Evangelical Paper Embraces Posibility Of Multiverse

[bornagainathiest]

Hi Wester!

 

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.

 

Agreed.

 

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.

 

Christianity's hitched it's wagon to many wrong and disproven ideas, Wester. A flat Earth. A geocentric universe. A flawless and sunspot-free Sun. The list goes on and on. Each time they've survived the crisis. Sadly.

 

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.

 

Amen to that! It's my hope that the Planck data will settle at least some of the issues.

 

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.

 

How 'bout today? Have you decohered and flossed properly this morning?

 

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.

 

Disappointing maybe.

But gamma rays aren't human are they? Therefore they can't be redeemed. Only those made in God's image can be restored to it.

 

Read your Bible! (Wags finger in Wester's direction.)

 

 

Cheers

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[R. S. Martin]

Hi Wester!

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

Disappointing maybe.

But gamma rays aren't human are they? Therefore they can't be redeemed. Only those made in God's image can be restored to it.

 

Read your Bible! (Wags finger in Wester's direction.)

 

 

Cheers

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

Doesn't the Bible say that God is light? My unscientific brain says gamma ray sounds an awful lot like a ray. Light comes in rays--ray of light. So maybe some gamma rays are made in the image of God, providing God exists. He could make gamma rays in his image, you know.

[R. S. Martin]

Thanks everyone for your responses.

 

I am here responding to the part of BAA's Post 20 that I skipped earlier. It might be a while in the writing because I'm looking stuff up as I go...

 

I looked at your thread in Christian Forums. Those folk look like some of the dullest boringest brains on earth. There's a few brighter ones among them but they're the exception in the first few pages of that thread.

 

6 Christians came right out and declared that they would not accept such a finding.

 

This is what I find deplorable. They claim to have the truth and insist that we accept it, that we are dishonest in not accepting their message, etc. But rejecting the existence of something for which there is evidence is...I don't know any kind words to describe it.

 

1 Christian would accept such a finding, but claimed that an eternal Multiverse and an eternal God could co-exist..!??

 

Again, this may be due to my lack of scientific knowledge but why couldn't this be the case? Is there not room inside time and space or whatever the parameters of existence are? Which raises the question: What is outside the parameters of existence? Or what are the parameters and how do we know?

 

Btw, I can't be sure about this, but I suspect WLC's position on cosmology misuses the BGV as well.

 

I can't comment on BGV but what I'm seeing in this thread in your and Wester's posts is that WLC et al "conveniently omit" or "neglect to mention" inconvenient scientific facts in order to keep up with the progressively more sophisticated scientific findings. Back when ID was invented--in the 1980s?--vast amounts of data that are today common knowledge were yet to be discovered. It was easier to invent a sock-puppet evolution theory and then just neglect to update it, and/or claim the scientists were in disagreement on problematic issues, etc. But now they are presuming to take far more sophisticated issues and treating them the same. In fact, the guys who are doing it aren't even scientists--they're philosophers and theologians. I don't get it how they think they get to dictate what the world is made of from their armchairs--or computer monitors and lecterns.

 

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.

 

I can think of one way to make sense of that: Turn off your brain, your eyes, your ears, and any other logical and sensory input and repeat after me...God caused it.

 

The Bible says nothing can exist without God. The reference for that is in one of the posts in your thread on those forums. So that's just the way it is in their brains. Remember, BAA, all logic and senses are turned off. Don't ask me what prompts the response "God did it" but somehow it kicks in at the appropriate spot. Maybe it's selective logic that's turned off, not sensory input. They bump into a table and say, "God stopped me. It's God's will." That would be a type of logic but very selective.

 

practicing the dark arts of metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

 

Love that.

 

....I'm looking up Post 148 and found this gem:

 

It doesn't distance

it

self from empirical measurement

, but

I don't see wh

y I

should think that all knowledge of reality consists in empirical measurement. (Crandaddy, Post 143)

 

That's mumbo-jumbo alright. I've seen this trick before. It's an attack on the fragility and tentativeness of human knowledge. They get away with it on internet forums because it's not "personal attacks." It's like they're pulling back the thrusting arm with the javelin and aiming it directly at the opponent's brain. Rather than dealing with the real issue. Put the opponent out of commission and the problem will go away, seems to be the idea. That's what occurs to me as I write.

 

I take back what I said above about these folk not being having brains. This guy obviously does.

 

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.

 

Found it. Let us know if he responds because your question is also my question, i.e. if he actually meets your challenge I think we will have empirical evidence for God.

 

If you could explain why we can't have a multiverse and God...

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again RS.

 

Fyi, I closed that Christianforums thread down... just a few minutes ago.

 

Crandaddy was good to his word and replied to my question... with a mish-mash of Double Dutch and Serbo-Croat, spiced with High Elvish expletives and sprinkled with a dash of Romulan slang. Or, putting it another way, that crazy linguistic cocktail would have made more sense than the answer he gave me.

 

There's simply no point in continuing the farce and I've given them a parting shot that'll stick in their craw!

 

Thanks,

 

E.I.

 

 

p.s.

I'll try and tackle your question about the co-existence of an eternal God and an eternal Multiverse tomorrow, ok?

[Joshpantera]

If you could explain why we can't have a multiverse and God...

I haven't done any more than skim the thread and I haven't read the article link yet, but I have argued the multiverse possibilities with apologists a few times around on various forums. They have so far been very much against the mutliverse and with good reason - it leaves no room for the God of the gaps because there are no more gaps in an eternal and infinite based cosmological model. It's very simple because the transcendent God concept is that we are here in the universe which is finite and God inhabits the realm beyond (transcendent) which is infinite and eternal.

 

Problem: Science finding out that space is not limited to the finite universe but rather spread out eternally without a beginning or end and also full of an infinite number finite universes like our own. Transcendent of this finite expanding universe is simply an eternal expanse of other natural universes with space and motion between each of them. There's no end to it. There's no end to existence itself. There's no place to suggest a transcendent God that was outside of the multiverse creating it all because there is no outside of or transcendent of an infinite and eternal expanse with no end in sight, no border or boundary in which to transcend.

 

So for the God to be eternal and yet exist, the God has to necessarily be joined and infused into the mere existence of it all - the very fabric and structure of existence itself which is the only thing that has no beginning or end in this scenario. That makes for either a pantheistic God that is the "all," or a God which is less than infinite and eternal and therefore not the "all."

 

Because unless the God is everywhere and in everything the God falls short of being eternal, infinite, and so on. In that case the realm of existence (multiverse) is infinite and eternal but the God would have to be simply something finite existing within the bounds of eternity (multiverse) and is not infused into the fabric and structure of existence itself. There's only two options on the table for a multiverse God - either infused into existence itself or not, because there is no going beyond or outside of existence, because, of course that's to suggest that something doesn't exist at all.

 

This is where I took the apologists because I wanted to see how they'd react and respond. And I had one taker actually try to push God outside of existence (the multiverse) in order to remain transcendent of the multiverse at which point I said, "aha, so then you're telling me that God doesn't exist because outside of the infinite is outside of existence itself!" He said, "yes!" And then tried to double back and argue that "self-existent" means outside of existence. Epic fail, I know, but that is the length he sought to go instead of accepting a pantheistic view of God as infused into existence itself. Then all of the other freethinkers pounced on him and drove home the fact that "self-existent" points to getting infused into existence itself and doesn't mean outside of existence. He was truly screwed on that one and didn't see it coming at all.

 

You see, I'm also trying to map out the possible future debates between theists and atheists about God as the theists attempt to stay current with the progression of science and discovery. That arena interests me for some reason.

 

If God has to be infused with the eternal fabric and structure of existence itself - as per a multiverse scenario or any other of the up and coming infinite space models like the Wave Structure of Matter or Electric / Plasma universe and what-have-you - then they loose the distinction between what is God and what is not God. Good and Evil has to come into consideration with a God who can not be removed or separated away from anything in existence, in order to retain it's "eternal" status. Heaven and Hell are rendered meaningless at that point, because Hell is supposed to be separation from God and how can you be separated from a God that either has to be literally existence itself (omnipresent) or a finite something or another? It's putting them between a rock and hard place.

 

Is God infinite or not?

 

If not, then it destroys their theology because it's based on a God who is claimed to be infinite and eternal in the Bible.

 

If so, then it also destroys their theology to point where it would have to evolve into something completely different than the traditional views of the Bible, something more along the lines of an eastern mysticism that can easily navigate with God conceptualized as everything in existence, period, regardless of the implications.

 

Anyways, consider my arguments and respond as you guys see fit because I've been exploring this with experimental confrontations with theists for years now. No one has been able to shake it so far. Does this also destroy WLC's recent apology?

 

I'll have to back track and read the opening link with this argument in mind....

[bornagainathiest]

You've nailed it, Josh!

 

What you've written here sums up exactly the problem Christianity's going to face, if an eternal Multiverse is discovered.

But if you think that's going to stop the die-hards, think again!

 

Here's what the Christian Crandaddy wrote in reply to me, when I raised this point.

 

BAA, writing as EverettInterpretation wrote...

 

 

 

Aha!

I think I can see where this is going.

 

If an natural, eternally-existing domain is discovered by science, then why not just shift the goalposts by rebranding God as a-temporal. That way his existence can be upheld (as an article of faith) and it cannot be threatened by anything man can discover. And so what should have remained a discussion solely within the remit of science, is once again dragged out of that sphere, into something else.

 

Crandaddy replied...

Nope. Not shifting goalposts. Atemporal eternalism is the traditional position on God's temporality; a temporally everlasting God is the theological novelty. I myself am an atemporal eternalist for reasons that have nothing to do with science. In fact, science doesn't really have very much of interest to say regarding theology at all; it certainly can't prove that God doesn't exist.

 

See that Josh? No matter which way you try and pin them down, they'll try to wriggle out of it.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

If you could explain why we can't have a multiverse and God...

I haven't done any more than skim the thread and I haven't read the article link yet, but I have argued the multiverse possibilities with apologists a few times around on various forums. They have so far been very much against the mutliverse and with good reason - it leaves no room for the God of the gaps because there are no more gaps in an eternal and infinite based cosmological model. It's very simple because the transcendent God concept is that we are here in the universe which is finite and God inhabits the realm beyond (transcendent) which is infinite and eternal.

 

Problem: Science finding out that space is not limited to the finite universe but rather spread out eternally without a beginning or end and also full of an infinite number finite universes like our own. Transcendent of this finite expanding universe is simply an eternal expanse of other natural universes with space and motion between each of them. There's no end to it. There's no end to existence itself. There's no place to suggest a transcendent God that was outside of the multiverse creating it all because there is no outside of or transcendent of an infinite and eternal expanse with no end in sight, no border or boundary in which to transcend.

 

Exactly so!

 

The key word is 'boundary'. Christianity relies upon there being a boundary, outside of which they can insert their God. Once he's outside that boundary, He's safe. He can't be investigated by science, which can only probe the natural universe. But if the natural MULTIverse is all that there is, the boundary vanishes, leaving no 'secret' realm where God can hide.

 

WLC uses the boundary of the (theorized) gravitational singularity in his variant of the Kalam argument. Then he inserts his 'timeless' and 'spaceless' eternal spiritual being (God) into that gap. Since all time and space sprang out of this singularity in the Big Bang, whatever 'created' the physical universe MUST be beyond that boundary/gap. The catch is, a infinite and eternal multiverse has no boundary of any kind.

 

You can even see this kind of boundary-seeking thinking in the replies some of the Christians gave me.

 

Sketcher wrote...

If our universe is just one of many, not the first nor the last, and if it was caused by a natural phenomenon, that wouldn't mean that the natural cause is past-eternal. No matter how far back you go, you can always go back one step and place God at the end.

 

To which I replied...

How can God be placed at the end, when there is no end Sketcher? Please think about it.

 

So for the God to be eternal and yet exist, the God has to necessarily be joined and infused into the mere existence of it all - the very fabric and structure of existence itself which is the only thing that has no beginning or end in this scenario. That makes for a pantheistic God or a God which is less than infinite and eternal. Because unless the God is everywhere and in everything the God falls short of eternal, infinite, and so on. In that case the realm of existence is infinite and eternal but the God is simply something finite existing within the bounds of eternity that is not infused into the eternal fabric and structure of existence itself. There's only two options, infused into existence itself or not because there is no beyond or outside of existence, because, of course that's to suggest that something doesn't exist at all.

 

This is where I took the apologists because I wanted to see how they'd react and respond. And I had one taker actually try to push God outside of existence to remain transcendent of the multiverse at which point I said, "aha, so then you're telling me that God doesn't exist because outside of the infinite is outside of existence itself!" He tried to double back and argue that "self-existent" means outside of existence. Epic fail, I know, but that is the length he sought to go instead of accepting a Pantheistic view of God as infused into existence itself. Then all of the other freethinkers pounced on him and drove home the fact that "self-existent" points to getting infused into existence itself. He was truly screwed on that one and didn't see it coming.

 

Josh, I strongly recommend you that you carefully read thru Crandaddy's posts, over at Christianforums. He seems to be cut from very similar cloth to the apologist you tackled about the Multiverse issue. I'm sure you'll find what he writes very interesting.

 

You see, I'm also trying to map out the possible future debates between theists and atheists about God as the theists attempt to stay current with the progression of science and discovery. That arena interests me for some reason.

 

Then I hope you'll find RSMartin's link of interest and my encounters too. I do think things are shaping up for a sea-change in Christian theology, as they get ready to grapple with the consequences of a Multiverse being discovered.

 

If God has to be infused with the eternal fabric and structure of existence itself as per a multiverse scenario or any other of the up and coming infinite space models like the Wave Structure of Matter or Electric / Plasma universe and what-have-you, then they loose the distinction between what is God and what is not God. Good and Evil has to come into consideration with a God who can not be removed or separated away from anything in existence, in order to retain it's "eternal" status. Heaven and Hell are rendered meaningless at that point, because Hell is supposed to be separation from God and how can you be separated from a God that either has to be literally existence itself (omnipresent) or a finite something or another? It's putting them between a rock and hard place. Is God infinite or not?

 

If not, then it destroys their theology because it's based on a God who is claimed to be infinite and eternal in the Bible.

 

If so, then it also destroys their theology to point where it would have to evolve into something completely different than the traditional views of the Bible, something more along the lines of an eastern mysticism that can easily navigate with God conceptualized as everything in existence, period.

 

Yep!

I've been thinking along these lines for some time. An early chapter of the book 'Parallel Worlds' by Michico kaku details his surprise, when, as a child he first encountered the Christian concepts of time and space having specific starting and end points. Up until then he'd only been exposed to infinite/eternal concepts of existence from his Japanese parents and their Buddhist traditions.

 

Anyways, consider my arguments and respond as you guys see fit because I've been exploring this with experimental confrontations with theists for years now. No one has been able to shake it so far. Does this also destroy WLC's recent apology?

 

Yes. Totally, utterly and absolutely.

Craig relies upon there being a boundary and if there's no boundary, his argument fails.

Ok, metaphysical mischief-makers like Crandaddy will always try and worm their way out of this, but they are a very small minority. Most people will immediately see that an infinite and eternal Multiverse kills the Kalam Cosmoloigical Argument stone-cold dead.

 

I'll have to back track and read the opening link with this argument in mind....

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[R. S. Martin]

Joshpantera, thanks for answering a lot of my questions. I agree with BAA that you should read the linked paper. In Post 16, I link the thread where the Christians respond regarding it. (It's here.) The very interesting fact about that thread is that nobody responds after reading it--only before.

 

I would caution anyone from declaring that evidence for a multiverse would kill Christian theology, or that Christians will be unable to come up with a counterfeit of some kind that fits their belief system. We've got some really really smart brains out there who are dedicated for life to Christ and all that goes with Jesus-belief. They will do what needs to be done to figure it out. That is the pattern I've seen happening over the past couple centuries. The older guys like Alvin Plantinga and WLC might not be able to successfully meet this new challenge but don't underestimate their students. They are getting PhDs in the various sciences just so they have the wherewithal to re-apply the technical terms and concepts to their own advantage. The philosophy of freedom of speech obliges secular schools to tolerate, even reward if well done, their arguments supporting biblical concepts.

 

This is happening not only in Christian theism. And I happen to know that the religions do share idea across religious lines where there is a common interest. I've seen Muslim DVDs on how we know there is a creator. The only way I knew it was Muslim--and not evangelical Christian--was because the creator's name was Allah rather than God and the group's name may have been on the cover. I don't know who borrowed/stole/ plagiarized from whom. We know that the Kalam Cosmological Argument comes from the medieval Arab scholars, who I think were Muslim. You get the picture--retaining a creator in the picture is an absolute necessity for these theists of various stripes. I don't know how they're going to do it other than with pig-headed denial but I expect they will eventually find a way.

 

As we know, once they're outside the secular schools back in the churches and church schools they have no scruples against mixing deceit and lies as needed with their rhetoric to make their theories go over with the masses of believers. And they are GOOD at it.

[♦ ficino ♦]

 

Sketcher wrote...

If our universe is just one of many, not the first nor the last, and if it was caused by a natural phenomenon, that wouldn't mean that the natural cause is past-eternal. No matter how far back you go, you can always go back one step and place God at the end.

 

To which I replied...

How can God be placed at the end, when there is no end Sketcher? Please think about it.

 

Another answer to Sketcher could have been, "Whaddaya, stoopid?"

 

 

 

 

This is where I took the apologists because I wanted to see how they'd react and respond. And I had one taker actually try to push God outside of existence to remain transcendent of the multiverse at which point I said, "aha, so then you're telling me that God doesn't exist because outside of the infinite is outside of existence itself!" He tried to double back and argue that "self-existent" means outside of existence. Epic fail, I know, but that is the length he sought to go instead of accepting a Pantheistic view of God as infused into existence itself. Then all of the other freethinkers pounced on him and drove home the fact that "self-existent" points to getting infused into existence itself. He was truly screwed on that one and didn't see it coming.

 

The old philosopher's trick is to draw a distinction that protects the result the philosopher wants. I'm guessing that the Christian apologist will have to distinguish between two senses of "exist" - 1) "exist" as it applies to God, which is not the same as 2. "exist" as it applies to the universe/s and all in it/them.

 

This reminds me of the Neo-Platonists who divided their ultimate principle, The One, into two: The One that exists and, beyond it, The One that is beyond being and does not "exist." They posited this non-existing One because they wanted only one thing to be predicated of the One, lest somehow it become two. And if "one" and "exists" can be predicated of The One, then the ultimate One isn't really One.

 

WLC will be at the point where he doesn't make any more sense than this.

 

 

 

 

Craig relies upon there being a boundary and if there's no boundary, his argument fails.

Ok, metaphysical mischief-makers like Crandaddy will always try and worm their way out of this, but they are a very small minority. Most people will immediately see that an infinite and eternal Multiverse kills the Kalam Cosmoloigical Argument stone-cold dead.

 

 

 

It seems that the Cosmological Arg really can't work if the universe has no beginning because it's "part of" the multiverse. Christians might be able to assert that the multiverse is ontologically dependent on God, who is dependent only on Himself, but it's hard to see why one should accept that assertion - the rationale for it is only the fact that Christians need it.

[Ouroboros]

We know that the Kalam Cosmological Argument comes from the medieval Arab scholars, who I think were Muslim.

They were and are still Muslim apologists with the intent of arguing the evidence for Allah and truth of Islam using reasoning and logic. Basically, the WLC of Islam.

[Joshpantera]

]The old philosopher's trick is to draw a distinction that protects the result the philosopher wants. I'm guessing that the Christian apologist will have to distinguish between two senses of "exist" - 1) "exist" as it applies to God, which is not the same as 2. "exist" as it applies to the universe/s and all in it/them.[/b]

 

When I say realm of existence it applies across the board to any and every possible existence finite, infinite or otherwise collected together as a whole. Such as heaven (eternity) and earth (time). If both exist then both are within the bounds of the realm of existence itself which extends as far out as anything can ever be asserted to exist.

 

If not, well then we're going the direction of non-existence which is the assertion of hard atheism as the belief that God does not exist.

 

Either way, it leads to a series of realizations that dead end fundamentalist dogma if they're willing to engage the debate....

[♦ ficino ♦]

Just to try to anticipate how they might argue: when you say, "outside of the infinite is outside of existence itself," can the Christian apologist do a better job than the chap you quoted below of arguing that God's mode of existing is qualitatively different from the mode in which the multiverse and all in it exists? One powerful interpretation of Plato, for example, held that the universe is eternal but eternally dependent on God ontologically. Plutarch allegorized the creation story of the Timaeus to say that its chronological stages of creation are metaphors for levels of ontological dependency. I think Teilhard de Chardin said stuff like this, though I'm not sure about him. Going this far might require the Christian to give up too much other stuff, though, for it to be a palatable debating strategy.

 

I do think that the multiverse theory and the Kalam argument are incompatible.

[Joshpantera]

Are we talking about Plato's multi-level universe conceived of as an eternal multi-level realm?

 

Either God has to be the realm itself therefore eternal and omnipresent, or else not the realm itself but only a finite segment of the eternal realm that may have existed eternally along with the realm itself. It's still a loosing situation because we'd have to conclude that God while eternal co-existing with the eternal realm, is not omnipresent.

 

The problem is that they want God omnipresent when it suites their needs such as using scare tactics - God sees you all the time because God is omnipresent. Then it's fine and absolute. But when we follow it through to the logical conclusion that omnipresent doesn't mean present in some areas but not others, and therefore present in heaven and hell, Jesus and satan, mother Teresa and Adolph Hitler, suddenly he's not so omnipresent any more and they want to back peddle. And as much as they'd like to have it both ways - omnipresent when it suites their needs and not omnipresent when it doesn't - they're stuck with the initial assertion and all it entails.

 

I've held apologists feet to fire on this issue. I have never seen the fire put out. They have to break free from my hold and run the other direction in order to get away from it never to return.

 

As an SDA I was raised on the notion that you have God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. The Father is far away in a realm called heaven, which is other. The Son was with the Father, came to earth, and went back up to heaven far away. The omnipresent part of God is the Holy Spirit which is everywhere present and that's how God knows everything and why you can't run or hide from God. But this doesn't solve the problem I've raised. That means that the Holy Spirit, which is one part of the God head, has to be in Jesus and satan, in anything good and anything evil. Or else the Holy Spirit is not omnipresent. And if in everything, well then divinity is in everything including the most evil things imaginable as well as the good.

 

This is Dr. Truth kind of stuff. You can school believers all day long with this sort of thing because there is no good answer, not that I'm currently aware of any ways...

[Joshpantera]

Joshpantera, thanks for answering a lot of my questions. I agree with BAA that you should read the linked paper. In Post 16, I link the thread where the Christians respond regarding it. (It's here.) The very interesting fact about that thread is that nobody responds after reading it--only before.

 

I would caution anyone from declaring that evidence for a multiverse would kill Christian theology, or that Christians will be unable to come up with a counterfeit of some kind that fits their belief system. We've got some really really smart brains out there who are dedicated for life to Christ and all that goes with Jesus-belief. They will do what needs to be done to figure it out. That is the pattern I've seen happening over the past couple centuries. The older guys like Alvin Plantinga and WLC might not be able to successfully meet this new challenge but don't underestimate their students. They are getting PhDs in the various sciences just so they have the wherewithal to re-apply the technical terms and concepts to their own advantage. The philosophy of freedom of speech obliges secular schools to tolerate, even reward if well done, their arguments supporting biblical concepts.

 

I don't know if I'd go so far as to claim that they couldn't try to excuse contradiction, but they certainly can't solve the contradiction any more than they can solve the contradictions in the Bible. All we can do is point out the contradictions that do exist so that they can't get away with making ridiculous assertions without being called out on them publicly and then everyone watching can then observe and consider.

 

I'm going through the paper right now:

We conclude that this argument is sustainable so that if any level of the multiverse actually exists then it is

harmonious with theism.

 

Huge, huge logic leap right from the beginning. And the end is no different. They make an appeal to pantheist philosophy early on and then run along as if it's compatible with monotheism when it clearly isn't. And they quote Origen and Bruno with is odd, because Origen was heterodox and Bruno burned at the stake for his many worlds ideas which were charged as heresy, not Christian oriented:

 

Do you mean that no one on the Christian thread commented on the Multiverse paper after they read it, but only before reading it?

 

If so then I can see why. The whole thing is basically walking a fine line with respect to pantheist heresy, by Christian standards. And they never really bring it back to a monotheistic framework even though they keep suggesting that it does fit with monotheism. The problem is that they try to focus on the many worlds aspect as in how many worlds are possible in a multiverse instead of the real issue which is what exactly is the God of a multiverse asserted to be. They point to a presence in all worlds which is going the way of the pantheism involved with the issue of omnipresence and will break down to unflattering for monotheism in the end...

[R. S. Martin]

Josh, thanks for posting that video. It was posted June 2009 and I've seen it before. I watched it again and understand it a lot better now. I have a question. Near the end, he says by 2011 some biggie is happening. Did it happen and what did they find out?

[bornagainathiest]

Hello again Josh!

 

Over the weekend I've been giving some serious thought to your posts. Since I've already declared my hand on WLC's KCA, I won't go over that ground again. Therefore, I've focused on the following point.

 

JoshPantera wrote...

"You see, I'm also trying to map out the possible future debates between theists and atheists about God as the theists attempt to stay current with the progression of science and discovery. That arena interests me for some reason."

 

Yes, this intrigues me too. Which way are they going to jump and can we second-guess them? Well, maybe we can.

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that next year, the Planck satellite data reveals a very specific pattern in the CMB. A pattern predicted by various cosmologists to indicate, not just the presence of other universes, but of a past-eternal Multiverse. As far as I can see, this is a worst-case scenario for Christianity. For all of the reasons you've put forward so far and probably for several others.

 

How will Christianity deal with this?

A lot of Christians will simply deny the discovery, just as they already deny Evolution, the age of the Earth, the size of the universe, and so on. No big surprise there. But what will the clever, educated and well-read Christians do? How will they synthesize a new approach to a discovery that seems to exclude their God from the natural, physical reality that science investigates? My guess is that they'll start here...

 

Hebrews 11 : 1 - 3. (NIV)

 

1. Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance of what we do not see.

2. This is what the ancients were commended for.

3. By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what is visible.

 

Do you see it?

 

No matter how much science discovers, it can only study natural phenomenon. That's the limit of it's remit. Science cannot be used to discover or investigate anything super-natural. So, if there were such a thing a spiritual realm, that domain would be forever beyond science's ability to probe. And, once again, we're got a boundary, beyond which the Christians can insert their God. Even if a past-eternal Multiverse were to sweep aside Craig's KCA, the Christians will simply assert that science can never disprove the existence of God. Some Christians are already saying that. Remember Crandaddy's words to me?

 

"Atemporal eternalism is the traditional position on God's temporality; a temporally everlasting God is a theological novelty. I myself am an atemporal eternalist for reasons that have nothing to do with science. In fact, science doesn't really have much of interest to say regarding theology at all; it certainly can't prove God doesn't exist."

 

Their basis for saying this doesn't rest on physical proofs, evidence or anything science can ever discover. Nope. Look at the Hebrews passage again. Crandaddy said what he said, not because anything physical, nor because of some sophisticated metaphysical argument, but because of his FAITH. In his case, faith trumps reason, every time. He stands with the ancients (verse 2) , with everyone who's listed in chapter 11, with the 1st century Christians and with every true believer who's lived since then.

 

Now Josh, please check this out.

 

http://interlinear.b.../hebrews/11.htm

 

You can click on the blue period/dot symbol, to the right of the word, PHAINOMENON and it'll link you to this page...

 

http://biblesuite.com/greek/5316.htm

 

...which is Strong's explanation of the word in question.

 

That kinda confirms what I'm driving at, doesn't it?

If science is the study of visible and accessible, natural phenomenon and if Hebrews says that everything natural was made from that which is not visible (ME . EK . PHAINOMENON / NOT OF VISIBLE), how can science investigate anything that is not visible, not accessible, super-natural and not phenomenological? The short answer is that it can't. And so science can never disprove God.

 

This chimes with something Ouroboros wrote recently. He mentioned that there's a strong dualism operating in much religious thought. The duality of the physical and the spiritual, to be exact. Imho, this is where Christianity will make it's stand next. On the duality of the natural vs. the supernatural. They will use Hebrews 11 as their justification for asserting that science will never disprove God. Even if a truly-eternal Multiverse is discovered, such a thing will be both physical and temporal (Crandaddy's point) and so this will not be a proof of God's non-existence.

 

The Christian God is a-temporal and eternal, a-phenomenological, super-natural and inaccessible by science.

A past-eternal Multiverse is temporal and eternal, phenomenological, natural and accessible by science.

 

Since verse 3 of Hebrews 11 clearly implies that everything natural, phenomenonological and temporal (like the Multiverse) was created, this is the all Christians like Crandaddy need to assert that even an eternal Multiverse needs a Creator.

 

Sorry to have rambled a bit.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

[♦ ficino ♦]

BAA, I was groping toward something like what you express much more clearly.

 

But let's say that sophisticated Christians adopt a position like what you lay out above. I think they'll want to insist on, as you put it, an eternal Multiverse needing a creator. Otherwise, the hypothesis that there is a god won't do any work.

 

So if they give up on God's being the first cause when "first" denotes temporality, they will have to fall back on claims that God is the first cause in some other way - that, perhaps, God exists necessarily, and the Multiverse, though past- and future-eternal, exists in some contingent, derivative way. They can still get away with limiting Genesis 1-3 to our present universe.

 

This makes me think that the notions of necessary vs. contingent existence need to be unpacked. My suspicion is that a strong case can be made for the view that the set of things that exist "necessarily" is coextensive with the set of things that exist "omni-eternally" (i.e. back into past and into future). So the result may be that the property "necessary" doesn't do anything for "existence" that can't also be done by, say, "eternal." So the God postulate will turn out not to do any work. But I haven't worked this out.

[falemon]

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.

Me too - every time I'm exploring different ways to solve computation problems. There's absolutely nothing stopping that from being the case, and also nothing stopping us from doing the same and creating life in a simulation, even if it runs at a fraction of the speed of real time, the relative speed inside the machine would be ignorant of that fact.

 

I quite like one of the last pieces in the Animatrix where a robot was tricked into thinking it was a human

[Joshpantera]

Since verse 3 of Hebrews 11 clearly implies that everything natural, phenomenonological and temporal (like the Multiverse) was created, this is the all Christians like Crandaddy need to assert that even an eternal Multiverse needs a Creator.

 

Sorry to have rambled a bit.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

The response is how does the Multiverse realm of existence with no beginning or end, temporal or otherwise, have a creator?

 

By that standard we then have to assert that their God, with no beginning or end, had to have a creator as well. And if they argue that he didn't need a creator because he's "self-existent," so too is a multiverse infinite in expanse with no fixed beginning or end therefore "self-existent" in the very same way as their God and for the very same reason. You can not attribute a fixed beginning or creation of that which is considered eternal and infinite in expanse.

 

Supernatural

Q) How can God exist with no beginning or end?

 

A) He just does.

 

Natural

Q) How can the multiverse exist with no beginning or end?

 

A) It just does.

 

The shift here is that what used to be thought of finite (matter, the visible things) turn out to be spread out infinitely instead of held to a finite region of space in the ancient multilevel universe cosmology that Hebrews is coming from. The visible then crosses a threshold from being subject only to the finite realm of perception to now the infinite realm beyond our perception, but detectable by observations made within the visible realm. In other words, the invisible realm previously reserved for their God is now bombarded with space and matter and the supernatural (eternity / infinity) is now simply the expanse of the natural cosmos.

 

If they push for a duality where there is the multiverse with no beginning or end on one hand, and then God with no beginning or end too but in a spiritual dimension, then we find an epic fail again because the multiverse encapsulates all possible existing dimensions as well, not just the dimensions visible directly to our eyes. So Hebrews doesn't seem like much of an escape for educated Christians. Any dimension is part of the natural multiverse which itself doesn't need a creator any more than their idea of God needs a creator. There's no dimension in existence in which to reserve as a supernatural one apart from all others, or apart from so much as one dimension because the multiverse is multidimensional too.

 

Unfortunately the LISA satellite scheduled to go up last year never made it up. But if it finally launches then they'll be searching for evidence of a worm hole at the birth of the universe. And taking sensitive gravitational readings to detect the gravity of parallel universes and what not. What's amazing is that cosmologists can even conceive of how to go about proving existence before the BB and the existence of universes outside of our own. Hopefully they get the opportunity, and then the games begin.

[bornagainathiest]

Since verse 3 of Hebrews 11 clearly implies that everything natural, phenomenonological and temporal (like the Multiverse) was created, this is the all Christians like Crandaddy need to assert that even an eternal Multiverse needs a Creator.

 

Sorry to have rambled a bit.

 

Your thoughts?

 

BAA.

The response is how does the Multiverse realm of existence with no beginning or end, temporal or otherwise, have a creator?

 

The answer Josh, is that the Multiverse is natural and not super-natural. You can't compare the natural and the supernatural and say they are the same. They aren't.

 

The Christian God is a-temporal and eternal, a-phenomenological, super-natural and inaccessible by science.

 

This is the difference.

 

A past-eternal Multiverse is temporal and eternal, phenomenological, natural and accessible by science.

 

By that standard we then have to assert that their God, with no beginning or end, had to have a creator as well.

 

Only if you apply natural rules and principles to supernatual things - which you can't.

 

And if they argue that he didn't need a creator because he's "self-existent," so too is a multiverse infinite in expanse with no fixed beginning or end and therefore "self-existent" in the very same way for the very same reason.

 

It is naturally self-existent, not super-naturally self-existent. There is a difference.

 

The rules governing the self-existence of a Multiverse are natural, not super-natural. Therefore, you cannot apply natural logic and natural reason to anything supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the understanding, logic and reason of us humans.

 

You can not attribute a fixed beginning or creation of that which is eternal and infinite in expanse.

 

Correct. Yet the natural cannot exist by itself. It relies on the supernatural to cause it, regardless of any of it's natural temporal qualities.

 

Q) How can God exist with no beginning or end?

 

A) He just does. (Because He's supernatural, not natural.)

 

Q) How can the multiverse exist with no beginning or end?

 

A) It just does. (But still needs to be created, because anything natural cannot exist by itself. Only the supernatural can do that.)

 

The shift here is that what used to be thought of finite (matter, the visible things) turn out to be spread out infinitely instead of held to a finite region of space. The visible then crosses a threshold from being subject only to the finite realm of perception to now the infinite realm beyond our perception, but detectable by observations made within the visible realm. In other words, the invisible realm previously reserved for their God is now bombarded with space and matter and the supernatural (eternity / infinity) is no simply natural.

 

Yes, but you're trying to extend natural phenomoneological visibility into the supernatural realm - to a domain where science and natural principles do not apply.

 

If they push for a duality where there is the multiverse with no beginning and then God with no beginning too but in a spiritual dimension, then we find an epic fail again because the multiverse encapsulates all possible existing dimensions as well, not just the dimensions visible to our eyes.

 

All possible existing physical and natural dimensions that are accessible by science.

See the difference?

 

By definition, science cannot detect or investigate the supernatural. The natural cannot apprehend the supernatural. It's oil and water. One does not mix or interact with the other.

 

So Hebrews doesn't seem like much of an escape for educated Christians.

 

I'm playing Devil's advocate here Josh, so please don't loose your cool with me, ok?

 

For now, try to stop applying natural principles to supernatural things and treat the two domains as separate. That should help.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA

[Joshpantera]

^ That's exactly where they would take it.

 

And it depends on which way we choose to go with it. If we grant the existence of both a supernatural and natural then the omnipresence argument applies. Either God is everywhere present or not, that means present in the supernatural and natural or not omnipresent, only partially present isn't omnipresent if we grant that reality is not only all of the natural cosmos that we can perceive, but also this supernatural realm of God and the angels too which makes for one total and complete view of reality - natural and supernatural one.

 

That's where we question how God can be omnipresent and yet NOT the whole of existence itself. This ought to be hashed out before ever turning to the multiverse to extend the implications of God's omnipresent to a new cosmological model.

 

But after hashing that out, if it doesn't make sense to call God omnipresent and not follow through with it and see the God as existence itself, everywhere present in every realm that exists, then the same applies to the multiverse. And that's essentially where the paper on the multiverse was headed. Quote pantheist sources and then Christian sources that venture close to pantheism. Here's another quote from a Christian source:

 

http://www.katapi.or...ianFaith/IV.htm

III. Transcendence and Immanence an Antinomy

The Transcendence and Immanence of God are what is called an "antinomy",

a pair of necessary truths, which must be held together, and yet, which appear to contradict each other.

There are several such antinomies in Christian doctrine:

God is Three and God is One;

Jesus Christ is both God and Man;

God is omnipotent, yet man has free will.

Truth appears to consist of a balance of apparent opposites.

To emphasize either side and neglect the other is to fall into serious error.

To believe in God's transcendence and to neglect His immanence is to fall into Deism.

To believe in His immanence and to neglect His transcendence is to fall into Pantheism.

History shows that either course has disastrous effects on human conduct.

This is a good example of some Christian not having any idea what he's talking about. Pantheism means "All is God" which is, by definition, and all encompassing statement. Everything immanent and everything transcendent taken as whole, as the full scope of existence, is a type of Pantheism some call Panentheism. In short, he just stated that God has to be everywhere both in creation and transcendent, which, is of course making God the realm of existence itself infused into every part of the realm. That stale mates religious dogma and leads down the path of breaking fundamentalism down to rubbish.

 

The real problem here comes from having an eternal material realm with no boundary, and then claiming that beyond that eternal material realm is another realm that we can't see or think about. There's no beyond something eternal and infinite. It goes on forever and ever without end. If the material realm gets plugged into that endless slot then the supernatural gets pushed out of it, for rational thinkers. There's no room left in existence for a supernatural realm when the natural cosmos goes on forever without end. So while we could toy around and grant them a supernatural realm as if there could be such a thing as beyond an endless existence spanning all possible dimensions both visible and invisible, it doesn't add up under close investigation.

 

But the stubborn will remain stubborn, I know.

 

My only objective is airing out the debates to where the believer side is made to look foolish enough to where onlookers can possibly catch the logic leaping and special pleading and decide which is more likely.

[R. S. Martin]

Therefore, you cannot apply natural logic and natural reason to anything supernatural. The supernatural is, by definition, beyond the understanding, logic and reason of us humans.

 

It's this kind of thinking that has me seeing double and cross-eyed. So far as I can make out, the Christians making these arguments about the supernatural are human. Anyone disagrees please provide the evidence. So if they are human, how do they presume to know so much about the supernatural as to make the statements they do about it and God, etc.?

 

They don't anymore than does the atheist.

 

If their statements sounded wise beyond belief, one might attribute it to a cosmic wisdom or God, but it sounds more like desperadoes grasping at straws to make their God come out on top of an impossible situation. In other words, it sounds like something humans would say when they've got their backs up against solid walls and perhaps a gun to their heads with the demand that they come out with proof for the impossible--or die.

 

Not sure I'm making sense.

[R. S. Martin]

My only objective is airing out the debates to where the believer side is made to look foolish enough to where onlookers can possibly catch the logic leaping and special pleading and decide which is more likely.

 

Thanks for this. It answers one of my long-term questions of how can we hope to "win" against these Christian con-men. I remember what it's like being a layperson with only a Grade 8 education and hearing these convincing arguments from both sides. But having no way of checking out what's what. It's very confusing. Then the conservative Christians say the scientists are just in it for the money, or for a big name, etc. Since one identifies much more easily with the conservative Christian at the door than with some obscure academic in an ivory tower or scientist in a lab, one is inclined to believe the Christian con-man whose beliefs agree at least in part with one's own.

 

But even the uneducated have some sense of logic, of right and wrong-headedness, despite major gaps in factual knowledge. Your objective appears to appeal for this sense that people can identify with. This gives me hope. Thank you.

[R. S. Martin]

Unfortunately the LISA satellite scheduled to go up last year never made it up. But if it finally launches then they'll be searching for evidence of a worm hole at the birth of the universe. And taking sensitive gravitational readings to detect the gravity of parallel universes and what not. What's amazing is that cosmologists can even conceive of how to go about proving existence before the BB and the existence of universes outside of our own. Hopefully they get the opportunity, and then the games begin.

 

Searching for wormholes? So this has moved beyond science fiction? And serious cosmology is pushing back the boundaries to before the Big Bang? Extremely fascinating. Thanks for answering my question again. I'm beginning to get some insight on why this is seriously threatening to theistic belief, why they've got nothing left but stubbornness, aka faith.

[falemon]

This is great, once they start to appreciate the multiverse they become open to the Aleph, and then they might begin to consider God as just an infinite force that powers existence and soon they will realize the redundancy of the need for a deity to explain the Universe.

 

An interesting thought. Sometimes intelligence is attributed to disbelief in Christianity, and part of this is not that believing Christianity requires a lower capacity for learning per sae, but that more intelligent people will be able to understand the science that the ignorant blindly speak against, and also it allows them to comprehend all the things that Christians presume must be because of God.

 

I remember what it's like being a layperson with only a Grade 8 education and hearing these convincing arguments from both sides. But having no way of checking out what's what

Something I had a problem with when I was practicing Christianity because that means the pastor can feed them any lie, and it's just not an honest way to communicate a message, no matter how much you believe it to be true.

[Joshpantera]

Unfortunately the LISA satellite scheduled to go up last year never made it up. But if it finally launches then they'll be searching for evidence of a worm hole at the birth of the universe. And taking sensitive gravitational readings to detect the gravity of parallel universes and what not. What's amazing is that cosmologists can even conceive of how to go about proving existence before the BB and the existence of universes outside of our own. Hopefully they get the opportunity, and then the games begin.

 

Searching for wormholes? So this has moved beyond science fiction? And serious cosmology is pushing back the boundaries to before the Big Bang? Extremely fascinating. Thanks for answering my question again. I'm beginning to get some insight on why this is seriously threatening to theistic belief, why they've got nothing left but stubbornness, aka faith.

That's what he was getting in the video about taking snap shots of the birth of the universe. That delves into what would have caused the BB and it's nothing more than matter traveling from another universe into a black hole and out through a white hole which is what the BB would be in this instance. And that matter was never created or destroyed, it would be as eternal as the multiverse itself. The source material would have always existed.

 

Here's a funny debate between a not so educated Christian and youtube's AronRa:

 

 

Sagan hammers home the point about the universe always existing as saving a step and leaving no need to insert a God. That same reasoning applies to the new mutliverse ideas.