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.
It seems that some people, for whom the idea of God is central in their world, simply can't conceive of a life where God isn't involved, so for them, an atheist must be rejecting God, trying to shut out or eliminate God from their lives, when the mundane truth is that if most atheists think about God at all, it's as just another weird belief that some people get caught up in.Have you ever stopped to really think why most scientists don't believe in god/s?
If this universe is spatially infinite, then there's an infinity of universes in the cosmological multiverse, and if eternal inflation is correct, there is an infinity of 'pocket' universes being created, and I wouldn't be surprised if there are other potential sources of infinite universes... In some models, each pocket universe can create other universes (through black holes) but I don't think that counts as a different kind of infinity - you'd have to ask a theoretical cosmologist.
It seems that some people, for whom the idea of God is central in their world, simply can't conceive of a life where God isn't involved, so for them, an atheist must be rejecting God, trying to shut out or eliminate God from their lives, when the mundane truth is that if most atheists think about God at all, it's as just another weird belief that some people get caught up in.
That doesn't really address what I said - but OK, let's look at your claim logically, and without projection.God is the simplest, most elegant and most logical explanation for everything.
Your attempts at projection, do nothing to change this.
I see many assertions in your post, but I don't see any supporting argument. Do you have one?Infinity isn't science, it can't be observed, demonstrated, tested or peer reviewed.
Infinity is philosophy.
Theists have written about God being infinite for thousands of years.
Atheists apparently couldn't come up with original material. So they borrowed the concept of God as being infinite and applied it to the universe, to create their own secular ideology.
God is the simplest, most elegant and most logical explanation for everything.
Your attempts at projection, do nothing to change this.
God is the simplest, most elegant and most logical explanation for everything.
Your attempts at projection, do nothing to change this.
I think that still holds in a multiverse reality because other universes arent "in space".Oh they changed the meaning of universe to include discussions of multiverses? I was just talking about the classic meaning of universe that means everything that’s out there in space
But isn’t the point that there’s something like 20 constants that if you altered any one of them by even a billionth of a percent things like life, gravitational solar systems, etc, would be impossible?
I personally don’t think that a very finely tuned universe would be a reason to conclude that there is a personal God, I was just trying to get a feel for the steel man version of their argument. Yeah that’s true that YEC would run into those types of contradictions.I hear this argument from creationists all the time. Those are the same people claiming that the speed of light is not constant (so we can't judge the distance to other galaxies and stars), and then they claim the strong nuclear force is not constant (so we can't calculate the age of fossils, etc).
So apparently the constants are constant, proving they're fine-tuned and therefore God, except when when they're not constant, which also proves God.
It seems the logic is as follows:As it happens, our best theories predict the multiverse (various versions!), which makes the Weak Anthropic Principle a reasonable explanation for apparent fine-tuning
Thats my sense: the multiverse is a conjecture proposed to solve certain physics problems.It seems the logic is as follows:
According to (atheist) scientist Stephen Weinberg, American theoretical physicist and Nobel Laureate in Physics, Theory of Multiverse is merely a speculative with no mathematical underpinnings.
- A multiverse is possible.
- No one has proved it is impossible.
- Therefore, a multiverse is true.
“I don’t think one should underestimate the fix we are in. That in the end we will not be able to explain the world. That we will have some set of laws of nature (that) we will not be able to derive them on the grounds simply of mathematical consistency. Because we can already think of mathematically consistent laws that don’t describe the world as we know it. And we will always be left with a question ‘why are the laws nature what they are rather than some other laws?’. And I don’t see any way out of that.
The fact that the constants of nature are suitable for life, which is clearly true, we observe ... ”
(Weinberg then comments on the multiverse conjecture of atheists)
“No one has constructed a theory in which that is true. I mean,, the (multiverse) theory would be speculative, but we don’t even have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. But it is a possibility.”
It seems the logic is as follows:
- A multiverse is possible.
- No one has proved it is impossible.
- Therefore, a multiverse is true.
No, that's not the logic.It seems the logic is as follows:
- A multiverse is possible.
- No one has proved it is impossible.
- Therefore, a multiverse is true.
That unreferenced Weinberg quote doesn't give any indication of which theory he's talking about, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
[clip]
I think its taken well out the context from which Susskind was speaking.I started to watch the video. At about 2 minutes Leonard Susskind makes a claim about the cosmological constant and fine tuning that is just wrong. I might come back to it later, but it is a point I've made on this site before.
I think you may have omitted the key term of 'interpreted' in step (2) of that sequence there(?)No, that's not the logic.
The various multiverses are predictions or implications of physical theories. The logic is something like:
1. Theory X is a good explanation for a significant set of observations.
2. Theory X predicts or implies a multiverse.
3. If theory X is correct, the predicted multiverse is very probably correct.
I agree with the whole point of your post... but I think we saw other galaxies before we found proof for exo-planets.I don't get why a few Christians argue against this.
We are the only planet.
We're not? OK, but we're the centre of all the other ones.
Oh, we're not? But these planets are all there are.
There are more? Really. Oh, well this is the only galaxy.
You're kidding...how many? Wow, well this is the only universe.
There could be a multiverse? Hah! Prove it!
Where in any of that was God denied?
I agree with the whole point of your post... but I think we saw other galaxies before we found proof for exo-planets.
I'm not sure how it would fit there. If there's an interpretation, it would seem to be the theory being an interpretation of the data.I think you may have omitted the key term of 'interpreted' in step (2) of that sequence there(?)
To me they're words with very different meanings... 'interpret' means to explain or derive new meaning; 'imply' here is to suggest a logical consequence.I'm not quite sure of how 'interpret' is distinguished from 'implied' in that logic
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?