-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Scientists speak out about evidence of Intelligent Design in nature..
- Thread starter Joseph G
- Start date
AACJ
Please Pray
- Nov 17, 2016
- 2,005
- 1,598
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
You are right of course. And a perfect example of such is the so-called Multiverse Hypothesis, which is ultimately a super-natural appeal/explanation rooted in faith-based assumptions; it posits the existence of countless other universes that are unobservable, untestable, and beyond the realm of empirical science. Of course, naturalism is a faith-based worldview, as is all worldviews.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
While I do not agree with the Multiverse hypothesis which is I find to be potentially unfalsifiable as each universe is causally disconnected, it is not "unobservable, untestable, and beyond the realm of empirical science" as trotted out by ignorant creationists.
Firstly the hypothesis is built around eternal inflation where each bubble universe including our own is formed using a quantum field theory as described in this post.
what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?
I have a question about your post. We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly. @PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I...
www.christianforums.com
Secondly bubble universe collisions are theorized to be common on a global scale (the scale on which bubble universes are formed), the question arises if our own universe has experienced such collisions. If so these collisions should leave circular or disk-like anomalies in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) temperature map, localized temperature gradients that are not predicted by the standard model and breaks in statistical isotropy, potentially seen as 'cold spots' or asymmetries.
One such candidate is the 'CMB cold spot' but the consensus this is a due to a supervoid in our universe.
Collisions with our universe leaving evidence would require our universe to be less than 300,000 years old while the probably of such collisions is debated in the science community.
| Study | Estimated Observable Collision Probability |
|---|---|
| Aguirre, Johnson, and Shomer (2007) | Low, but not zero—collisions possible if nucleation rate is high and inflation duration is short |
| Freivogel et al. (2009) | Observable collisions likely only if inflation duration in our bubble is finely tuned |
| Kleban et al. (2011) | Expected number of observable collisions: ~0.1 to a few (order of magnitude) under favorable assumptions |
I'm prepared to be skeptical on the science and the evidence presented, not make blanket comments like the multiverse is unobservable, untestable, and beyond the realm of empirical science because it clashes with one's interpretation of the Bible.
Upvote
0
The idea of a multiverse is speculative at best. The idea of multiverse is what the math suggest. So I guess it depends upon the degree of ones faith in math on where a person goes with it. It seems your over doing it a bit though.
I'm have trouble with your word usage of "naturalism". Could you clarify that for me?
I experience all of the Cosmos as a natural Creation of a forever Creating God. And from where I stand, you seem to have some kind of negative ideas about what God created and how it operates. So, it seems to me that you think there's something smart in your use the word "naturalism". It's like there's something bad going on with God's own Creation that your not liking and bring in the use of that word like it has special negative meaning for you. I acknowledge that I may have it all wrong, but still, I'm not understanding what that's about.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,394
- 2,760
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
More than likely, the reference to "naturalism" is meaning metaphysical naturalism, given the "worldview" word. It is often a point of frustration, because it's clear among those who disagree with such metaphysical beliefs that there are unjustifiable assertions involved in the epistemic, mereological, and ontological beliefs involved but such beliefs are routinely shrouded in denial amongst the adherents as a means of denying themselves a burden of proof for their foundational beliefs about reality. At least, that's my guess.
Upvote
0
AACJ
Please Pray
- Nov 17, 2016
- 2,005
- 1,598
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Republican
While I do not agree with the Multiverse hypothesis which is I find to be potentially unfalsifiable as each universe is causally disconnected, it is not "unobservable, untestable, and beyond the realm of empirical science" as trotted out by ignorant creationists.
Firstly the hypothesis is built around eternal inflation where each bubble universe including our own is formed using a quantum field theory as described in this post.
what is the evidence that universe is 13.7B years old?
I have a question about your post. We are speaking of the "beginning of our universe - specifically the "Big Bang Theory". My expertise ends at The Big Bang Theory being one of my favorite shows, so forgive me if my question seems silly. @PeterDona mentioned the law of thermodynamics (I...
Secondly bubble universe collisions are theorized to be common on a global scale (the scale on which bubble universes are formed), the question arises if our own universe has experienced such collisions. If so these collisions should leave circular or disk-like anomalies in the CMB (cosmic microwave background) temperature map, localized temperature gradients that are not predicted by the standard model and breaks in statistical isotropy, potentially seen as 'cold spots' or asymmetries.
One such candidate is the 'CMB cold spot' but the consensus this is a due to a supervoid in our universe.
Collisions with our universe leaving evidence would require our universe to be less than 300,000 years old while the probably of such collisions is debated in the science community.
Study Estimated Observable Collision Probability Aguirre, Johnson, and Shomer (2007) Low, but not zero—collisions possible if nucleation rate is high and inflation duration is short Freivogel et al. (2009) Observable collisions likely only if inflation duration in our bubble is finely tuned Kleban et al. (2011) Expected number of observable collisions: ~0.1 to a few (order of magnitude) under favorable assumptions
I'm prepared to be skeptical on the science and the evidence presented, not make blanket comments like the multiverse is unobservable, untestable, and beyond the realm of empirical science because it clashes with one's interpretation of the Bible.
Although you claim it’s not “unobservable, untestable, and beyond empirical science,” the evidence you provide is speculative at best. Eternal inflation and bubble universe collisions, as you mention in your cited studies (Aguirre, Johnson, and Shomer, 2007), rely on unproven assumptions about quantum field theory and inflation duration, with collision probabilities ranging from low to negligible (Freivogel et al., 2009; Kleban et al., 2011). The CMB “cold spot” you mention is widely attributed to a supervoid, not a collision, which undermines your argument (Szapudi, I., et al., 2015). The multiverse remains untestable since we cannot directly observe other universes, making it a faith-based construct, not science (Craig, Reasonable Faith). It’s a super-natural appeal, a desperate handwaving surrogate “God of the Gaps” for naturalism.
Underlying presuppositions that are conducive to supporting the Multiverse Hypothesis:
1) rejecting supernatural causation, denying a Creator and seeking explanations such as the multiverse for fine-tuning; 2) a prior commitment to materialistic explanations, assuming only physical processes can account for reality; 3) asserting science’s epistemic superiority (i.e., only valid source of knowledge), favoring speculative theories over design; 4) denying purpose or design, viewing fine-tuning as chance within a multiverse; and 5) accepting probabilistic reasoning over ultimate causes, using multiple universes to avoid a singular origin (Craig, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology; Manson, God and Design).
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,394
- 2,760
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Multiverse hypotheses don't really enjoy widespread acceptance precisely because they are, as you noted, speculative. They are potential explanations, and are derivatives of theoretical extrapolation. That they make specific, testable predictions is what separates them from typical "supernatural" beliefs and makes them quasi-scientific, whether or not they bear fruit in confirmatory evidence. They are more the realm of pop-sci, with some interest as theoretical constructs. And objecting to them because they are, at present, purely speculative seems to misunderstand the scientific process which involves engaging in conjecture based on current models and then developing testable predictions from that conjecture, which may or may not bear fruit. Science is procedural, it doesn't begin with presuppositions or conceptual analysis.
Upvote
0
Maybe where I'm having problems understanding is that I'm fairly well versed in metaphysics. And I guess I'm having trouble understanding what it is when naturalism (what ever that is) is connected to metaphysics. It doesn't make any sense to me.
Upvote
0
Fervent
Well-Known Member
- Sep 22, 2020
- 6,394
- 2,760
- 45
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Typically, it's another way of describing physicalism. It's the ontological assumption that the universe is fundamentally physical, the mereological assumption that everything can be reduced to some fundamental unit, and the epistemic assumption that the intelligibility of the universe is due to discoverable mechanical laws. It's difficult to pin down given the way defining physical or natural is currently avoided by most who subscribe to such a philosophical position, and it is typically nothing more than shorthand for atheism among the most vocal critics, but it is typically a conflation of our ability to engage in a methodical approach to modeling the universe in a metaphysically independent fashion with an ability to avoid metaphysics altogether in our explanations.
Upvote
0
Did you even try to read my post where I explicitly stated I think the Multiverse hypothesis is practicably unfalsifiable as the probability of a collision leaving a signature on the CMB is so incredibly low. I also mentioned the scientific consensus is the CMB “cold spot” is a supervoid where I supplied an image of the CMB where the cold spot is labelled in capital letters ERIDANUS SUPERVOID.
Your apparent blindness to my post serves to illustrate your true reasons of opposing the science has more to do with defending creationism and the Bible than finding any short comings in the science.
Your point by point description could be extended to any branch of science including applied science in my role as a scientist in the field of forensic engineering in the automotive industry. This involved investigating field failures ranging in severity where there was loss of life to minor component failures.
In all cases finding the cause and countermeasure was the objective of the investigations.
Sure it would have made my job a lot easier if I adopted your point by point analysis and all failures where caused by divine intervention or some cosmic significance inextricably tied to fate but ultimately it doesn’t explain anything.
Sciences “epistemic superiority” acquired through education and experience and the use of materialistic or the more precise term naturalistic explanation is the only possible way.
The supernatural is unfalsifiable in science.
Upvote
0
RamiC
Well-Known Member
- Jan 1, 2025
- 660
- 520
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I said that there is no believing in a literal Genesis without believing in God....I did not say that believing in or loving God required belief in a literal Genesis.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,515
- 52,488
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
This is what I have trouble with:
If someone doesn't believe Genesis is literal, then they end up not believing they have a sin nature via Adam.
So they repent of their sins when they get saved, but they don't acknowledge the Adamic nature.
Like I said before, it's like lopping off the top of a weed, but leaving the root.
The bottom line though is that God is the judge, not me.
But if questioned on that and asked to make a value judgement, I find it difficult to answer.
Upvote
0
RamiC
Well-Known Member
- Jan 1, 2025
- 660
- 520
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Gender
- Female
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- UK-Liberal-Democrats
I believe it is possible to believe that we do all have a sin nature via Adam without believing that Genesis is a scientifically accurate depiction of how the earth and universe came to be. "Adam" means "man" Adam (given name) - Wikipedia so "human" disobeyed God, then our need for forgiveness is still there.
Personally, my position is "we do not know exactly what happened at the origin point of human life", modern science does not know and have proof of anything. Genesis is believable enough, for those who can/have been convicted by the Lord to see it, it does not pass any science tests, because four words in there is this word "God" and therefore it is certainly not science. If people do read it to find out if it is true, I do believe they need to as more than "Is it science?", but if someone believes "Is it scientific?" and "Is it true?" are essentially the same question, that person will draw a different conclusion.
I do not know if that helps you at all, hopefully some Christian in here who rejects Genesis as origin can explain where they are coming from with your issue. I would enjoy being better able to explain their perpective myself, and a good post in here would enable that. Personally where I get stuck is the objection to Genesis as some kind of primitive tribal superstition, but "God became man" and the ressurrection, are somehow quite believable to the same people. Of course, atheists, agnostics, and even those who willingly accept cognitive dissonence as a lifestyle choice (rather than an error), are exempt from my issue.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,558
- 11,465
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
This is the silliest thing I've heard in a while. No one has to acknowledge the Adamic nature in a literal way in order to believe (or know) they're a sinner in need of saving through faith in Christ. [....with the saving requiring God's grace in the process, of course.]
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,855,515
- 52,488
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Okay.
Maybe you need to get out a little more?
Those are the ones willing to lop off the top of the weeds, but leave the root system intact.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,558
- 11,465
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
Please notice how comparatively little I actually critique most of your writing here on CF, brother AV.
I'm not "lopping off" anything. Rather, I've instead had to read, study, analyze and prayerfully work through the Christian Tradition, including its Biblical literature, in order to find faith in Christ, moving from sheer skeptic to critical believer.
Upvote
0
- Oct 28, 2006
- 24,558
- 11,465
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
What you have not done is to honor the extremely hypertrophied version of Sola Scriptura in play here. You have not "rightly divided the Word of God."
Yeah, I know. I'm low powered like that. I tend to use a spade, not a blade.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
