Multiverses are pseudo science, secularist, ideology

[1rreducibly Complex]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

 

[public hermit]

Right, they're both (God/multiverse) metaphysical assumptions (held for reasons of explanation) with no way of determining through empirical means which one tracks reality. It's a wash, i.e. neither assumption is science. Right or no?

 

[Shemjaza]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

Do you have a justification for this assertion?

I'm not even sure how you'd determine the probability of a universe without the ability to examine the environment it comes from.

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

That logic doesn't follow in any way.

If God or a Creator are likely how do you determine their probability?

Why would powerful supernatural entities be more likely than a universe that we have hard evidence for existing?

If I get a royal flush in a game of poker that's not particularly likely... that unlikelihood doesn't mean that spirits in my house stacking the deck are more likely.

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

Atheists don't believe in God and you have assertions and faulty logic... not observations and precedents.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

False.

Multiverses are an interpretation of some particularly esoteric quantum theory... and a popular fiction concept that allows for "but what if it were different?".

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

No, that is not what scientists who accept multiverses accept.

Unsupported assertions of improbability are a useless argument if you want use it as a jumping off point to something even less explicable.

 

[1rreducibly Complex]

Do you have a justification for this assertion?

I'm not even sure how you'd determine the probability of a universe without the ability to examine the environment it comes from.

...

Do I have a justification for this assertion? Here:

Some scientists, theologians, and philosophers, as well as certain religious groups, argue that providence or creation are responsible for fine-tuning.[39][40][41][42][43]

Christian philosopher Alvin Plantinga argues that random chance, applied to a single and sole universe, only raises the question as to why this universe could be so "lucky" as to have precise conditions that support life at least at some place (the Earth) and time (within millions of years of the present).

One reaction to these apparent enormous coincidences is to see them as substantiating the theistic claim that the universe has been created by a personal God and as offering the material for a properly restrained theistic argument—hence the fine-tuning argument. It's as if there are a large number of dials that have to be tuned to within extremely narrow limits for life to be possible in our universe. It is extremely unlikely that this should happen by chance, but much more likely that this should happen, if there is such a person as God.

— Alvin Plantinga, "The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum"[44]
Philosopher and Christian apologist William Lane Craig cites this fine-tuning of the universe as evidence for the existence of God or some form of intelligence capable of manipulating (or designing) the basic physics that governs the universe. Craig argues "that the postulate of a divine Designer does not settle for us the religious question."[45]

Philosopher and theologian Richard Swinburne reaches the design conclusion using Bayesian probability.[46]

Scientist and theologian Alister McGrath has pointed out that the fine-tuning of carbon is even responsible for nature's ability to tune itself to any degree.

The entire biological evolutionary process depends upon the unusual chemistry of carbon, which allows it to bond to itself, as well as other elements, creating highly complex molecules that are stable over prevailing terrestrial temperatures, and are capable of conveying genetic information (especially DNA). […] Whereas it might be argued that nature creates its own fine-tuning, this can only be done if the primordial constituents of the universe are such that an evolutionary process can be initiated. The unique chemistry of carbon is the ultimate foundation of the capacity of nature to tune itself.[47][48]

Theoretical physicist and Anglican priest John Polkinghorne has stated: "Anthropic fine tuning is too remarkable to be dismissed as just a happy accident."[49]

Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

...

These are the basics.

It is somewhat impossible to discuss or debate this topic, if you must ask for sources to cover the basics.

 

[Bradskii]

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe.

...

Where do you get this from? There aren't any scientific proposals that claim this. I think that you just made it up.

 

[Shemjaza]

...

Do I have a justification for this assertion? Here:



Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

...

These are the basics.

It is somewhat impossible to discuss or debate this topic, if you must ask for sources to cover the basics.

Not a single specific justification.

To make assertions about probability you need to be able to demonstrate that things could be different and why. Those are completely unknown quantities about the features of the universe that allow life.

It's also a bald assertion that the purpose of a universe mostly mode of empty space and smattering of dark matter is specifically fine tuned for life.

 

[expos4ever]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

I do not find this convincing. Let's say we agree that "reality and the universe" are improbable. How is God any less improbable? You appear to be using the time-worn strategy of punting the mystery back one level.

 

[Hans Blaster]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

#1. The probability of reality being real is 100%. Your statement essentially says that the probability of what is known to be true is 0. This is nonsense.

#2. We've all heard the "reality requires a god" claims. They are quite empty, often full of misunderstandings and outright deceptions.

#3. Maybe you have some insider knowledge of Hollywood, but that's definitely *not* how science works.

#4. That's not why the "multiverse theory" exists. At all. Multiverse theory emerged from the consequences of a different idea developed to solve an entirely different problem in theoretical physics. It was developed by physicists, not "secularists".

#5. Like *every* scientific idea, multiverse theory says *nothing* about gods. That's just how science rolls.

I endorse Shemjaza's post #3.

 

[Ophiolite]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.
...

Says who? And, more importantly, on what basis?

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.
...

Why? (Especially since your premise seems flawed.)

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

One can't be biased against something one doesn't think exists.
Linking science and Hollywood does smack of the weakest kind of conspiracy theory.
What precedents?

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

That's just silly. Most atheists/secularists don't base their life around the fact that they don't think a God exists. They basically just don't think about God, or gods. They certainly don't dream up concepts to counter a being who they not only don't think exists, but about whom they generally don't think at all. This is a fundamental point missed by many theists, much of the time.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

Self-centred nonsense.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...

Do I have a justification for this assertion? Here:



Fine-tuned universe - Wikipedia

...

These are the basics.

It is somewhat impossible to discuss or debate this topic, if you must ask for sources to cover the basics.

Ironically, that justification itself implicitly relies on a counterfactual multiverse - the multiverse of alternative ways things could be - and we don't know whether that counterfactual multiverse exists, i.e. we don't know if things could be any other way. It's a probabilistic argument for which the only data we have has a probability of 1.

As it happens, our best theories predict the multiverse (various versions!), which makes the Weak Anthropic Principle a reasonable explanation for apparent fine-tuning

 

[Oneiric1975]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

Improbable? As in p=0 or p<1?

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

Oh I'm there with you. I can't TELL you how often in my thermodynamics and physical chemistry classes we were forced to watch Hollywood blockbuster movies so we could be indoctrinated into Hollywood's belief system. There's only so many lectures from J Lo you can watch on the concept of quantum electrodynamics before your eyes glaze over.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

Apart from the fact that that is 100% WRONG, I can see where you're coming from. In most of my science classes while getting my doctorate we started off all classes with a solemn oath to destroy the concept of God (raised our right hand and pledged allegiance to the Atheist Flag) and only THEN could we start class.

Even as a professional scientist when I was in the lab mixing chemicals together I would remind myself constantly that God likely did not exist just to keep up the discipline.

 

[renniks]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

How does that help explain why anything exists, though? It just kicks the ball up the road.

 

[Strathos]

Can't you actually construct an argument in favor of a multiverse, based solely on the properties of God as defined in scripture?

Premise A: God is the maximum, most powerful, and perfect entity that could possibly exist

Premise B: A God that created infinite universes is infinitely more impressive than a God that created just one

Conclusion: The multiverse exists

(Not that this is necessarily correct, but it's an argument that can be made).

Kind of turns the OP's reasoning on its head.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Can't you actually construct an argument in favor of a multiverse, based solely on the properties of God as defined in scripture?

Premise A: God is the maximum, most powerful, and perfect entity that could possibly exist

Premise B: A God that created infinite universes is infinitely more impressive than a God that created just one

Conclusion: The multiverse exists

(Not that this is necessarily correct, but it's an argument that can be made).

Kind of turns the OP's reasoning on its head.

Your conclusion does not logically proceed from your premises. Nothing in either of the two premises would lead one to the conclusion you reached.

 

[Strathos]

Your conclusion does not logically proceed from your premises. Nothing in either of the two premises would lead one to the conclusion you reached.

Well I'm no expert on formal logic, but I think you can get the gist of what this hypothetical argument is going for.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Well I'm no expert on formal logic, but I think you can get the gist of what this hypothetical argument is going for.

It is called jumping to a conclusion which seems to not be unique within this thread, on this topic or with those that study science and religion. For many people, wanting something to be the case is proof it is the case.

 

[Strathos]

It is called jumping to a conclusion which seems to not be unique within this thread, on this topic or with those that study science and religion. For many people, wanting something to be the case is proof it is the case.

My point was that the concept of a multiverse is not incompatible with the concept of God, and in fact they could even go together.

 

[dlamberth]

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

The multi-universe idea is based on where the math leads. Who knows the truth of it in actual reality. But if true, when I put on my loving God perspective, I'd have no problem with it. The reason being is that I'm not able to limit the reach and form of God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

#1 Reality and the universe as observed by science are improbable.

By what determination is the universe improbable? Our sole example of a universe--this one--does indeed exist. How does one determine probability from this?

#2 Said improbability makes God or a Creator the most likely explanation for reality as we observe it.

We haven't even established the probability of the universe, which seems to me to be best described as "unknown".

Jumping from the first premise (which has not itself been substantiated) to this one: That the universe requires "God or a Creator" is an illogical and irrational jump from the previous (and still unsubstantiated) premise.

#3 Atheists in science and hollywood biased against God seek to undermine these observations and precedents.

A baseless claim, and does not follow from the previous premises--which are hitherto merely themselves claims without basis.

#4 To counter the idea of God being the most likely explanation for our improbable universe. Secularists devised the concept of multiverses.

Attribution of motive to a claim that you have not backed up; and which you have made built upon premises which you have not provided anything of substance for.

#5 The concept of multiverses states: we don't need God to explain our improbable universe. There are an infinite number of parallel universes (multiverses). Ours is simply the parallel universe where a large number of improbable events occurred.

...

The concept of a multiverse states no such thing.

You have merely presented five statements that do not logically follow one another, and which amount to nothing more than just baseless statements.

#1 If the probability of a universe existing is, in fact, 1; and given that our sole observable and empirical experience is of just this one, very real universe; it follows that at least the probability of our universe existing is, in fact, 1. It really does exist. Beyond this, we can't say really anything.

#2 It does not follow that, based upon purely observable and empirical data, that an intelligence is necessarily behind the universe (that does not mean there is not, only that we cannot on the basis of the scientific method reach that conclusion based on what we have at our disposal.

#3 The scientific world is filled with many religious believers, as well as the non-religious. There are Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, agnostics, atheists, irreligious, and many others of all sorts of persuasions operating within the fields of science.

#4 The multiverse is a proposed hypothesis in order to try and make sense of certain things we have observed in our own universe. The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevant to that hypothesis.

#5 See #4

You'll note that I am not an atheist. I am a Christian who takes my Christianity very seriously, I believe in the literal virgin birth, the literal miracles of Jesus, I believe in His atoning death and bodily resurrection. When I confess the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds, I'm not lying, I'm not pretending. I believe every word in the historic Creeds:

"I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and in Jesus Christ His only-begotten Son, our Lord; who was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried, He descended into hades, on the third day He rose again, He ascended into heaven where He sits at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again to judge the living and the dead. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic Church, the Communion of Saints, the forgiveness of sin, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen." - The Apostles' Creed

-CryptoLutheran

 

[SelfSim]

As it happens, our best theories predict the multiverse (various versions!), which makes the Weak Anthropic Principle a reasonable explanation for apparent fine-tuning

I've never really seen that the question being asked behind the so-called 'fine-tuning', as being anything more than a purely philosophical one .. which would then make the explanation a purely philosophical explanation .. so, therefore, I'm not at all convinced of its usefulness?