Multiverse vs. God

[pantheory]

Of course there are different types of proposed multiverses as well as different gods of different characters -- the God of the old testament compared to the God of the new testament, for instance.  Such thoughts can be discussed from a God perspective as seen below, or from an atheist's perspective like myself. Here is an interesting article comparing the belief in God as it relates to the belief in a multiverse, and opinions as to the reasonings involved.

 

https://biologos.org/articles/universe-or-multiverse-god-is-still-the-creator

[♦ Fuego ♦]

It reminds me of the many cringe nanny articles I read back in the day. Whatever science comes up with, our GOD is still GAWD of it. I guess they at least are trying to get people to consider modern thoughts instead of replaying Kent Hovind tapes from the 90s. 

 

[Joshpantera]

Thanks for posting this, Pantheory. 

 

 I'm not surprised at all! Of course christians who have to keep facing things like multiverse theory will start to gravitate towards a cognitive dissonance minded conclusion: 

 

If the multiverse exists, then god created the multiverse!

 

We've hit apologist's with this many times over the years. And the writer doesn't seem to understand where the claims lead. 

 

 

(1) Fine Tuning:

 

As to fine tuning, that's completely off base in so many ways that it's ridiculous. I'll state one of the most ridiculous aspects. In a universe where by chance life came to exist, then every single step, stage, condition, and circumstance all had to be just that way in order for life to be existing now. So it looks meant to be. If anything would have been different, then everything would be different. But this is not 'evidence of intent and intentional design.' Not even close. It's just what it looks like when you look backwards in time from the perspective of existing and being alive now. Everything that happened by chance, had to happen that way in order to be here looking backwards at it now. 

 

 

(2) Multiverse: 

 

As to eternal inflation, there's all kinds of things going on. There's no hard fixed beginning. It's an open question if anything. So the situation could well be that a multiverse of infinite universes coming and going could have always existed. Eliminating the need to claim that something had to always exist and that the only answer is an eternal god. If we're talking an eternal cosmos, then we're talking about something that has always existed. Not something "created" by something else. In fact, there's really no room here for both an eternal natural cosmos and an eternal god. 

 

 

What does an eternal god even mean in the context of accepting an eternal, uncreated natural cosmos????

 

Are there two eternal things, one being the mulitverse and the other being an uncreated god, both of which co-exist together???

 

But even then, the god that co-exist's with an eternal natural cosmos could not have been "created," an eternal cosmos which is by definition, "un-created," just like the god. 

 

This opens a tangled web that I doubt the author understands as of writing the article. It basically points out how unnecessary claiming that a god exists actually is when you start looking at the natural cosmos as infinite and eternal, as is the case with a multiverse. 

[WalterP]

There are two points from this article that deserve further inspection.

 

And multiverse theories do not eliminate fine-tuning; the multiverse would still need some parameters to be fine-tuned to produce fruitful universes.

 

This is false.  Throw a bucket of coins into the air often enough and eventually all of them will land face up.  There is no fine tuning or design involved in this result.  The exponential multiplication of universes caused by inflation is more than adequate to produce many, many life-friendly universes.  No fine-tuning needed, thank you very much!

 

 Christian physicists who do research in this area believe that if the multiverse exists, the multiverse would be created by God.  

 

Yes, that exactly what these physicists believe... by faith.  But their faith isn't what determines what the science, the data and the calculations say.  When you strip away their personal religious beliefs (which have no role to play in science) and deal only with the science, nobody really knows if a multiverse would need to be created or not.  The current scientific answer to the question is... unknown.

 

But this is a pretty low tactic by the Christians running the Biologos site. 

 

Pretend to be discussing the science of the multiverse and then cite the religious views of certain scientists.  Which is effectively telling the Christians reading the article, because these Christian experts believe that the multiverse was created by god, then its ok for you to believe it too.  And because this is what they want to see, they'll blithely follow these scientists like sheep.  The nakedness of the exploitation going on here is both staggering and sick-making.

 

Do NOT trust anything from Biologos and always very carefully check everything they claim to be supported by science!

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

 

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

There are two points from this article that deserve further inspection.

 

And multiverse theories do not eliminate fine-tuning; the multiverse would still need some parameters to be fine-tuned to produce fruitful universes.

 

This is false.  Throw a bucket of coins into the air often enough and eventually all of them will land face up.  There is no fine tuning or design involved in this result.  The exponential multiplication of universes caused by inflation is more than adequate to produce many, many life-friendly universes.  No fine-tuning needed, thank you very much!

 

 Christian physicists who do research in this area believe that if the multiverse exists, the multiverse would be created by God.  

 

Yes, that exactly what these physicists believe... by faith.  But their faith isn't what determines what the science, the data and the calculations say.  When you strip away their personal religious beliefs (which have no role to play in science) and deal only with the science, nobody really knows if a multiverse would need to be created or not.  The current scientific answer to the question is... unknown.

 

But this is a pretty low tactic by the Christians running the Biologos site. 

 

Pretend to be discussing the science of the multiverse and then cite the religious views of certain scientists.  Which is effectively telling the Christians reading the article, because these Christian experts believe that the multiverse was created by god, then its ok for you to believe it too.  And because this is what they want to see, they'll blithely follow these scientists like sheep.  The nakedness of the exploitation going on here is both staggering and sick-making.

 

Do NOT trust anything from Biologos and always very carefully check everything they claim to be supported by science!

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

As you said, this article and its perspectives are those of theistic scientists concerning multiverse possibilities. As such they push their ideas concerning both science and religion. And I agree that their rationale concerning fine tuning doesn't seem valid. A primary reason for proposing multiverse theory was to solve the so-called fine-tuning problem that doesn't exist in the first place IMO.

[Joshpantera]

On 1/17/2021 at 12:48 PM, WalterP said:

But this is a pretty low tactic by the Christians running the Biologos site. 

 

Pretend to be discussing the science of the multiverse and then cite the religious views of certain scientists.  Which is effectively telling the Christians reading the article, because these Christian experts believe that the multiverse was created by god, then its ok for you to believe it too.  And because this is what they want to see, they'll blithely follow these scientists like sheep.  The nakedness of the exploitation going on here is both staggering and sick-making.

 

Do NOT trust anything from Biologos and always very carefully check everything they claim to be supported by science!

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

This is a very low tactic by Biologos. How much of this is naivety and how much of it is blatant, conscious intellectual dishonesty???

[◊ Krowb ◊]

talk about a blind spot (emphasis added):  

 

Quote

• Explanations are made up after the fact to fit whatever outcomes are observed.
• Scientific-sounding terms or jargon are used in imprecise, incorrect, or undefined ways.
• Statistics are presented in decontextualized ways, often without properly referencing the source.
• Links and references (if they are provided at all) are internal and do not take you to sources outside the publisher or website.
• Cited evidence is anecdotal or ad hoc and does not come from studies that systematically gathered empirical evidence.
• There are built-in explanations for cases when the idea fails to explain others’ results. (In other words, it’s hard to disprove the idea.)
• Proponents often claim they have been persecuted or silenced by the scientific community.
• Information is presented as special or secret insights available only to the privileged few who have taken the time (or spent the money) to learn about it.
• Findings are not published by reputable sources like peer-reviewed scientific journals, and their claims are reported in obscure news sources.
• Cited experts do not have recognized credentials or they lack qualifications in the field relevant to their claims.
• Ideas from outside the realm of science are presented as scientifically established.

https://biologos.org/articles/how-to-spot-fake-science

[WalterP]

13 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

This is a very low tactic by Biologos. How much of this is naivety and how much of it is blatant, conscious intellectual dishonesty???

 

Blatant, conscious intellectual dishonesty is ok for Christians if it ultimately leads people to Jesus or keeps them in the Kingdom.

 

The end justifies the means. 

[WalterP]

12 hours ago, Krowb said:

talk about a blind spot (emphasis added):  

 

https://biologos.org/articles/how-to-spot-fake-science

 

It's worse than you think Krowb.

 

Your excellent list should have this added to it.

 

"Capitalizing on common public misconceptions about the universe to sell their agenda."

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

[◊ Krowb ◊]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

Your excellent list should have this added to it.

 

While I would love to take credit for that list, that's biologos own list from an article on their front page.  I simply added the emphasis.

[Joshpantera]

BTW, these conversations that we've had before are worth bringing up again from time to time. Because newer viewers may never see what's buried in the past. And we should never let up on these kind of scientific discussions, IMO. They are top level important for the ex christian online communities. 

 

Some of us staffer's were discussing the importance of continued interest in bringing up the important issues of science, philosophy, theology, and spirituality fairly regularly. 

[WalterP]

4 hours ago, Krowb said:

 

While I would love to take credit for that list, that's biologos own list from an article on their front page.  I simply added the emphasis.

 

 

Ah... but Krowb, you did have the clarity of thought and insight to...

 

A.  Take note of the list in the first place.

 

B.  Realize that Biologos commit many of these errors themselves.

 

and...

 

C.  Add your emphasis, drawing our attention to where they are tripping up themselves.

 

Deserved credit to you, I think.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[WalterP]

2 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

BTW, these conversations that we've had before are worth bringing up again from time to time. Because newer viewers may never see what's buried in the past. And we should never let up on these kind of scientific discussions, IMO. They are top level important for the ex christian online communities. 

 

Some of us staffer's were discussing the importance of continued interest in bringing up the important issues of science, philosophy, theology, and spirituality fairly regularly. 

 

Hey Josh!

 

I may have something in the pipeline that would fulfil that brief.

 

The fine-tuning of the universe is a much beloved argument oft used by Christian apologists and bloggers.

 

However, I think I've detected a fatal flaw in their (mis)use of it.

 

It was BAA's work from several years ago that started me thinking in a new direction, btw.

 

Rather than posting the thread in the Science vs Religion area, I was wondering about putting it in the Den?  (When it's ready to go, that is.)

 

The reason being that this argument is a major part of current Christian apologetics.

 

WLC, Biologos and several other prominent Christian sites push fine-tuning a LOT!

 

That sound ok, to you?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[Joshpantera]

17 hours ago, WalterP said:

 

Hey Josh!

 

I may have something in the pipeline that would fulfil that brief.

 

The fine-tuning of the universe is a much beloved argument oft used by Christian apologists and bloggers.

 

However, I think I've detected a fatal flaw in their (mis)use of it.

 

It was BAA's work from several years ago that started me thinking in a new direction, btw.

 

Rather than posting the thread in the Science vs Religion area, I was wondering about putting it in the Den?  (When it's ready to go, that is.)

 

The reason being that this argument is a major part of current Christian apologetics.

 

WLC, Biologos and several other prominent Christian sites push fine-tuning a LOT!

 

That sound ok, to you?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

That's the very sort of thing we're talking about!

 

The Lion's Den is just fine. Plus it gives christians a better chance at trying to argue with us about it. Using proselytizing tactics or whatever they want. We do have to tone down their proselytizing if they bring it to the religion and science section.

 

Everyone in a 'gloves off' environment is probably preferred. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Yes, @WalterP, please post it... once you've fine tuned it, of course.

[pantheory]

1 hour ago, WalterP said:

 

Hey Josh!

 

I may have something in the pipeline that would fulfil that brief.

 

The fine-tuning of the universe is a much beloved argument oft used by Christian apologists and bloggers.

 

However, I think I've detected a fatal flaw in their (mis)use of it.

 

It was BAA's work from several years ago that started me thinking in a new direction, btw.

 

Rather than posting the thread in the Science vs Religion area, I was wondering about putting it in the Den?  (When it's ready to go, that is.)

 

The reason being that this argument is a major part of current Christian apologetics.

 

WLC, Biologos and several other prominent Christian sites push fine-tuning a LOT!

 

That sound ok, to you?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

Hi Walter,

 

I don't think you will find any Christians here who could defend via religion the fine-tuning argument in the debate forums. But If you post here or there I could play the devil's advocate and promote the mainstream science version of it, which I believe is the majority opinion. If the mainstream version of it is wrong, then religion would have nothing to support its bogus claims. Even if IMO the science argument for it is simply BS, I promise not to deliberately lose the argument   When you are on a college debate team and are told the subject of the debate, either law or another subject, you are not told beforehand which side you will have to support, promote,  or defend. But if you prefer, I could promote and support the religious version of this argument if no Christians choose to do so, either here or in the religious debate forums. The science arguments for and against fine-tuning are also not clear-cut so I could promote and defend the mainstream science version of fine-tuning or my alternative version which explains its mistakes IMO.

[WalterP]

3 minutes ago, pantheory said:

 

Hi Walter,

 

I don't think you will find any Christians here who could defend via religion the fine-tuning argument. But If you post that argument here in the science vs religion forum I could play the devil's advocate and promote the mainstream science version of it, which I believe is the majority opinion. If the mainstream version of it is wrong, then religion would have nothing to support its bogus claims. Even if IMO this science argument is simply BS, I promise not to deliberately lose the argument   When you are on a college debate team and are told the subject of the debate, either law or another subject, you are not told beforehand which side you will have to support, promote,  or defend. But if you prefer, I could promote and support the religious version of this argument if no Christians choose to do so, either here or in the religious debate forums.

 

Thanks for this Pantheory.

 

However, my prime reason for selecting the Den isn't the hope that I will find any Christians there willing to defend this argument.

 

If they rise to challenge, fine.  If they don't, no matter.  Should the Mods judge my input worthy they might pin it there, waiting for any future Christians to tackle it.

 

No, the main reason why the Den is the best place is because this argument plays a HUGE role in current Christian apologetics.

 

Therefore, this topic is not just about science.  It's about how science is used and misused by Christians to further their religious agenda.

 

Christian apologists always try to use mainstream and orthodox science to support their religious beliefs.

 

Unfortunately, this means that alternative cosmologies and unorthodox scientific views do not feature in their apologetic arguments at all.

 

But I respect and appreciate your input here Pantheory and your willingness to cooperate with the aims and goals of this site.

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

No reason there couldn't be separate threads in two different forums.  We generally don't like to waste bandwidth on duplicate threads; but having two different approaches to the arguments, as would be offered by the respective forums, might be beneficial for our ever-present but unseen audience of lurkers.  Just a thought, take it for what it's worth.