D
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.
Hi,
What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.
I think that the possibility does exist for such a thing as the multiverse. And yes it would eliminate the argument that the universe seems to be designed. It eliminates the the argument for design in that if there are an infinite amount of universes, then by necessity such a universe with the appearance of design(such as ours) would inevitibly come into existence. The problems with this theory are that there is no emperical evidence for it. The only evidence that supports this theory lies in mathematics, but many things can be done with mathematics that do not necessarily exist as a part of reality, or at least as far as we know may not exist as part of reality.darknova said:Hi,
What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.
Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??
Hmmm, have'nt atheists and agnostics been saying that for years?JasperJackson said:My opinion is it is silly to believe in something we have no evidence for.
Hmmm, have'nt atheists and agnostics been saying that for years?
Hi,
What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.
Do you agree with it or have arguments against it??
I personally don't think that the existence of an enormous multiverse would change anything about the design argument. To demonstrate, let's consider what physicist Martin Reese said in his book Just Six Numbers:What do you have to say about the possiblity of a multiverse. If it is real then it would seem to disprove cosmological arguments and arguments based on the world looking it is designed.
So the most common response is to assume that an intelligent being was responsible for designing the laws of our universe and placed the strong nuclear force at that particular strength for that reason. The alternate theory is that there are many universe. In one universe .6% of the mass is converted in energy, in another universe .7%, in another .8%, and so forth. In the .7% universe we evolved because it was physically possible for us to do so. In all the other universes, we did not.Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun "burns" by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller0.6% instead of 0.7% a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8%
However, even if there were many universes in existence, there's no reason why the strong nuclear force should vary from one universe to the next. By all logic and intuition, if a whole bunch of universes popped into being from some type of field or whatever, it would be much simpler if they all had exactly the same strong nuclear force. Other than an intelligent designer, what could possibly account for them each having a slightly different value?
And even if universes naturally popped up with different values of the constant, they might well miss the necessary value. For example, if universes popped up where the percent of matter converted ranged from 1% and higher but not lower, then there'd be no universe with the correct value for life to occur.
However, in the absense of an intelligent designer, I see no reason why these universes should have laws at all. We can easily imagine universes with no physical laws. We can imagine universes with no matter. We can imagine universes where matter does not move. We can imagine universes where the physical laws change constantly so there are no stable structures. etc... In all of these cases, life would always be impossible no matter how many universes were contained in the multiverse.
I know many people who have converted to Christianity because of what Jesus said and did, but none who converted because of arguments from intelligent design.
AlexBp said:The basic data point that everything starts with is this: here we are. By all logic we shouldn't be here. Nothing should be here or anywhere else. Nothing should exist at all. And yet: here we are. To say (paraphrasing) "It's not surprising that we exist because if we didn't exist there wouldn't be anyone around to marvel at our non-existence" doesn't address the mystery of why we came into existence.
My opinion is it is silly to believe in something we have no evidence for.
Multiverse is there basically to provide an answer to the question: Why does the universe have the parameters it does instead of some other parameters?
Some people have erroneously used the fact that many of the parameters are very precise to say that the universe "must" have those parameters and, therefore, "must" have been made by deity. That's faulty logic. The universe does not have to have the parameters it does; if it did not, we simply would not be here to wonder about it. So the original cosmological argument and the argument about "design" are flawed even without multiverse.
Think of lottery tickets. The odds that you have the winning ticket is low. But if enough tickets are sold it is a certainty that someone will have the winning ticket.
So, in short, I don't see any way how life as we know it could ever have come into existence without an intelligent designer to make the universe in which it does so.
This why I like discussing the idea of "nothing." Why does "something" exist rather than "nothing?" There is a common assumption that there was or is such thing as "nothing." I think that "nothing" (as in the most absolute sense of nothing) is just a figment of our imagination and has not nor ever will exist.
I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.darknova said:Why do you think nothingness can't exist? Just because it may not ever actually exist it doesn't mean it is logically impossible for reality not to have existed.
I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.
If you go by physics definition of nothing (i.e. a vacuum) there are still quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existance. But even this popping in and out of existance leads some to believe that what is actually happening is the flutuations are popping in and out of our known demensions and other unknown demensions of space.
Christians would say it is from god, but even god would be "something," and the burden of proof lies with them to prove that god exists. I don't mean evidence that they use to interpret that a god may exist, but evidence to show "here this IS god."darknova said:But Christians would say something came from God not absolutely nothing, scientists would say there were some kind of laws. I don't see why absolute nothingness couldn't have been.
lucaspa: you doubtlessly know a great deal more about this stuff than I do. However, I was under the impression that any tie between quantum mechanical fluctuations and the appearance of universes with certain properties is extremely theoretical at best.
String theoretic models have been proposed that would provide for the existence of an enormous number of universes with all possible combinations of constant values, but all of them are working backwards from the existence of our universe to a purely theoretical model that accounts for it, not based on empirical data.
The basic data point that everything starts with is this: here we are. By all logic we shouldn't be here.
To say (paraphrasing) "It's not surprising that we exist because if we didn't exist there wouldn't be anyone around to marvel at our non-existence" doesn't address the mystery of why we came into existence.
I can understand what you are driving at, but logicall speaking, "something" from "nothing" is a non sequitur.
If you go by physics definition of nothing (i.e. a vacuum) there are still quantum fluctuations popping in and out of existance.
But even this popping in and out of existance leads some to believe that what is actually happening is the flutuations are popping in and out of our known demensions and other unknown demensions of space.
Christians would say it is from god, but even god would be "something," and the burden of proof lies with them to prove that god exists.
Scientists saying that there are laws that gave rise to something from nothing is still a non sequitur, because laws are still something. Absolute nothing is exactly what it says, "absolute nothing."
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?