Posted on 10/23/2011 4:30:28 PM PDT by freejohn
I hope that it's okay to post this in the Religion forum!?
I have been thinking about this for quite some time now and have come to my own conclusion and that is .. GOD HAS TO EXIST and not only does he exist .. He is the main argument Against the now popular 'Multi-verse' scenario!
Scientists from many different areas are pondering an infinite number of universes to explain our existence.
They talk about 'string theories' and 'infinite universes' where anything and everything can and does exist!
An example may be that in one universe, I am alive but in another I never was.
In one universe, I am a doctor while in others I may be a lawyer or an Indian Chief while in THIS one .. I'm just another 'smuck'! *)
IF the multi-verse theory were correct then GOD would HAVE to exist simply because 'Scientists' say ALL things MUST take place in 'Infinite Universes'!
Now .. Wouldn't it make sense that if GOD were to exist in even one of these universes then NONE of the rest of those universes could or would exist!?
GOD is a GOD of ORDER and Not a GOD of DISORDER so-o-o .. HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?
I believe that Science has backed itself into a hole on this one!
(or maybe just created another paradox?)
What do you think?
If you were able to get beyond the multi-use of the word 'exist' in my ramblings .. I would Really like you Scientific and Religious thinkers input on this! 8)
1) All things must take place in ‘Infinite Universes’
2) The God of Abraham is included in the set of all things (this is termed from the point of view of the secular logician).
3) Therefore God must be included in at least one of those universes.
But the existence of God rules out the possibility of multiple universes because God’s creation of the heavens and the earth includes everything.
So it’s not an example of a circular argument. It’s an example of an argument in which the conclusion contains a necessary premise which contradicts an essential component of the initial premise, #1.
Interestingly, I just finished the first two books of the Bright Empires series by Christian author Stephen Lawhead, in which he explores that very question.
The third book won't be out for another year, and there will be two more after it ... but I'm looking forward to see where he goes with it.
Possibility #1 says: God is local to a Universe…
Possibility #2 says: God is above a Universe;
And why not a third possibility?
Possibility#3 says: The existence of God is common to and throughout the Universe or all the universes or the multi-verse, however you want to put it.
Your example of four Universes in a Multi-verse has things common among them. One thing is “color”. It manifests itself in different ways but it is still color. The other thing is “objects”, which manifests as sky and earth.
Because each of your Universes has sky and earth each intrinsically has objects, the sky and earth being a manifestation of the existence of objects.
Because each of your Universes has some binary combination of blue, brown, green or yellow each intrinsically has color in it, the blue, brown, green or yellow being a manifestation of the existence of color.
Is it such a leap to say that because each of your Universes has objects and color that God exists in each of them, the objects and color being a manifestation of the existence of God?
Amazing how speculation takes on a life of its own. Given that—really—much of what we know about electrons, for instance, is hypothetical, it is certainly ok to come up with wild and woolly stuff. But, whereas so far our knowledge of electrons is confirmed, or rather NOT disproved by our experience, the multiverse so far ranks right up there with Descartes “Vortices.” as a flight of fancy.
Sounds good to me. Sort of like an electron being at once a particle and a wave.
Genesis presents a unique theory: the creation of all things by a single creator. Babylonian, Greek, and Roman mythology did not posit this at all. So the question is: where did the idea come from?
bflr
“So it’s not an example of a circular argument. It’s an example of an argument in which the conclusion contains a necessary premise which contradicts an essential component of the initial premise, #1.”
Sorry, sport. You can handwave and borrow the form of a logical argument to dress it up BUT ... What that IS is a busted syllogism. Pure and simple.
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
Good book and horrible movie. I think I heard it said lowering the Atlantic would have been better.
God is the Creator of the cosmos, which is everything that exists. That will inclued multiple universes, etc. I don’t have a problem with any of that. If it exists in the natural world, God made it.
Your possibility #3 is equivalent to my possibility #2, with the only minor difference of where God chooses to be - above Universes or within all of them.
Your example of four Universes in a Multi-verse has things common among them. One thing is “color”. It manifests itself in different ways but it is still color.
It's just an example. You can invent a Multiverse that has color in one group of Universes and doesn't have it in another. I only wanted to illustrate a single bit of information. If you want to be exact, each such Multiverse can be described by the n-dimensional space where each coordinate vector defines the property. Binary properties are quantized and have only two states; other properties may be also quantized, or they could be contiguous with all kinds of distribution.
Is it such a leap to say that because each of your Universes has objects and color that God exists in each of them, the objects and color being a manifestation of the existence of God?
Non sequitur. My toolbox contains screwdrivers and hammers and a measuring tape, but this says nothing about existence of God in it or above it.
The most important - if not the only valid - point of this exercise is to prove that existence or nonexistence of the Multiverse (as in several Universes vs. only one) does not help, theologically, to prove existence of God. God may well be there, as an external observer with a microscope or as an internal observer (like an ether) in all Universes, but the Multiverse theory is orthogonal to that hypothesis.
Perhaps it would help if we prove that Multiverses exist (being created naturally or supernaturally.) Then perhaps we can travel between them and study them. Then if we find certain "signatures" that are common to all of them we can start thinking why is that - and that might lead us to more theories, if not to the proof. But a mere theory that Multiverses might exist doesn't buy us anything at this time.
The civilization was large enough to implement many different worldviews. Some of them were weaker and died out. Some of them were stronger and they survived. A church of a single creator is unified and as such is stronger than a bunch of temples of different Gods, each with their own mini-religion.
The paradox is that such a powerful idea came from one of the weaker nations in that world. But it was more than an idea of course. The ancient Egyptians came up with the idea of a single god, but Aton was not a creator. Nor was the God of Plato. What made the idea so powerful was that this creator was also a person like the several gods of the pagans. It basically swallowed up the many gods, reducing them to lesser beings, such as angels and demons.
“...evolution and time travel are linked...who’d a thunk that?”
Certainly not a dinosaur.
“I broke wind today.”
Whenever the opportunity to exorcize my demons presents itself, I take full advantage.
Imagine if there were no way out.
“What that IS is a busted syllogism”
This is only another way of stating what I said.
Again, the argument at the start of this thread is not a circular argument. It’s an example of syllogistic logic in that the conclusion follows from the premise. However, due to certain facts inherent to the conclusion, the premise is refuted.
Therefore, the multiverse theory is untenable.
“the question is: where did the idea come from?”
The nature of the answer to your question depends on whether or not the idea is true.
Sure, one has the right to claim the idea that God created the universe is a myth and then to establish this as a premise—as your question appears to do—but we must remember there is no logical or empirical proof that it’s a myth.
Therefore, one possible answer to your question, one completely consistent with logic, is that the idea came from God when he actually did the thing.
“the question is: where did the idea come from?”
The nature of the answer to your question depends on whether or not the idea is true.
Sure, one has the right to claim the idea that God created the universe is a myth and then to establish this as a premise—as your question appears to do—but we must remember there is no logical or empirical proof that it’s a myth.
Therefore, one possible answer to your question, one completely consistent with logic, is that the idea came from God when he actually did the thing.
One is tempted to resurrect the old saw about ‘People unclear on the concept ...’
You are SO ‘confused’ about what you are saying, the mind boggles.
An argument / syllogism / ‘proof’ that ‘refutes itself’ is, BY DEFINITION, defective and useless. And it don’t matter, no how, what the subject may be or how urgently you NEED said proof to fly.
You can put lipstick on it but it’s still a pig ...
Has it ever occurred to you that there may be sound reasons why you can’t seem to sway or impress anyone who doesn’t already agree with you ?
One Man’s Opinion
21stCenturion
A) G-d would have to "fake" putting photons in motion all across the universe, just to give the appearance of old age. G-d doesnt fake...or decieve.
B) The words in Genesis are Yom Echad..Day one..etc. The word Yom is like the word day in english. It can apply to an era. As in..." in the dinosaurs day...it was warmer" refering to an era of time.
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.