1. Saying Goodbye to a Great Staffer: Edial
    Please help me wish Edial a wonderful blessed journey as he steps down from CF staff.
    His footprint on our ministry will always remain but his presence will be greatly missed. I'm sure he will come around as a member to all his favorite forums but for now please join me at his profile page to wish him many thanks for the years of service he has brought to us all.
    All of us on CF staff will miss him dearly!!
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Welcome to Christian Forums, a friendly forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
  • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
  • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting after you have posted 20 posts and have received 5 likes.
  • Access to private conversations with other members.

We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

M-theory

Discussion in 'Christian Apologetics' started by grace24, Mar 2, 2013.

  1. grace24

    grace24 New Member

    Messages:
    893
    Likes Received:
    15
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    I'm curious what people think of M-theory? My understanding of M-theory, is that it propose a larger context structure universe before our universe whether the singularity occurs in our universe or not. Simply put, when two universes collide one big bang the other. The big bang theory says that matter was compressed into a tiny space, causing the big bang. According to M-theory the big bang did not began the universe. It's only a step movement forward in space and time.

    So does scientists now reject the big bang or what? Is there any scientific evidence for M-theory? Should we accept M-theory and admit the big bang is just another vulgar version that created the universe and designed for people who do not think? Or should we dismiss M-theory and accept the big bang because it is the best explanation we have thus far? I think it's an either/or proposition. Either they admit it was a creation without knowable cause, or they admit that the universe existed before the big bang. They cannot have it both ways.
     
  2. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
    rogueapologist likes this.
  3. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    All sorts of theories are being postulated now from Multiple Universes to Imaginary Time, to speculations. But they are all just that...wild speculations with the expessed intent to nullify a First Cause being personal , beyond finitism , that has a Will.... for the highly personal / incredibly obvious design of our cosmos so Humans can exist.
    Enter : Imaginary madeup titilizing ideas that are as plentiful as the Mind is deep. Why Stephen Hawking is Wrong About God Not Creating the Universe

    You can google the absurdities behind Many Universes popping ours into existence if you care to, but, if ONE house on a cul-de-sac requires a blueprint and Builder ... then a FEW more houses located the next block over doesnt negate the need for a blueprint and Builder all together, now does it ? No, it intensifies the requirement for One.

    It would behoove the Scientist to deal with THE Universe we have and know about taking into account the near incomprehensible fine tuning necessary for it to provide and sustain us Human Beings on this extremely important speck we call our Home (Earth) .. instead of dreaming up unsubstantiated and unproven whimsical ideas to jettison our incredible all powerful PERSONAL Creator that is infinite and invisible , yet whom we will one day be in his very presence whether it be with great anticipation or great never-ending regret.
     
  4. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Multiverse is one mathematical outcome of an 11 dimensional model that lets physicist get past the singularity problem when modeling the Big Bang. It is not just pulled out of thin air.
     
    Last edited: Mar 2, 2013
  5. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    495
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    I'd say that M-theory isn't very well established. We have quite good evidence for the big bang. The question is whether there was something "before" it or whether there's some larger system this universe is part of. I wouldn't expect these larger theories, such as M-theory, to eliminate the big bang. But it could explain the big bang by placing it within a large theory.
     
  6. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    There are sound scientific reasons why the Big Bang Model is fallacious : BB top 30 problems . Further, it is NOT how God created our Universe ; Genesis 1 and Psalm 33 (and other passages) clearly show that God made everything during creation : FULLY formed and FULLY functioning right from the start , suddenly and completely, by his command ... just as we would expect from an all powerful, personal, loving Creator whos I.Q. is unlimited . Anything less is an affront to his person,nature, character, and revealed Word to us.

    Choose this day whom you will serve / obey / and trust : God , secular Science from men who werent there when creation occured and who are constantly in the discovery process , or a hybrid-creation event infusing the latter two together so we can appear 'hip' as Christians while giving the Bible second place citizenry .
     
  7. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Watch the second video I posted. Episode 6 explains that time existed before the Big Bang.
     
  8. ChetSinger

    ChetSinger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    78
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Recently, I read an abstract from an article which actually posited that the puzzle of life on earth could be solved via the multiverse (of course, it can't be solved via any other naturalistic explanation). Unfortunately I can't find it again.

    This is the extent that modern scientific-minded philosophers will go to avoid a personal God. When I read such things, I remind myself that any scientific hypothesis is truth only to the degree that it has been tested and verified. I think the multiverse is the atheist's ultimate Hail Mary pass.
     
  9. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    There is no conspiracy to deny God here. There is nothing in any of this that denies the existence of God since God is outside the realm of material.

    They are just following the math to its resolution.
     
  10. Harry3142

    Harry3142 Regular Member

    Messages:
    3,756
    Likes Received:
    198
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Anglican
    grace24-

    The theory of multiverses was brought up following the realization of just how finetuned this universe is. In order to argue that it had all happened without an intelligent being's guiding the process, the theory of an infinite number of universes came into being. Under that theory this universe could be identified as simply one of that infinite number.

    As for Stephen Hawking, he is a brilliant scientist. However, I fear that his inablity to communicate except through eye movements and a talking computer has permitted others whose true agenda is to abolish all religious belief by any means possible to replace his words with their own. I watched a special in which supposedly he lectured for 4 hours. There were 2 problems with it that I noticed:

    1. He had given comments on another documentary earlier, and at that time his physical condition had deteriorated to the point that he needed 2 weeks in order to make comments which were a total of less than 5 minutes. So how does he give lectures that last for 4 hours after that time, since his disease is getting progressively worse?

    2. He called the point at which the Big Bang occurred the explosion of a black hole. Even astronomers know that a black hole only occurs at the end of a massive star's lifetime, rather than prior to any stars' existing. The proper name is 'singularity' because it was the precursor of hydrogen, the first element to come into existence. And Stephen Hawking would have known this.

    Whoever put the words into the computer that supposedly came from Stephen Hawking should have done their homework better before attempting to masquerade as him.
     
  11. hedrick

    hedrick Senior Veteran CF Ambassador

    Messages:
    7,146
    Likes Received:
    495
    Faith:
    Presbyterian
    Right. m-theory came from something quite different than trying to avoid a creator. It came because of a set of technical problems in trying to model gravitation, and integrate gravity with the other forces.
     
  12. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    This is your interpolation. Multiverse is just a mathematical outcome of an 11 dimensional model that resolves the Singularity problem. There was no grand conspiracy to deny intelligent design.
     
  13. rogueapologist

    rogueapologist New Member

    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    The universe is infinite, and has no beginning. God also created it. This is all Christian apologetics should say about it.
     
  14. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    Precisely.
     
  15. TheyCallMeDave

    TheyCallMeDave At your service....

    Messages:
    2,700
    Likes Received:
    80
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Single
    Politics:
    US-Republican
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Incorrect. The Universe has been proven to have had a definite beginning and is not infinite according to 4 lines of converging scientific evidence :
    The second law of thermodynamics, the universe is expanding, the radiation echo of the initial universe exploding into being, and the great mass of galaxies resulting from slight variations in the initial universe coming into being. Further, The Bible says that the Universe came into being from nothing by God and that God was the First Cause who is infinite and eternal (and not the creation) .

    Christian Apologetics should cogently and logically give reason why it is rational and sensible to believe in a personal theistic Creator based on evidence (much of which is observable thru intelligent design that the Universe occupies) . And conversely, secular Science should take into account ALL types of Causes including what constitutes an intelligent Cause, and not only consider (prejudicial) Natural Causes by automatically ruling out intelligent causes when considering the evidences. Same for Public Schools when it comes to Science Class ; the Student has the right to know ALL competing views instead of being of being informed of one solitary way (naturalism) .
     
  16. ChetSinger

    ChetSinger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    78
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Are you sure? I already see Satan making hay with it.

    The statistical impossibility of abiogenesis no longer needs to be addressed. Why? Because the "multiverse" says that abiogenesis is guaranteed to eventually happen, anyway. And we're in the universe where it did.

    The fine-tuning of the universe no longer needs to be addressed. Why? Because the "multiverse" says that a fine-tuned universe is guaranteed to eventually happen, anyway. And we're in the universe where it did.

    So if someone accepts the multiverse theory, where is the need for God? Isn't everything we observe guaranteed to eventually happen without God being involved?

    I've already run into these arguments while evangelizing. I believe this is a genuine minefield for Christian philosophy. We can always evangelize the poor and hurting by demonstrating Christ's love. But if a believer accepts the multiverse, I don't know how he will philosophically defend the faith against skeptics.

    And that's sad, because the multiverse is not even scientifically demonstrated. It's just mathematics.

    Paul once wrote:
    Someone who believes in the multiverse can now believe they do have an excuse: after all, multiverse theory says no God was ever necessary to create "the things that have been made".
     
  17. Steve Petersen

    Steve Petersen Senior Veteran

    Messages:
    11,129
    Likes Received:
    620
    Politics:
    US-Libertarian
    Faith:
    Non-Denominational
    It doesn't explain the origins of a multiverse though, does it?
     
  18. rogueapologist

    rogueapologist New Member

    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    Um, no. The only way in which to adjudicate the "beginning" of something is from a position of priority to it. If the universe arises from no-thing, there is literally no position from which to determine when the universe "began", since the measurement of "began-ness" would itself emerge with the existence of the universe. So from the position of measuring at which point the universe ceases to be (or begins to be), it is quite impossible to say that "this" or "that" point is the beginning.

    No argument re: the second law of thermodynamics. However, the laws of physics break down before the singularity...so there is still something before physics, not nothing. And if the very measure by which we would specify the "beginning" (e.g., time) itself emerges with the existence of the universe, we eventually reach a backward point in which durations and notions of beginning fail to have any meaningful content, e.g., infinity.

    It does not say that God is the "First Cause"--you are importing that. Causality is a very poor way to describe God's relationship to the universe, as it invariably materializes God by making the God a proper object of interaction upon the physical universe. In other words, if you locate a causally identifiable link between God and the universe, the "God" at the one end of the causal change is no longer eternal and other-than the universe, but is actually of the same "stuff" (e.g., created) as the universe whereby this causal agent can be causally linked to the outcome.

    And even if we break logic and still insist upon a causal link between God's creative acts and the existence of the universe, we still don't make any headway. As Hume showed hundreds of years ago, we can only attribute to causes that which can be inferred from the effects which we observe. So if we identify the physical universe as an "effect" of the action of God, the most that we can infer from the universe in re: God is that God is physical and of the same stuff that the rest of creation is.

    Finally, even if we say that God is the "cause" of the universe, we must abandon the notion of creation ex nihilo. There is no causal movement from "no-thing" to "something". No change occurs, for change can only be measured within that which exists. So if there is movement from non-existence to existence (language is misleading and inadequate here...), there is no causal event to examine, only the phenomenon of the existence of the universe.

    But it cannot because such an argument cannot be made. Sure, many over the years have made pseudo-philosophical arguments about the "designed-ness" of the universe, but they simply don't pass muster. You still cannot breach the all important distinction between God and that which is created, a distinction which is utterly destroyed once one begins to "prove" God based on inferences from the physical universe. As I mentioned before, all that such an argument proves is that what you call "God" is not really "other-than" the universe, but is rather precisely of the same nature as that from which it is being inferred re: its causal relationships.

    I agree that it should take into account all types of causes for physical phenomena, but I would argue that secular science already is. When describing a physical universe, one can only speak of physical processes, causes, and phenomena. Anything that is "other-than" the universe is entirely beyond the reach of scientific inquiry; therefore, to include such extra-physical explanations for causal and physical realities is an outright deception.
     
  19. rogueapologist

    rogueapologist New Member

    Messages:
    472
    Likes Received:
    5
    Marital Status:
    Private
    Faith:
    Christian
    You're right--it should be abandoned as a ridiculous argument. Probabilities are only meaningful when examining future events, and are particularly only meaningful within a large set of data.

    When speaking of the evolution of the universe, however, the data is a set with a size of precisely 1. There is nothing to compare it to by which we could say that this or that event is probable or improbable. In fact, given that our data set is 1, the only thing we can say about the probability that the processes which happened in the universe to bring about life is that it is precisely 100%...it could not have happened any other way precisely because this is the way that it has happened.

    There is no need of a multi-verse explanation, because fine-tuning is poor logic (see my explanation above).

    You don't need God to explain the universe, nor should you. Christian apologetics is not harmed by removing the (false) "need" of God to explain the existence of the universe. And if it is harmed by this, it was not worth much to begin with, IMO.

    I think it's a minefield for poorly-formulated Christian philosophy, but doesn't appear to me to be an issue for serious Christian philosophy. The point of Christian apologetics, after all, is not to provide scientific evidence for God's existence (a contradiction in terms, anyway), but to expound the role which Christian theology plays in the life of the believer. Where it sets itself up for a fall is when it tries to use the philosophy to establish itself outside of itself...and is why the state of modern day Christian apologetics (especially within evangelical circles) is in such a dismal state.
     
  20. ChetSinger

    ChetSinger Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,372
    Likes Received:
    78
    Gender:
    Male
    Marital Status:
    Married
    Faith:
    Protestant
    Not that I know of, but would such an origin be identifiable to anything in God's word?
     
Loading...