“The broadest definition of the universe can be found in De divisione naturae by the medieval philosopher and theologian Johannes Scotus Eriugena, who defined it as simply everything: everything that is created and everything that is not created.” (Wikipedia (for what it's worth)).
Consider that there turned out to be more to the Universe than there was thought to be. What was considered to be the Universe turns out to be one of the Multi-verses within the Universe.
*******************
If the “Uni” in Universe derives from the Latin for One, the word “Universes” is kind of contradictory.
*******************
“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’!”
What I've read that they've said is (more or less) that in order for God to be God everything that could happen has to happen. (I may not have quoted that accurately.)
********************
“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!?”
No. First, given what I wrote above, those universes aren't really universes, but multi-verses within the universe. I don't see why he can't exist in all the multi-verses within the universe. (I know that's not the way “they” talk about it, but sometimes you have to kind of translate in your own head what people say in order to make sense of them.)
Second, what you wrote can be read to imply that God is dependent on a universe to exist. I don't see that. He exists independently but within the Universe (including its Multi-verses) He created.
*****************
“HOW could such a chaotic universe or in this case Chaotic Universes exist!?”
Granted, you and I are unable to make sense of it, but doesn't mean it's Chaotic. The problem more likely rests with our lack of ability.
In doing this I was more constructive for God than studying this theory.
We are in the flesh, we are sinners, and we need a savior.
Believe in Jesus Christ, that he is who he claims to be, repent and be baptized in the Holy Spirit, AND LIVE.
I will wait for answers to the mysteries of creation when I see him in heaven face to face.
Even if the theory is true, God is not contained by His own creation. God resides outside of space and time, which does not preclude His ability to enter and exit it as He chooses.
HE quite well knows you exist, and awaits your FINAL decision.
There are no mulligans, nor can you ask for a moment to “consider”.
Your deeds are wholly secondary: DO YOU ACCEPT JESUS THE CHRIST AS YOUR SAVIOUR?
Your answer is your fate.
I honestly want to share everlasting life with you and folk of your philosopical bent, simply for the arguments we’ll have!
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.
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.
bflr
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.
I think you are onto it though. In our universe, ~73% of it's entirety is Dark Energy, ~23% is Dark Matter and 4% is the "stuff" that we can see, stars, galaxies etc. Scientists do not understand exactly what composes dark energy or dark matter.
But atheists like Lawrence Krauss will tell you with a straight face (on youtube) that the universe was created from a quantum fluctuation and required no god. Even though they cant explain 96% of the universe...they "know" that.
bookmark
"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!?"
No, that doesn't make sense. There's no paradox. Your premise is that every possible universe exists. That would therefore include a god in some of those universes. But your conclusion is that a gods in any number of the individual universes somehow equates to a single god of the multiverse. You've mixed up in your head the parent multiverse and children universes.
If something arises within a child universe because all possible child universes must exists, that something exists inside that child universe only.
IF the multi-verse theory were correct then UNICORNS, HOBBITS, and LEPRECHAUNS would HAVE to exist simply because 'Scientists' say ALL things MUST take place in 'Infinite Universes'!
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'!
Assuming you're right, would He be God in all the universes or just in one or two?
In other words would He be what believers usually mean by "God" -- omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent?
Too bad I was too busy with other things and missed out on this thread. Very interesting. Maybe next time. But 21stCenturion is right, since the definition of ‘Multi-verse’ defines all other ‘universes’ as being entirely outside the experiential limits of this one, and thus impossible to verify one way or the other, it is merely conjecture and nothing more. And all it can ever remain.
You might like the following from Martain’s Saint Thomas Aquinas
Reasons in Proof of the Existence of God
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_13.htm
WE will put first the reasons by which Aristotle proceeds to prove the existence of God from the consideration of motion as follows.
Everything that is in motion is put and kept in motion by some other thing. It is evident to sense that there are beings in motion. A thing is in motion because something else puts and keeps it in motion. That mover therefore either is itself in motion or not. If it is not in motion, our point is gained which we proposed to prove, namely, that we must posit something which moves other things without being itself in motion, and this we call God. But if the mover is itself in motion, then it is moved by some other mover. Either then we have to go on to infinity, or we must come to some mover which is motionless; but it is impossible to go on to infinity, therefore we must posit some motionless prime mover. In this argument there are two propositions to be proved: that everything which is in motion is put and kept in motion by something else; and that in the series of movers and things moved it is impossible to go on to infinity.*
The Philosopher also goes about in another way to show that it is impossible to proceed to infinity in the series of efficient causes, but we must come to one first cause, and this we call God. The way is more or less as follows. In every series of efficient causes, the first term is cause of the intermediate, and the intermediate is cause of the last. But if in efficient causes there is a process to infinity, none of the causes will be the first: therefore all the others will be taken away which are intermediate. But that is manifestly not the case; therefore we must posit the existence of some first efficient cause, which is God.*
Another argument is brought by St John Damascene (De Fid. Orthod. I, 3), thus: It is impossible for things contrary and discordant to fall into one harmonious order always or for the most part, except under some one guidance, assigning to each and all a tendency to a fixed end. But in the world we see things of different natures falling into harmonious order, not rarely and fortuitously, but always or for the most part. Therefore there must be some Power by whose providence the world is governed; and that we call God
And...
Of the Opinion of those who say that the Existence of God is a Tenet of Faith alone and cannot he demonstrated
http://www2.nd.edu/Departments//Maritain/etext/gc1_12.htm
THE falseness of this opinion is shown to us as well by the art of demonstration, which teaches us to argue causes from effects, as also by the order of the sciences, for if there be no knowable substance above sensible substances, there will be no science above physical science; as also by the efforts of philosophers, directed to the proof of the existence of God; as also by apostolic truth asserting: The invisible things of God are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made (Rom. i, 20).* The axiom that in God essence and existence are the same is to be understood of the existence whereby God subsists in Himself, the manner of which is unknown to us, as also is His essence; not of the existence which signifies an affirmative judgement of the understanding. For in the form of such affirmative judgement the fact that there is a God falls under demonstration; as our mind is led by demonstrative reasons to form such a proposition declaratory of the existence of God.* In the reasonings whereby the existence of God is demonstrated it is not necessary to assume for a premise the essence or quiddity* of God: but instead of the quiddity the effect is taken for a premise, as is done in demonstrations a posteriori from effect to cause. All the names of God are imposed either on the principle of denying of God Himself certain effects of His power, or from some habitude of God towards those effects.* Although God transcends sense and the objects of sense, nevertheless sensible effects are the basis of our demonstration of the existence of God. Thus the origin of our own knowledge is in sense, even of things that transcend sense.
Secondly, even if there are multiverses, who says the entire grand scheme is chaotic?
Thirdly, God doesn't exist IN the universe or even a multiverse, God is more than that.
To Safrguns point, taking evolution for what it is currently does not prove or disprove God's hand. Extrapolating it backwards to an unprovable point moves out of science and into religiousity. Yes, you can see various butterflies adapt and evolve into different forms, but going back to a point of origin is a little more than guesses. There is nothing wrong with the idea of something evolving, but making it a religion is wrong and unscientific