R. S. Martin Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 This goes over my head. Evangelical authors presented a paper "God and the Multiverse" at an Evangelical Philosophical Society the other day and posted it online. You can download it from here. They argue that the idea of "many worlds" goes all the way back to Aristotle, and they trace it through the Christian Church Fathers. Does anyone here know if "many worlds" actually is/means the same as "multiverse"? I confess I didn't really get beyond that because it felt like someone is blind-siding me with twisted facts and concepts. Besides, they say "if the multiverse exists..." They have now figured out how to fit God in with the mulitverse if it turns out that it exists. I don't get it--this is all on the level of philosophy, which in my opinion is mere word games. Don't we need physical evidence to know if something exists? I have always thought physical or empirical evidence is what differentiates between the imaginary and the real. I think this is really two questions: Are these Christians using the terms "multiverse" and "many worlds" the same way as the scientists are? Is philosophy a reliable way to determine the existence/non-existence of physical reality? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
par4dcourse Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I doubt early philosophers could fathom multiverses. I would take "worlds" to mean what could be seen. It sounds like they're trying to prove a non provable god (beyond space and time) with a non provable theory. Light has a maximum speed, so we can only 'see" what the far reaches of the universe looked like billions of years ago. Proof will be some time coming, for god and the multiverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Babylonian Dream Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Either way, I'm not suprised there's talk of this. It's a step away from YEC at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
midniterider Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 . Meh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mongoni Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I'm still inclined to believe that we are all the result of a vast super computer simulation made to study evolution by hyper intelligent alien beings. But thats just me. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Hey RS! Pease read this... ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted 23 October 2012 - 06:56 AM Hi Ficino! Your reply to the Dude has just triggered a minor earthquake in my brain! Please look at what I've emboldened and then read on, lower down. Thanks. ficino, on 23 October 2012 - 04:57 AM, said: I don't think Dr. Truth would argue against God's omnipotence by using materially false ideas like "a rock so heavy that an omnipotent being can't lift it" or "a square triangle." We both know how the Calvinist will make God's knowledge of creatures and of events follow His will, along the lines of "God knows all things in their causes" (what my seminary systematic theology prof used to say), and God is the first cause of all chains of causes. You may be familiar with Molinism (Ordinary Clay appeals to this theory). Molina was a Jesuit who introduced the notion of God's middle knowledge: God's knowledge of all possibilities. Wm. Lane Craig is a modern Protestant exponent of this approach. Molinists argue that before creation, God knew all the free choices you would make under all possible sets of circumstances (in all possible worlds, to put it another way), and God chose to actualize one set of possibilities- He created one actual world out of the many possible ones. Once created, all things in the world occur as they are determined by chains of causes going back to creation, but the entire set-up includes free-will choices of creatures, which God merely foresaw. Centauri, Citsonga, BAA and I tried to show Ordinary Clay that this doctrine is unbiblical, but OC just dropped out of the discussion, to reappear later as though his beliefs had not been refuted. I don't think I can go any further in trying to interpret Dr. Truth. I'm not sure whether he thinks that his argument against God's omniscience, to which you took exception, is a sound one or whether he was putting it out there to test Christian responses. Now, we know how good Christianity is, when it comes to mutating and adapting to new challenges, don't we? So, if a Multiverse is discovered by cosmologists, what are certain Christians going to do? They're going to say this. The Multiverse, where all possibilities are played out, under all sets of possible circumstances (in all possible worlds) is proof that God actualizes ALL possible worlds. It doesn't matter if Jesus is crucified more than once or even an infinite number of times in all of these possible worlds, because WE cannot know this, we can only surmise it. Therefore, from our limited and finite p.o.v., Jesus is crucified only once, for the sins of all in THIS universe. Thus, the Bible text is not violated, God is glorified throughout the Multiverse and, even if Jesus has to suffer an infinite number of times, God is eternal and infinite - so He can meet and overcome this challenge. Hallelujah!!! What do you think Ficino? The Multiverse is Modalism made Real. Is that the next twist in the evolution of Christianity? You can drive a stake thru it's heart, but you can never kill it! Oy vey! BAA ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If you follow this link, RS... http://www.ex-christ...heir-own-forum/ ...you'll see the context in which my dialog with Ficino occurs. In a nutshell, an atheist called Dr.Truth annihilated the residents at the Christianforums site. I drew people's attention to it and asked that the thread be pinned here. Then Duderonomy asked Ficino to explain what all of this Modalism and Molinism was about. He did so and I chimed in with the above response. Ficino more or less confirmed my thinking (see posts #44 and #45) and now you've found bona fide evidence that the Christians are doing what I said they'd do. They're getting ready to make a pre-emptive strike. They've seen that there's a possibility that cosmologists might soon discover other universes, so they're getting ready to show that Christianity encompasses Multiversal theory - therefore Christianity MUST be true! If you want more info on the Multiverse, please start here... http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Multiverse For a better understanding of Modalism, Molinism and God's Middle knowledge, please ask Ficino, he's up on it more than I am. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 You called this one, BAA! I can't devote time now to trying to understand the multiverse theory as astronomers or physicists develop it. I have read some David Lewis on modal realism in philosophy (one of his papers and a reply by another chap are next to me as I type). As it seems to me, Molinism of the Wm. Lane Craig sort is trying to solve a different problem, but his problem may collapse into a larger multiverse problem, I'm not sure. anyway, for Craig and his ilk you might say that the starting point is "world" as Wittgenstein defined it, i.e. the world is all that is the case. There is the actual world, which, from the point of view of propositions, is the sum of all true, contingent propositions (e.g. Adam was formed from dust of the ground, the Dodgers won the pennant in '56 but lost the Series, BAA denied Christ, etc etc). Then there are a multiplicity of other possible worlds that are never actualized: e.g. the world in which it's the case that BAA remained a Christian to the end of his days, the Dodgers beat the Yankees in every Series in the 1950s, etc etc). Those worlds are counterfactual because God chose to create World 1 and not any of them. Creatures make free choices under any set of possibilities, God knows all the free choices in all possible combinations -- i.e. in all possible worlds -- and God chooses to create/actualize one world that factors in one and only one set of creatures' future choices. So the Molinist gets to say that God preserves the creature's freedom of choice AND that God predestines everything. I'm not going to repeat the problems various people, including some of us on here, see in this theory. I'll just say that right now, it seems to be dealing with different problems from the problems that physicists deal with when they posit bubble universes. The bubble universe idea sounds in fact a little like C.S. Lewis - the Redeemer is Jesus in our world, Aslan in Narnia, who knows who else in what other bubble. The free will problem doesn't seem paramount here. ------------- edited to add: on p. 9 of the paper that R.S. Martin links, the authors allow that "you" in another universe will not be identical to the "you" in our own actualized universe. If the other universe is also actualized by God, then we have simply two individuals: you and the person in the other universe. If the other universe is a counterfactual one, then we have one actual individual in our universe and a conceptual one in the counterfactual universe. Either way, I think there will be problems of equivocation for the Molinist when he (I don't know if there are any women Molinists!) talks about Joe Schmoe's free choices in our actualized universe and Joe Schmoe's free choices in some other universe. It's not at all clear to me that the two Joe Schmoes are indentical, which they have to be for the Molinist argument about free will to go through. that's because the Molinist needs to say that God knows what "you" will freely choose in one possible universe and what "you" will freely choose in another possible universe, and if the "yous" are not identical, the argument doesn't go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 on p. 9 of the paper that R.S. Martin links, the authors allow that "you" in another universe will not be identical to the "you" in our own actualized universe. Thanks for this, ficino and BAA. It answers my question. I've been hearing about mulitiverse for a good ten years now, starting with a very speculative free lecture by a prof at the secular university where I was studying at the time. Since then, I've watched DVDs by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others--all of them speculative. However, what you guys describe in the Calvinist/Molinist philosophical tradition does not even come close to a single one of them. To me, it sounds somewhat more far-fetched than their ideas about an Intelligent Designer. My handle on multiverse may not be solid but it does not mean "many possible worlds of which one was actualized." Ficino, thanks for reading the paper and translating it for me. BAA, thanks for giving me some background context for understanding the Christian's theory. Like both of you, I've noticed that the Christians tend to pre-empt scientific discovery with their own half-baked ideas so as to keep their own people in the fold. If these things were foretold, as they try to make out, why don't they preach it centuries ahead of any scientist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 on p. 9 of the paper that R.S. Martin links, the authors allow that "you" in another universe will not be identical to the "you" in our own actualized universe. Thanks for this, ficino and BAA. It answers my question. I've been hearing about mulitiverse for a good ten years now, starting with a very speculative free lecture by a prof at the secular university where I was studying at the time. Since then, I've watched DVDs by Neil DeGrasse Tyson and others--all of them speculative. However, what you guys describe in the Calvinist/Molinist philosophical tradition does not even come close to a single one of them. To me, it sounds somewhat more far-fetched than their ideas about an Intelligent Designer. My handle on multiverse may not be solid but it does not mean "many possible worlds of which one was actualized." Ficino, thanks for reading the paper and translating it for me. BAA, thanks for giving me some background context for understanding the Christian's theory. Like both of you, I've noticed that the Christians tend to pre-empt scientific discovery with their own half-baked ideas so as to keep their own people in the fold. If these things were foretold, as they try to make out, why don't they preach it centuries ahead of any scientist? Why indeed, RS? Could it be that these bozos are just trying to be Darwinistic about an oncoming threat to Christianity? That is, they're trying to adapt, mutate and evolve their belief system to survive an approaching 'extinction-level event'? Fyi, what's so sneaky about the Xians who wrote paper you linked to, is that they know full well that cosmologists will only be able to say that our universe isn't the only one. Further information about the Multiverse (how many universes there are, if they are inhabited, etc.) is almost certainly impossible to find. That plays right into Beck and Andrews' slimy hands. All of these 'other' universes are, by definition, un-investigatable. So these Xians can claim that the Multiverse is evidence for God's Modal Realism at work and never be challenged, gainsayed. or refuted. Further evidence, for or against their claim, will never be forthcoming. So, perhaps we're looking at the future replacement of WLC's KCA? Craig's baby can't survive the discovery of a Multiverse, but the Beck-Andrews Argument (the BAA?) can. As regards evidence, it's airtight. The only route to take it down is to find fault in the logic of their argument. Which I'm about to start doing, right now. Anyway, thanks a million for the news and the link. Cheers, BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 I think this goes over your head for good reason. It is wildly digressive (to my small and uneducated brain) and barely coherent with a whole lot of name dropping and citing books with big names in an attempt to sound relevant. My guess is that any competent physicist would grind it to dust during a coffee break. So this is what I could grasp - He basically says: We have this theory called Many Worlds, and we have this good philosophical point of view from Thomas Aquinas, so there must be a God. But, If the Many Worlds/All possible universe theory holds up, then there are plenty of universes out there where Jesus never was born, the Jews never came into existence and Christianity never ever was. It is a bit of a stretch to think that ~This~ universe - ~our~ particular universe, contains ~The~ religion that covers all the other universes. Sounds way too much like the flat earth-centered world view of long ago. And the theology argument is pretty thin - if I am not mistaken he's basically saying Thomas Aquinas had a good theory about this so therefore we think all this is true. Complete balderdash. Here is a quote from the paper: "If the multiverse is deterministic, and if there cannot be an actual infinite," Both are highly dubious claims...... First, "there can not be an actual infinite" - The Many Worlds postulates an infinite, so his claim is already inconsistent and shaky. And, since the author has stuffed Quantum Mechanics in his pipe and seems to be pretending to smoke it, he ought to know that Quantum Mechanics does not support the claim that the universe is deterministic. At all. This is the reason WLC has his head completely up his a$$. As I was talking about with another guy in another thread, things in the (Newtonian) real world come into what we call existence when they are observed or interact. Absent observation or interactions, what we call quantum particles exist only as statistical probabilities (a state i think called wave function). Then when observed, the wave function collapses and the particle must choose to incarnate in one of the probable places it could have existed. In other words, real particles require an observer, and the observer is the "cause" of the particle. There is no deterministic cause and effect, and if the writer knew anything about the history of Quantum Physics, he should surely be hip to this fundamental strangeness of the foundations of reality. So, by Quantum Physics, "God" as such had to be not the creator, but the observer of the birth of the universe. And that raises a whole series of other contingencies. Alan Watts - who noted that he once saw a shop in London selling Philosophical Instruments, which included things like telescopes, microscopes and measuring devices - would have claimed that, given relativity of space and time, the universe was probably created by you reading this thread and thinking about this problem. So whatever. I think the paper is pretty shambolic and would probably be laughed out of any rigorous university that wasn't getting funding from theologically biased funding sources. I just finished a fantastic book detailing much of the history of the discipline from its origin to ~2005: Louisa Gilder - The Age of Entanglement; When Quantum Physics Was Reborn Highly recommended. However, it covers mostly the 'Copenhagen' and 'Hidden Variables' flavors of Quantum Mechanics. Many Worlds is the third flavor, and I will have to look more closely into that later. It is a pretty mind blowing subject, so it's easy to con people who don't know much about it. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 You called this one, BAA! Thanks Ficino! You know what they say? 'Set a thief to catch a thief.' Perhaps it takes an ex-Christian to catch the Christians with their hands in the cookie jar? I can't devote time now to trying to understand the multiverse theory as astronomers or physicists develop it. I have read some David Lewis on modal realism in philosophy (one of his papers and a reply by another chap are next to me as I type). As it seems to me, Molinism of the Wm. Lane Craig sort is trying to solve a different problem, but his problem may collapse into a larger multiverse problem, I'm not sure. anyway, for Craig and his ilk you might say that the starting point is "world" as Wittgenstein defined it, i.e. the world is all that is the case. There is the actual world, which, from the point of view of propositions, is the sum of all true, contingent propositions (e.g. Adam was formed from dust of the ground, the Dodgers won the pennant in '56 but lost the Series, BAA denied Christ, etc etc). Then there are a multiplicity of other possible worlds that are never actualized: e.g. the world in which it's the case that BAA remained a Christian to the end of his days, the Dodgers beat the Yankees in every Series in the 1950s, etc etc). Those worlds are counterfactual because God chose to create World 1 and not any of them. Creatures make free choices under any set of possibilities, God knows all the free choices in all possible combinations -- i.e. in all possible worlds -- and God chooses to create/actualize one world that factors in one and only one set of creatures' future choices. So the Molinist gets to say that God preserves the creature's freedom of choice AND that God predestines everything. I'm not going to repeat the problems various people, including some of us on here, see in this theory. I'll just say that right now, it seems to be dealing with different problems from the problems that physicists deal with when they posit bubble universes. The bubble universe idea sounds in fact a little like C.S. Lewis - the Redeemer is Jesus in our world, Aslan in Narnia, who knows who else in what other bubble. The free will problem doesn't seem paramount here. ------------- edited to add: on p. 9 of the paper that R.S. Martin links, the authors allow that "you" in another universe will not be identical to the "you" in our own actualized universe. If the other universe is also actualized by God, then we have simply two individuals: you and the person in the other universe. If the other universe is a counterfactual one, then we have one actual individual in our universe and a conceptual one in the counterfactual universe. Either way, I think there will be problems of equivocation for the Molinist when he (I don't know if there are any women Molinists!) talks about Joe Schmoe's free choices in our actualized universe and Joe Schmoe's free choices in some other universe. It's not at all clear to me that the two Joe Schmoes are indentical, which they have to be for the Molinist argument about free will to go through. that's because the Molinist needs to say that God knows what "you" will freely choose in one possible universe and what "you" will freely choose in another possible universe, and if the "yous" are not identical, the argument doesn't go through. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ok, Ficino, I reckon that, just like WLC, Beck and Andrews are cherry-picking from the data. Or in this case, from Max Tegmark's theories. Here's how. On page 2, Beck and Andrews define the Plenitude Argument (PA) as follows... 1. The initializing and actualizing factors for reality are unlimited, eternal, unbounded. 2. An individual universe is a single and limited set of possible space/time existents. 3. Therefore, it is both plausible and likely that there are multiple universes, together representing the full range of possibilities as actualized by an unlimited source. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, the proper and logical conclusion of #1 (as per Max Tegmark) is as follows. All possible realities are realized, not just once per universe, but an infinite number of times in each universe. This is a vital part of Tegmark's classification system. All Level-1 Multiverses are infinite in volume. Their contents repeat themselves, over and over again, infinitely often. This leads to an infinite number Tegmarks, Ficinos and BAAs in this, level-1 Multiverse. This is known as the Infinite Replication Paradox or the Quilted Multiverse scenario. The same patterns of matter repeat, over and over again, endlessly. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, the proper and logical conclusion of #2 (as per Max Tegmark) is as follows. An individual (Level-1) universe is a single, but UN-limited set of possible space/time existents. Being spatially infinite, the number of Tegmarks, Ficinos and BAAs in a given Level-1 universe is not ONE! There is no limit on the full number of our copies. The true number is un-limited. Placing any kind of limitation (like God's choice not to duplicate anyone) is a false and dishonest manouver. If Beck and Andrews say that #1 and #3 are unlimited, why is #2 limited? It makes no sense. It's not logical. It's contradictory. It's diverges from Tegmark's model. It's just wrong. The only reason to do this is because you want to fuck around with things and slip God in by the back door. (Now, who do we know who does this kind of thing?) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So, the proper and logical conclusion of #3 (as per Max Tegmark) is as follows. If the source (God) of these multiple universes is unlimited, eternal and unbounded (as proposed in #1 and #3), then so must the product be unlimited. Any other conclusion is flat-out wrong. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ficino, I'm 110% certain that Beck and Andrews know all this. That's why they give themselves the licence to reject Tegmark's logic in favor of their own. (See p.7... "we don't need to affirm Tegmark's postulate - that mathematical existence is equivalent to physical existence.") And to alter the PA to suit themselves. (See p.2, ..."The incorporation by Christian thinkers neccesitates some obvious alterations in the PA, but they are minor indeed.") Yes, just take away two letters, changing 'unlimited' in premiss #2 to 'limited'. A minor alteration, which has major consequences. On p.8, they write... "Could Max Andrews also exist in some other universe, and one of his properties contradict Max Andrews in this one? Clearly not. It would simply not be the identical person, however similar." This is an out-and-out lie. It's only true IF you falsely treat each universe (within the greater whole of the Multiverse) as finite. Even if each universe IS finite, what do you get if there are an infinite number of them? Yep! Same result. An infinite number of identical copies of everyone. Finally, in the Summary, they write... "The notion that the Multiverse allows everything to occur, taken properly, is no problem for Theism." Wrong! The Multiverse (when looked at without Beck and Andrews subtle alterations) is a problem for Theism. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 A multiverse is a given in any religion where there's a heaven or hell. As a Christian, I didn't believe heaven or hell was in this world, but part of a different universe. So I believed there were at least 3 different universes. And as such, they would have to exist within some mega-verse too. Where else would the spiritual world be? "Not of this world." I accepted these theories in the 70's, when I was still a young teenager. What surprises me is that this is a surprise or news to anyone else... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 (Snip) But, If the Many Worlds/All possible universe theory holds up, then there are plenty of universes out there where Jesus never was born, the Jews never came into existence and Christianity never ever was. It is a bit of a stretch to think that ~This~ universe - ~our~ particular universe, contains ~The~ religion that covers all the other universes. Sounds way too much like the flat earth-centered world view of long ago. (Snip) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sorry Wester, but you're just not getting it! Please look at the marginal note #35, at the bottom of page 15, which is continued at the very end of page 16, after the conclusion of the summary. I've stitched the two together here... 35 I want to note that if we continue with the concept of an Anselmian God and that God is the prime reality—all reality is based in God—then what is possible is what God chooses to do. Thus, in accordance to Origen and Thomas’ affirmation of divine action and telos in creation it would then be impossible for God to not provide atonement. Such a world in which God does not provide atonement is an impossible world or a counterpossible state of affairs. According to Beck and Andrews, Jesus HAS to be born and be crucified in every universe where humans exist. Otherwise, you've got umpteen zillion universes full of irredeemable people. So, screw the science and stick with the dogma... got that? BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 A multiverse is a given in any religion where there's a heaven or hell. As a Christian, I didn't believe heaven or hell was in this world, but part of a different universe. So I believed there were at least 3 different universes. And as such, they would have to exist within some mega-verse too. Where else would the spiritual world be? "Not of this world." I accepted these theories in the 70's, when I was still a young teenager. What surprises me is that this is a surprise or news to anyone else... Is that where you thought Paul's third heaven came into it, Ouroboros? You know, 2 Corinthians 12 : 1 - 4. Just asking. BAA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 A multiverse is a given in any religion where there's a heaven or hell. As a Christian, I didn't believe heaven or hell was in this world, but part of a different universe. So I believed there were at least 3 different universes. And as such, they would have to exist within some mega-verse too. Where else would the spiritual world be? "Not of this world." I accepted these theories in the 70's, when I was still a young teenager. What surprises me is that this is a surprise or news to anyone else... Is that where you thought Paul's third heaven came into it, Ouroboros? You know, 2 Corinthians 12 : 1 - 4. Just asking. BAA That and more. The idea of God sitting in a "heaven". Hell being a place "below" but really not. The authors at that time probably thought the places existed in this universe, so I doubt today that they ever considered parallel universes. But as a Christian and interested in science, it was a fitting explanation to the spiritual world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 A multiverse is a given in any religion where there's a heaven or hell. As a Christian, I didn't believe heaven or hell was in this world, but part of a different universe. So I believed there were at least 3 different universes. And as such, they would have to exist within some mega-verse too. Where else would the spiritual world be? "Not of this world." I accepted these theories in the 70's, when I was still a young teenager. What surprises me is that this is a surprise or news to anyone else... Seems you haven't seen/heard as many sharp and heated and absolutely hateful denunciations of the multiverse theory by Christians as I have. Coming out with this paper is such a complete about-face that I'm stunned. I *knew* there had to be something wrong with it which is why I posted the link here. BAA has apparently found some significant problems. Thanks for the review, BAA. For folk here, Max Andrews uses the name Maxeo on WLC's forums. On those forums he comes across to me as one of the less sharp debaters. Beck must be the brains behind this paper, is my guess. Maxeo/Andrews posted the link to the paper and asked for feedback in a thread called God and the Multiverse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted November 20, 2012 Share Posted November 20, 2012 Seems you haven't seen/heard as many sharp and heated and absolutely hateful denunciations of the multiverse theory by Christians as I have. Coming out with this paper is such a complete about-face that I'm stunned. I *knew* there had to be something wrong with it which is why I posted the link here. You're absolutely right. I haven't seen or heard many, a few yes, but not many. But that's easily explained by what circles I've been in. Different denominations, etc. Honestly, I always felt the multiverse idea explained the supernatural world a lot better. Even today, the image I have in my head is that of a multiverse. And I had this before the term "multiverse" even was in the public arena. Probably because I read some heavier science books back in those days. It's a miracle that I managed to stay Christian all those years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 20, 2012 Author Share Posted November 20, 2012 Seems you haven't seen/heard as many sharp and heated and absolutely hateful denunciations of the multiverse theory by Christians as I have. Coming out with this paper is such a complete about-face that I'm stunned. I *knew* there had to be something wrong with it which is why I posted the link here. You're absolutely right. I haven't seen or heard many, a few yes, but not many. But that's easily explained by what circles I've been in. Different denominations, etc. Honestly, I always felt the multiverse idea explained the supernatural world a lot better. Even today, the image I have in my head is that of a multiverse. And I had this before the term "multiverse" even was in the public arena. Probably because I read some heavier science books back in those days. It's a miracle that I managed to stay Christian all those years. This is very interesting. It was the WLC Christians from whom I heard/saw most of the denunciations. Re the seven heavens, hell, below and above the earth, etc. There are studies on who held to what cosmological view at what period in history. For example, it seems the Jews of Jesus' time may have held a different cosmology than the educated Roman scholars of the same time. It can also be argued that the Jews at Jesus' time held a different view of the cosmos than did their forebears at the time of Moses or Jeremiah. This would account for the late appearance of hell in the Bible. It would also account for Job's "windows of heaven" and God sitting on top of the dome of the world, etc., which seem significantly different from the cosmology of Jesus' time. At Jesus' time, or soon thereafter (as early as Paul's "seventh heaven"), there was the idea of the various levels of heaven, possibly built on Plato's philosophy. I'm still trying to get a handle on all this history so I may be wrong. Some of the Gnostics were very strong on this. I can look up some of the sources I used for my one paper if you're interested. Right now I'm reading Stephen Greenblatt's The Swerve: How The World Became Modern. In it, he looks at what the cosmos looked like to people in the classical world (from about 400 BCE to 600 CE). He visualizes wealthy Romans at their country villas, quite comfortable seeing "thermal vents that spewed smoke from a mysterious realm under the earth" as they sat in their open air patios in "a world in which nature seemed saturated with the presence of the divine, on mountaintops and springs" (pp. 67-68). This was before the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius. I'm asking: How did this experience of living with "thermal vents spewing smoke" contribute to the concept of hell? Also, how did the later eruption of Mt. Vesuvius further develop hell doctrine? Could the empirical knowledge that volcanoes are physical mountains with varying depths have contributed to the idea of varying levels of hell? I did not ever think of heaven and hell as physical material places. Maybe this is another of those things that I wrongly understood, but I thought my mother said heaven and hell were spiritual places. After all, when the Russians came back from their walk on the moon and reported that "We've been to space and we didn't see God," Christians derided them for looking in the wrong place. I was about eleven or twelve years old at the time and remember the stories, the derisive tones in which they were told and retold at dinner tables and over pulpits. God is in heaven. Space that was being explored with rockets is NOT heaven where the souls of the dead go to. Somewhere along the line that was clarified to me long before the moon landing. Of course, they also declared loud and long that God would not ever permit man to walk on the moon. Whatever, it was clear to me that everything after death, including the part of the human that survives death, is spiritual. Now that I'm reading Greenblatt, who quotes a lot of the early Church Fathers, I can see that this was a heretical belief. Apparently, the entire body down to teeth, intestines and genitals, will be brought before the Judgment Seat of God. *Shrug* This conviction that it is spiritual is what contributed in a major way to my deconversion. Not that the physical/material theory makes any more sense given the rate at which bodies decompose, not to mention that many are/were burned or eaten. But I can see that a material view of things could make for the connection you made between the scientific term multiverse and religious ideas about heaven, earth, and hell. Some scholars call the heaven-earth-hell cosmology a three-tiered universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 R.S., I looked at the Reasonable Faith forum thread you linked. Someone called redtilt1 asked, "what discovery could be incompatible with God?" That's a response I'd expect, i.e. WLC types will spin ANYTHING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 Hey RS! Outstanding work, my friend. By this compliment, I mean two things. First, there's the good recon and intel gathering you've been doing on the Multiverse/God/Evangelical front. I've been keeping tabs on the enemy too, in my own way. (More about this later.) Secondly, your interest in the 'primitive' cosmology of the early church (sort of) overlaps my interests too. Perhaps these two snippets of info will be of interest? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Re: Greenblatt's ideas of a hellish Roman underworld, what about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia The Greeks held the Delphic oracle in high regard and treated the whole business of prophecy as something divine and holy. The hot vapors from the underworld weren't seen as something basicly evil because they came from below the ground. Apparently they were treated as just another manifestation of divine activity. Their place of origin was, more or less, irrelevant. Now, this sits at odds with Greenblatts ideas, wouldn't you say? So where and how did this more-or-less neutral attitude turn into a more negative one? Why is it that the Greeks could be ambivalent about the underworld (the obviously 'evil' realm of Tartarus co-existing underground, with the source of the vapors sent by the good and holy god, Apollo), yet, in later centuries, the Romans became increasingly negative about it? Where and how did this change come about? Here's my (tentative) take on this matter. The first instance I'm aware of where the goodness and holiness of the Delphic oracle is revealed to be something evil, is in Acts 16 : 16 - 18. If we look at the Koine Greek reading of this passage, what do we see? http://www.scripture...NTpdf/act16.pdf http://biblesuite.com/greek/4436.htm Yep. The slave girl who Paul cast the demon out of was possessed by the spirit of a Python. The very same spirit of the Delphic oracle. Ok, Paul and Silas were in Macedonia, which is many miles from Mount Parnassus (the site of the oracle), but the point being made is very clear. Only Christianity is good. Every other kind of belief, even if you think it's holy, is actually evil and the product of lies from unclean spirits, the minions of Satan. Also, look at how easily this Python-related incident fits in with other parts of scripture. Obviously there's the references to serpents in Genesis and Revelation, but perhaps most tellingly, there's Luke 10 : 17 - 20. The seventy-two followers Jesus had sent out in his name returned to him, saying that even the demons submitted to them in his name. He replied... "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you." Now, isn't that exactly what Paul did to the spirit possessing the slave girl? He trampled on it (figuratively) in Jesus' name. And doesn't this show how the Delphic spirits and their origins (the 'hellish' vapors from the underworld) are all the works of Satan? I see a (tentative) link here. As the Roman's became increasingly Christian, they'd remember Paul's encounter with the underworld spirit and make a the connection between Satan and the fiery underworld. You can even see how the early Roman Christian's might have thought about Vesuvius' eruption in A.D. 79. The cities of Pompeii and Herculaneuam were obviously being punished by God for their idolatry. Idolatry is no small deal in Christianity, is it? What about the Ten Commandments? "You shall have no other gods before me." How much of the Old Testament features one prophet or another railing against Israel's idolatry? What about the story of Gideon and the golden ephod? Wasn't the apostle Paul distressed at the idolatry he saw in Athens (Acts 17 : 16 -34). And so on. So what do you think, RS? Any mileage in this or just a flimsy pile of circumstantial evidence? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. Many years ago I read (somewhere?) that the infernal aspects of Dante's Divine Comedy might have been modelled on a book that didn't quite make it into the Bible - The Apocalypse of Peter. http://en.wikipedia....alypse_of_Peter If we accept the dating given, that gives us the first century Anno Domini for these 'primitive' ideas about heaven and hell. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Lastly, how have I been keeping tabs on the Christians enemy? Like this... http://www.christian...ms.com/t7693348 My handle there is EverettInterpretation (try Googling those two words) and I'm 'Exploring Christianity' by asking them the following. If Cosmologists discover an Eternal Multiverse? An eternally-existing reality requires no creator. Who here will accept such a finding? So far, 22 Christians have responded to my OP. The stats on what they've written make for interesting reading. Especially in the light of your comments to Ouroboros re: the 'hateful denunciations' of Multiverse theory by some Christians. 6 Christians came right out and declared that they would not accept such a finding. 13 Christians refused to answer my question, citing problems with the wording of my question or the flat-out impossibility of such a discovery ever being made. Of these 13, two (RazeontheRock and TheyCallMeDave) tried to hijack the thread and force me to accept what they claimed was the 'truth'. They only ceased and desisted when I threatened them with the the sanction of lodging a formal complaint against them with the Moderators. 1 Christian would accept such a finding, but claimed that an eternal Multiverse and an eternal God could co-exist..!?? 1 Christian (Aiki) misused the Borde-Guth-Vilenkin (BGV) Inflationary cosmological model to assert that the issue was already settled and that a Past-Eternal Multiverse (PEM) had already been disproven. He caught me out... temporariIy. But when I went and checked exactly what the BGV says, I saw thru his deceit. I challenged him about this in posts #76 and #87, but so far he hasn't got back to me. (Big surprise there!) Btw, I can't be sure about this, but I suspect WLC's position on cosmology misuses the BGV as well. The BGV is an Inflationary cosmological model. It deals with our universe's evolution after the Big Bang event itself. It doesn't deal with the past boundary (the Gravitational Singularity) because it cannot. You can read it here... http://www.arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0110012 "Thus, inflationary models [like the BGV] require physics other than inflation [like Multiversal theory] to describe the past boundary [the Singularity and what caused it] of the inflating region of spacetime." The bottom line is that you can't use an Inflationary model like the BGV to say that a past-eternal Multiverse is impossible. The first doesn't apply to the second. One is a model applying ONLY to our universe and the other is an over-arching model, incorporating Inflationary theory and applying to the Multiverse as a whole. It's like comparing apples to oranges. 1 Christian (Crandaddy) must qualify as the 'All-Time King of Mental-Masturbators', with the bizarre outpourings of metaphysical claptrap he comes out with. According to him, it's a metaphysically sound proposition to say that an a-causal entity like a past-eternal Multiverse still needs God to cause it. Yes. You did just read that. An eternal Multiverse, which by agreed definition, has no beginning and requires no cause of it's beginning (because it doesn't have one) still needs God to cause it. Confused? Me too. Crandaddy has even told me about a branch of metaphysics called Eliminative Materialism, whose adherents posit that the notion that mental phenomena (our thoughts) do not exist at all and aren't 'real'. If put to the test, I reckon that Crandaddy could do a fair job of arguing that he doesn't exist either! In a purely metaphysical sense, of course. The latest move I've made in my dialog with him is to present him with a simple challenge. You can read it at the end of post #148. . . . . Anyway RS, to sum up this lengthy message, my recent experience tells me that almost every Christian will have some kind of trouble accepting a Multiverse, if such a thing is discovered. They'll deny that it's possible. They'll deny that the evidence is true or even real. They'll try and trick their way out of this bind - either by misusing the science or practicing the dark arts of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
♦ ficino ♦ Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 On p.8, they write... "Could Max Andrews also exist in some other universe, and one of his properties contradict Max Andrews in this one? Clearly not. It would simply not be the identical person, however similar." Here their conclusion seems to destroy Molinism. This is an out-and-out lie. It's only true IF you falsely treat each universe (within the greater whole of the Multiverse) as finite. Even if each universe IS finite, what do you get if there are an infinite number of them? Yep! Same result. An infinite number of identical copies of everyone. The consequence you point out also seems to destroy Molinism from the other direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. S. Martin Posted November 21, 2012 Author Share Posted November 21, 2012 1.Re: Greenblatt's ideas of a hellish Roman underworld, what about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythia The Greeks held the Delphic oracle in high regard and treated the whole business of prophecy as something divine and holy. The hot vapors from the underworld weren't seen as something basicly evil because they came from below the ground. Apparently they were treated as just another manifestation of divine activity. Their place of origin was, more or less, irrelevant. Now, this sits at odds with Greenblatts ideas, wouldn't you say? I probably wasn't clear. The negative ideas about hell are my own. The two parts I quoted from Greenblatt were taken from the same sentence. I personally could not see the smoke as non-threatening and did not understand why Greenblatt put it in there with the "nature is saturated with the divine" concept. The best I could make of it was that the Romans were comfortable with it. What you say makes a great deal more sense. I do wonder, though, what contribution the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius made to the development of the concept of hell. Also, I understand the Greeks and Romans thought Hades was a hot place. Not hot like hells as in lake of fire but hot like a hot room. So where and how did this more-or-less neutral attitude turn into a more negative one? Why is it that the Greeks could be ambivalent about the underworld (the obviously 'evil' realm of Tartarus co-existing underground, with the source of the vapors sent by the good and holy god, Apollo), yet, in later centuries, the Romans became increasingly negative about it? Where and how did this change come about? Here's my (tentative) take on this matter. The first instance I'm aware of where the goodness and holiness of the Delphic oracle is revealed to be something evil, is in Acts 16 : 16 - 18. If we look at the Koine Greek reading of this passage, what do we see? http://www.scripture...NTpdf/act16.pdf http://biblesuite.com/greek/4436.htm Yep. The slave girl who Paul cast the demon out of was possessed by the spirit of a Python. The very same spirit of the Delphic oracle. Ok, Paul and Silas were in Macedonia, which is many miles from Mount Parnassus (the site of the oracle), but the point being made is very clear. Only Christianity is good. Every other kind of belief, even if you think it's holy, is actually evil and the product of lies from unclean spirits, the minions of Satan. Also, look at how easily this Python-related incident fits in with other parts of scripture. Obviously there's the references to serpents in Genesis and Revelation, but perhaps most tellingly, there's Luke 10 : 17 - 20. The seventy-two followers Jesus had sent out in his name returned to him, saying that even the demons submitted to them in his name. He replied... "I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven. I have given you authority to trample on snakes and scorpions and to overcome all the power of the enemy; nothing will harm you." Now, isn't that exactly what Paul did to the spirit possessing the slave girl? He trampled on it (figuratively) in Jesus' name. And doesn't this show how the Delphic spirits and their origins (the 'hellish' vapors from the underworld) are all the works of Satan? I see a (tentative) link here. As the Roman's became increasingly Christian, they'd remember Paul's encounter with the underworld spirit and make a the connection between Satan and the fiery underworld. You can even see how the early Roman Christian's might have thought about Vesuvius' eruption in A.D. 79. The cities of Pompeii and Herculaneuam were obviously being punished by God for their idolatry. Fascinating connections! And believable. I have heard that one can read up on the history of hell. I just haven't done so. Nor do I know the sources. BTW, your first link tells me I am forbidden to access it. ]2[/b].Many years ago I read (somewhere?) that the infernal aspects of Dante's Divine Comedy might have been modelled on a book that didn't quite make it into the Bible - The Apocalypse of Peter. http://en.wikipedia....alypse_of_Peter If we accept the dating given, that gives us the first century Anno Domini for these 'primitive' ideas about heaven and hell. Bart Ehrman says in After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity (1999, p. 296), that "three different Christian apocolypses claim to have been written by Jesus' desciple Peter... . The one given here was discovered in 1887..." That would have been too late for Dante. I don't know when the others came to light. Anyway RS, to sum up this lengthy message, my recent experience tells me that almost every Christian will have some kind of trouble accepting a Multiverse, if such a thing is discovered. They'll deny that it's possible. They'll deny that the evidence is true or even real. They'll try and trick their way out of this bind - either by misusing the science or practicing the dark arts of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. Thanks, BAA. Fascinating what you've been doing. I'll get back to this when I have more time. Dog is begging to go out. Other errands to run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wester Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I looked at the Many Worlds idea a bit more today. The primary benefit of this is that is 'technically' deterministic, and can therefore fit (in a way) into the religious worldview and WLC postulate that every effect has a cause. It accomplishes this by not requiring the observed particle to collapse from the wave function, instead leaving the collapse 'open' to every statistically possible collapse. In other words, if a particle can be in 70 different locations at once, when observation occurs, the universe automatically splits into 70 new universes, precluding the place of the observer in determining the outcome of the particle's "being". The observer is 'technically' left out of the equation, but on the high handed order that WLC style "causes" don't just 'cause' effects, they cause every possible quantum effect. OK - that is theoretically fine. However, there are some practical considerations such as conservation of energy - where are you getting all this energy that results in fantastical amounts of new matter and universes? Many worlds is also vague about where and how divergence occurs - if it is on the atomic scale, connected to changes in individual atoms or particles, which would imply bazillions of gazillions of universes or larger scales. It's not clear. Further, measurement or observation is not clearly defined in Many Worlds, since it is not supposed to affect the "effects". Therefore it becomes difficult to figure out when and where (much less how) many worlds are being spawned. Mr. Everet uses the word "measurement" but never defines it, so the whole idea might just be confined to something done in the laboratory. These are just 3 criticisms of Many Worlds. There are more. To be fair, there are three schools of Quantum Mechanics, and they are battling it out now. If Christians hitch their cart to Many Worlds, and some further evolutions in the physics disprove Many Worlds, then they'll be up the creek without a physically collapsed wave form paddle. I think that Many worlds is cognitively satisfying. I have on more than one occasion thought that this school ~has~ to be it. But if you look at the strengths and weaknesses of all three schools, it really is anybody's guess, and now we get into dogma and religion of Quantum schools, just like sects and denominations. It is best to keep an open mind. My way out of Christianity came at first through existentialism by way of Kierkegaard -> Nietzche -> Heidegger -> Sartre -> Camus Their postulate that existence is absurd, also fits pretty well with the Copenhagen school of Quantum Theory and the craziness and lunacy of Schroedinger's Cat and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. And on better days I find myself feeling this is a good way too. The third flavor - Hidden Variables comes most recently out of David Bohm's work and has been called "deterministic", but I can't wrap my head around much of it at this point. Bohm has a couple of famous tomes that are probably worth looking into, one just called 'Quantum Mechanics', and his works are just as often filed in the philosophy or psychology sections. Einstein was also a proponent of this view. So even though many worlds is "deterministic", it is still kind of a mess (just like the other schools), and in no way guarantees anything one way or the other for theology. ~~~~~~~~~ I was kind of disappointed regarding the paper that Mr. Hay-zeus wouldn't be born as a savior gamma ray into all the possible unstable universes filled with nothing but sinful gamma rays. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 On p.8, they write... "Could Max Andrews also exist in some other universe, and one of his properties contradict Max Andrews in this one? Clearly not. It would simply not be the identical person, however similar." Here their conclusion seems to destroy Molinism. This is an out-and-out lie. It's only true IF you falsely treat each universe (within the greater whole of the Multiverse) as finite. Even if each universe IS finite, what do you get if there are an infinite number of them? Yep! Same result. An infinite number of identical copies of everyone. The consequence you point out also seems to destroy Molinism from the other direction. It's a train-wreck, eh? You see Ficino, the one vital fact about cosmic Inflation that Beck and Andrews, WLC, OrdinaryClay and a lot of other Christian apologists deliberately sidestep is that it doesn't just produce a universe that's exactly the same size as the one we can see. No sir! Inflation creates a universe that's (according to Alan Guth) at least 10 23 times larger than the size of the observable universe. Probably much, much larger. Now, the radius the observable universe is calculated to be 46.6 billion light years. Double that figure, multiply it by 10 23 and then you'll have what's considered to be the minimum size of our universe. I'm not going to do the calculation because I can't even wrap my head around the size of our galaxy, let alone the whole cosmos! You're welcome to try, if you want. Anyway, the Christians (who rely on Inflationary cosmology to back up the KCA) never mention this inconvenient truth. Their God's creation is many orders of magnitude larger than the microscopic portion we can see. Room enough for many, many duplicates of Earth, of you, of me and of everyone else. Beck and Andrews don't need to talk about other, physically separate universes where our duplicates might reside. Our own universe has millions of them! Our duplicates are all around us... in every direction. That's what it means to live in a Level-1 Multiverse. It's these kind of consequences that the apologists always avoid mentioning. I've asked OrdinaryClay to come clean about this... eight times! He just won't do it. . . . There's a lot of skullduggery going on behind church doors and this Beck & Andrews duet is just another example. Thanks, BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bornagainathiest Posted November 21, 2012 Share Posted November 21, 2012 I probably wasn't clear. The negative ideas about hell are my own. The two parts I quoted from Greenblatt were taken from the same sentence. I personally could not see the smoke as non-threatening and did not understand why Greenblatt put it in there with the "nature is saturated with the divine" concept. The best I could make of it was that the Romans were comfortable with it. What you say makes a great deal more sense. Ok RS, that's for clarifying that. I do wonder, though, what contribution the eruption of Mt. Vesuvius made to the development of the concept of hell. Also, I understand the Greeks and Romans thought Hades was a hot place. Not hot like hells as in lake of fire but hot like a hot room. Snip. quote] Fascinating connections! And believable. I have heard that one can read up on the history of hell. I just haven't done so. Nor do I know the sources. BTW, your first link tells me I am forbidden to access it. Oh, sorry about that. Please try this one... http://www.scripture4all.org ...and then click on the link for the Greek Interlinear. When that page comes up choose Acts 16 and then use the slider on the right-hand side to bring yourself to verse 16. There you'll find a KJV transliteration in Olde English on the right. The Koine (Greek) text, interlined with a word-for-word translation, is on the left. What you're looking for is... PNEUMA (spirit) PUTHONOS (of-ascertainer / of-python) ...ok? Snip. Bart Ehrman says in After the New Testament: A Reader in Early Christianity (1999, p. 296), that "three different Christian apocolypses claim to have been written by Jesus' desciple Peter... . The one given here was discovered in 1887..." That would have been too late for Dante. I don't know when the others came to light. Ok then, that idea's a washout. I must have remembered wrong. Perhaps I read something that said Peter's Apocalypse was similar to Dante's Inferno? Snip. Fascinating what you've been doing. I'll get back to this when I have more time. Dog is begging to go out. Other errands to run. Thanks. Bye for now. BAA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts