What do parallel universes mean for Christians

[dms1972]

Sure we do not know starting from ourselves. But its not a case of we cannot know. And it depends a lot on what people mean, they mix metaphors unhelpfully sometimes.

To keep a discussion from becoming too free wheeling as it would when talking about an 'infinite universe' it is important to go back to the Bible.

The Bible tells us the universe is a creation, that it has been created, and that the universe does not have all the attributes of its Creator but points to and speaks of some of those attributes. That it was created ex nihilo means it is not infinite is my understanding. Forums are for disagreeing as much as agreeing. There is much we don't know about the universe from science, but from the Bible and science it is strongly suggested it that has not always been in existence.

 

[dms1972]

Is the idea so incompatible with Christianity the God we worship EXISTS outside the physical universe.

I don't subscribe to multiverses or parallel universes, universe theory myself but this creator God of ours like i said exists outside that physical universe. This suggests there is some sort of other dimension or maybe even more than one beyond our Physical universe.

I

'Exists' is a difficult term but the notion of God existing outside the physical universe tends toward deistic / enlightenment terminology, rather than Judeo-Christian. But neither is a God in the universe (kind of flitting about), or God as the universe Christian terminology either. It seems to me then that a sort of Apophatic theology is needed sometimes which says - no that is not the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob either, to each of these notions, until we come back to the God of Jesus Christ.

 

[Grafted In]

What the telescopes are finding may very well be those mansions Jesus is preparing for us.
If you haven't already check out NASA's sight. They have pics that boggle the mind. And each day they add a few more.

 

[Grafted In]

Perhaps what He is referring to happened long ago but we may see it occure when technology is capable.

"

Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
Job 38:31

 

[ScottA]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

It is not incompatible with Christianity, but of little or no value.

The only multiple factor is time. Scientists somewhat differ on how they would explain it. But as it pertains to God and history (His story, told through the media of time), all is defined as: a time, times, and a half a (or the dividing of) time. Which is to say: time is divided or broken down into increments, to show and tell the details thereof.

Each person then lives, as Paul referred to the people of God being raised up incrementally into heaven, "each in their own order (or time).

However, time, is only for the telling of the story - the story and revelation of Jesus Christ. God, and the kingdom of heaven, are timeless (without time).

So, then, if science is capable of theorizing the division of the pages of the story - bravo! However, because "It [the story] is finished" - time, is not a true realm as such, or series of places, but closer in resemblance to the pages of a book that is already written.

Conceivably, since God can cause the events of our lives to flash before our eyes - if science were to build another Tower of Babel...and put a window in it - they might actually peek in on the times (between the bolts of lightening).

 

[BobRyan]

Perhaps what He is referring to happened long ago but we may see it occure when technology is capable.

"View attachment 175752 Canst thou bind the sweet influences of Pleiades, or loose the bands of Orion?"
Job 38:31

Orion nebular cluster is apparently a bound group of stars - and could not have been known to humanity at the time of the writing of that text - apart from God.

Kroupa has modelled birth scenarios for some young, compact, binary-
rich clusters and has found possible birth models leading to
the Orion Nebula Cluster (ONC), of which the Trapezium
Cluster is the core. He found a narrow range of solutions,
which allow the ONC to be in virial equilibrium, expanding
or contracting. This means that the ONC is a gravitational
bound cluster, even though it may be expanding or
contracting. Also for a group of stars to be located in a
region of space with only a radius of 1.5 light-years, it would
seem they are gravitationally bound.
The HST and Chandra have both taken very clear images
of the four bright primary stars that form the Trapezium (and
others that are not so bright). They can be seen in figure 8,
in visible light overlaid with X-ray images. The Lord has
created but also hid from view, until now, a tightly bound
cluster of stars in Orion behind the Trapezium.

from: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_44-48.pdf

Star distances in Pleiades are expanding. A fact not known by mankind at the time.

Modern astronomy has revealed that more than 500
mostly faint stars belong to the Pleiades star cluster, spread
over a region about four times the diameter of the moon
(as seen from Earth). The density of the cluster is low,
compared to other galactic clusters, and longer-exposure
photographs show the Pleiades to be embedded in nebulous
material (figures 1 and 2). Pleiades is a large but expanding,
or unbound, cluster of stars that are all just passing the same
region of space at the same time with the same motion.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_2/j18_2_44-48.pdf

of course evolutionists would instinctively recoil at science affirming some point that God makes in the Bible

 

[Grafted In]

Orion nebular cluster is apparently a bound group of stars - and could not have been known to humanity at the time of the writing of that text .

I disagree.
Perhaps the fact that it was part of a massive cluster of stars was not known or understood, but I believe the hunter known by a few prominent stars in cluster was a part of the thinking of the day.
Also, at the time of the trials of Job, the night skies were far more revealing due to the absence of the massive amount of light man has added to the earth's surface.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion's_Belt

 

[BobRyan]

I disagree.
Perhaps the fact that it was part of a massive cluster of stars was not known or understood, but I believe the hunter known by a few prominent stars in cluster was a part of the thinking of the day.
Also, at the time of the trials of Job, the night skies were far more revealing due to the absence of the massive amount of light man has added to the earth's surface.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orion's_Belt

It is true that Orion was known - but the observations about the "bound stars" in that constellation was only discovered in the late 20th century.

They could have known what constellation is being referenced by the statement - but they would not have understand the detail about the starts being bound that we only recently learned ourselves. God knew it - but it was not a product of man's knowledge.

 

[Grafted In]

Does it matter? We now have technology to study it closer. There are telescopes watching that nebulae very closely. Perhaps one day we will witness God's loosening of the bands of Orion.
Scripture was not written simply for the timeframe in which it was written.

 

[SkyWriting]

This is, indeed, the question. It's in a grey area where the definition of "science" is somewhat ambiguous. If parsimony trumps testability, it's scientific... otherwise no.

Parsimony refers to the idea that the fewer wild guesses one makes, the more chance one has of being correct.

 

[Grafted In]

Not if the incorrect guess remains an option.

 

[Smidlee]

Maybe I misunderstanding what you are saying. I agree until you say "supernatural by definition" if you mean that breaking all the laws of physics means something is supernatural. Or do you mean the laws of physics are supernatural?

No. If something breaks all known laws of physics it would be supernatural by definition. Any event that is explained by known laws of physics would natural by definition.
Parallel universe also run into the Boltzmann Brain paradox. It's a paradox since science would refute itself.

 

[2consider]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

The Bible describes parallel universes. Surely you heard of heaven and hell.

 

[stevevw]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

From what I understand the idea of multiverses is to address the finely tuned universe for life. It would be hard to prove multiverses with direct evidence. Indirect evidence has to be based on assumption so though some can make a case for something it can be wrong. We have seen this time and time again with what science has claimed and then a discovery has shown it to be wrong. It is interesting to think that science can appeal to other dimensions to help explain what we find which allows them to use realities that consist of different physical conditions yet wont allow the idea of a God and the dimension of a spiritual realm. To me it only shows that there is more to what we see then the material world and that using a world view to explain things is hard to do and in some ways supports the idea of there being an intelligent cause to existence.

 

[Willtor]

From what I understand the idea of multiverses is to address the finely tuned universe for life. It would be hard to prove multiverses with direct evidence. Indirect evidence has to be based on assumption so though some can make a case for something it can be wrong. We have seen this time and time again with what science has claimed and then a discovery has shown it to be wrong. It is interesting to think that science can appeal to other dimensions to help explain what we find which allows them to use realities that consist of different physical conditions yet wont allow the idea of a God and the dimension of a spiritual realm. To me it only shows that there is more to what we see then the material world and that using a world view to explain things is hard to do and in some ways supports the idea of there being an intelligent cause to existence.

What you're describing, though, isn't God. It's a powerful being that exists in another dimension. Science does, in fact, allow for that possibility, but there needs to be evidence (direct or... possibly indirect -- things like the multiverse hypothesis are controversial among scientists as to whether they are actually science or just symbol manipulation). We don't have any special reason to think that some powerful being exists in another dimension, so there's no opportunity to posit it.

As for God, He's too big and too beyond, if He really is as Christian theology asserts. There's no point to positing God in science because He's more complex than the simplest possible model could ever be.

 

[stevevw]

What you're describing, though, isn't God. It's a powerful being that exists in another dimension. Science does, in fact, allow for that possibility, but there needs to be evidence (direct or... possibly indirect -- things like the multiverse hypothesis are controversial among scientists as to whether they are actually science or just symbol manipulation). We don't have any special reason to think that some powerful being exists in another dimension, so there's no opportunity to posit it.

As for God, He's too big and too beyond, if He really is as Christian theology asserts. There's no point to positing God in science because He's more complex than the simplest possible model could ever be.

I'm not saying God Is a powerful being in another dimension and sorry if it came across that way. I use that analogy to compare with what some in science say about their out of this world ideas to show they are not that different to someone who may claim that God is responsible for creating what we see. In other words if they are willing to use things like multiverses, hologram dimensions or string theory then why not God. I am comparing the logic rather then the actual subjects. Science will never be able to explain their ideas because they can never visit those dimensions or see them. They have to rely on indirect evidence which relies on effects and fitting things to a mathematical equation.

But effects can be misinterpreted and figures can be made to fit IE dark matter and energy cannot be seen apart from some effects. But they are concluded because the universe hasn't enough mass to explain why things stay in their place and why the universe is expanding more rapidly. So in some ways dark energy and matter is needed to fill the void of why the universe is the way it is. But how do we know that the calculations are right in the first place. What could cause space to be created and expand ever so faster. They are strange concepts which may be beyond humans understanding. But science has to put an explanation on it and make it fit to a certain way of thinking.

Though science is a different area to belief it seems that as we discover more science has to appeal to things beyond the parameters it can verify to be able to explain things. Some say that things like multiverses will never be verified so some scientists are saying we should broaden the criteria for verification by allowing more indirect evidence so that things like multiverses can become part of the theory. This is moving more towards a theory of everything as this is the ultimate goal to unite all theories into one. But as Stephen Hawkins once said metaphorically but maybe it has more truth then realized, " that when we know the theory of everything then we will know the mind of God".

 

[Willtor]

I'm not saying God Is a powerful being in another dimension and sorry if it came across that way. I use that analogy to compare with what some in science say about their out of this world ideas to show they are not that different to someone who may claim that God is responsible for creating what we see. In other words if they are willing to use things like multiverses, hologram dimensions or string theory then why not God. I am comparing the logic rather then the actual subjects. Science will never be able to explain their ideas because they can never visit those dimensions or see them. They have to rely on indirect evidence which relies on effects and fitting things to a mathematical equation.

But effects can be misinterpreted and figures can be made to fit IE dark matter and energy cannot be seen apart from some effects. But they are concluded because the universe hasn't enough mass to explain why things stay in their place and why the universe is expanding more rapidly. So in some ways dark energy and matter is needed to fill the void of why the universe is the way it is. But how do we know that the calculations are right in the first place. What could cause space to be created and expand ever so faster. They are strange concepts which may be beyond humans understanding. But science has to put an explanation on it and make it fit to a certain way of thinking.

Though science is a different area to belief it seems that as we discover more science has to appeal to things beyond the parameters it can verify to be able to explain things. Some say that things like multiverses will never be verified so some scientists are saying we should broaden the criteria for verification by allowing more indirect evidence so that things like multiverses can become part of the theory. This is moving more towards a theory of everything as this is the ultimate goal to unite all theories into one. But as Stephen Hawkins once said metaphorically but maybe it has more truth then realized, " that when we know the theory of everything then we will know the mind of God".

I see.

Yeah, things like the multiverse are controversial among scientists, as I say, for that reason. How do you acquire evidence for it, how do you falsify it?

At the same time, if they posited a god it would not be the Christian God, the Father of Jesus, because science requires parsimony, whether using direct or indirect evidence. And, while a god might be parsimonious, God is not.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

I do not see how multiple Universes is incompatible with Christianity. If God is God, then He is God of all. Having more than one Universe is not a problem for God, no more than intelligent life on another planet is a problem.

For those who claim the Bible has no mention of other Universes or other planets with life, the Bible has no mention of China, either. Nor does it have a recipe for brownies - the chocolate kind, not the spritely type.

(We all agree brownies do exist, don't we?)

I do see multiple universes as incompatible with our scientific understanding of the Universe. Follow:
Multi universes derive from two branes colliding in a 'mega-universe'. The mega-universe - not contained in or capable of communication with this Universe or any of the other potential universes, is eternal and simultaneously immune to entropy. The mega-verse was never created and will never end. (It is much like God, but without the annoying moral code.)

This description of the mega-verse is incompatible with the scientific concepts of energy and matter.

 

[2consider]

I do not see how multiple Universes is incompatible with Christianity. If God is God, then He is God of all. Having more than one Universe is not a problem for God, no more than intelligent life on another planet is a problem.

For those who claim the Bible has no mention of other Universes or other planets with life, the Bible has no mention of China, either. Nor does it have a recipe for brownies - the chocolate kind, not the spritely type.

(We all agree brownies do exist, don't we?)

I do see multiple universes as incompatible with our scientific understanding of the Universe. Follow:
Multi universes derive from two branes colliding in a 'mega-universe'. The mega-universe - not contained in or capable of communication with this Universe or any of the other potential universes, is eternal and simultaneously immune to entropy. The mega-verse was never created and will never end. (It is much like God, but without the annoying moral code.)

This description of the mega-verse is incompatible with the scientific concepts of energy and matter.

I bet you don't find the moral code annoying when it's applied to how people treat you.

What you're saying is, the moral code annoys you when you're expected to adhere to it, but it's just fine as long as other people adhere to it.

 

[Archie the Preacher]

I bet you don't find the moral code annoying when it's applied to how people treat you.

What you're saying is, the moral code annoys you when you're expected to adhere to it, but it's just fine as long as other people adhere to it.

Really?