Where is Heaven?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think I'll ever get used to atheists promoting multiverse theories, and "bang" theories that require "blind faith" in four supernatural (human imagination) constructs.

There's no need for faith. They're interesting hypothetical possibilities, predictions of physical models.

 

[Michael]

There's no need for faith. They're interesting hypothetical possibilities, predictions of physical models.

What was your actual beef with the interesting hypothetical possibility of an "intelligent creator" again?

 

[Nick665]

Ozzy says heaven is in the palm of his hand.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What was your actual beef with the interesting hypothetical possibility of an "intelligent creator" again?

It's at the bottom of the heap because it has no basis in any plausible physical model or theory.

 

[Michael]

It's at the bottom of the heap because it has no basis in any plausible physical model or theory.

And somehow you find string theory or multiverse concepts more "plausible"? How exactly does that rationalization work?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And somehow you find string theory or multiverse concepts more "plausible"? How exactly does that rationalization work?

Like I said, they are predictions or extrapolations of current physical models. String theory is a mathematical model that provides some useful descriptive and mathematical tools; multiverse concepts are logical predictions of inflation, quantum superposition, M-theory, even of our whole universe being many times larger than the observable universe.

 

[Michael]

Like I said, they are predictions or extrapolations of current physical models.

Er, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "current physical models" are based upon four unique forms of "supernatural" constructs to start with. Talk about building your argument on pure supernatural quicksand!

String theory is a mathematical model that provides some useful descriptive and mathematical tools;

http://phys.org/news/2015-07-supersymmetry-physics-theory.html

multiverse concepts are logical predictions of inflation,

You say that as though inflation theory is anything other than an invisisible imaginary friend from the mind of one human being, namely Alan Guth? You do realize that it's 10 to the 100th power *less* likely that a "flat" universe happens *with* inflation than without it, right? You did read that Planck revelation about the hemispheric variations in the data that weren't predicted by inflation?

quantum superposition,

I'll give you QM for the time being.

M-theory,

Oh please. Even Krauss makes fun of that theory as being entirely unfalsifiable.

even of our whole universe being many times larger than the observable universe.

It could be infinite and eternal for all I know, but that in no way validates any of your aforementioned ideas.

 

[DogmaHunter]

What was your actual beef with the interesting hypothetical possibility of an "intelligent creator" again?

It's untestable, fallacious nonsense.


cue a cosmology rant in 3...2...1...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Er, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "current physical models" are based upon four unique forms of "supernatural" constructs to start with. Talk about building your argument on pure supernatural quicksand!

At least we can agree that basing anything on supernatural shenannigans, is a bad thing.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... It could be infinite and eternal for all I know, but that in no way validates any of your aforementioned ideas.

I didn't say it validated anything, nor did I say that any of the other multiverse models were 'validated'. As I said, I think they are interesting hypotheses based on current physical models.

Your opinion of those models is your own prerogative, but irrelevant.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... cue a cosmology rant in 3...2...1...

You missed it!

 

[Michael]

It's at the bottom of the heap because it has no basis in any plausible physical model or theory.

FYI, the most "plausible physical model" for "God" would be Panetheism/Pantheism. That specific physical model of an intelligent creator requires no 'faith' in anything 'supernatural', or unknown on Earth. Compare and contrast that to the current 'physical model' of the universe which actually requires *four* different "leaps of faith" in the "unseen" (in the lab). Adding multiverse theory or string theory just increases the supernatural constructs required to "hold faith" in that specific physical model of the universe.

I have no idea then how you judge the validity of various physical models of the universe, or how you decide which ones are "plausible" and which ones are not. Care to elaborate?

 

[Michael]

It's untestable, fallacious nonsense.

Pantheism is certainly no less "testable" than any other popular concept about the nature of the universe. In fact the only empirically competitive theory to Pantheism would be EU/PC theory, and EU/PC theory wouldn't even rule out Pantheism as a possibility.

cue a cosmology rant in 3...2...1...

Apparently you already missed it, along with that long list of "cold dark matter" lab failures.

http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=15850

 

[Michael]

I didn't say it validated anything, nor did I say that any of the other multiverse models were 'validated'. As I said, I think they are interesting hypotheses based on current physical models.

Your opinion of those models is your own prerogative, but irrelevant.

My opinions are ultimately just based upon a personal preference for pure empirical physical explanations whenever and wherever possible rather than relying upon unseen invisible entities which defy empirical cause/effect justification in the lab. Do you disagree with that basic premise?

If you agree with the basic premise, then how do you explain your personal preference for any theory about the universe with more "leaps of faith" in unseen (in the lab) entities than something like Pantheism?

 

[Michael]

At least we can agree that basing anything on supernatural shenannigans, is a bad thing.

That's quite true, which by the way is exactly why I ultimately reject LCDM theory, and why I personally hold a preference for Panentheism over any other concept of an "intelligent creator".