted on 12/25/2008 7:37:11 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

it must be true because it is logically necessary”

More accurate would be to say that God exists, b/c that is logically necessary


14 posted on 12/25/2008 7:40:31 PM PST by ConservativeDude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

This multivervse theory is more than 2 decades old right now.


16 posted on 12/25/2008 7:46:04 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

This “multiverse” theory is one of the most ridiculous ideas that some people come up with — all for the purpose of *not invoking God* in the matter... LOL..


17 posted on 12/25/2008 7:48:20 PM PST by Star Traveler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

The multiverse theory, in order to remove the threat of the God hypothesis, would have to also exclude multiple universes that operate according to the same fundamental principles of physics. This would, in effect, completely destroy the very foundation of scientific reason. It would imply that “universal” principles of science would only be applicable in our universe, but not in any other, and therefore are merely relative.

So, to destroy the reasonable hypothesis of a Creator, the atheists are willing to dispense with the very foundation of the enterprise they wish to use to supplant God—scientific materialism. The irony is so rich, it is unbelievable. They are seriously backed into a philosophical corner with nowhere to turn but to a completely irrational and fanciful conjecture which, in principle, could never be empirically validated and even if it could be, it would negate the validity of the empirical validation. LOL!


19 posted on 12/25/2008 7:51:25 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

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).


23 posted on 12/25/2008 8:00:33 PM PST by bdeaner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

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.


28 posted on 12/25/2008 8:07:26 PM PST by theDentist (Qwerty ergo typo : I type, therefore I misspelll)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
“If there is only one universe, you might have to have a fine-tuner" -- Bernard Carr, cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London

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]

38 posted on 12/25/2008 9:02:08 PM PST by B-Chan (Catholic. Monarchist. Texan. Any questions?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther
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.

39 posted on 12/25/2008 9:02:56 PM PST by snarks_when_bored
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

“If I knew God I’d be Him.”


44 posted on 12/25/2008 9:24:27 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

There is no such thing as a multiverse period!!!!! Save me please, I really like cheese;)...


50 posted on 12/25/2008 11:51:35 PM PST by allmost
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tpanther

I had herd that one theologians centuries ago postulated that there were 10 dimensions in the universe because of the ten times that God spoke I AM or let there be. Does any one know how many known dimensions there are in the universe?


51 posted on 12/26/2008 12:07:33 AM PST by guitarplayer1953 (Psalm 83:1-8 is on the horizon.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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