The Philosophical implications of Multiverse Theory?

[Thursday]

This is not logically consistent. If God knew what you were going to be like when he made the world, and his supposedly all powerful, then it is God's fault.

Luckily there is only very weak evidence for your God so that is not a real worry at all.

Wrong. God is outside of time. God created a universe with creatures capable of making choices. Our actions are our actions, not his. Of course he could have chosen not to create the world, or to create robots, but that's not what he did.

The evidence for God's existence is strong. Matter cannot create itself.

 

[DennisTate]

Yes, quite a few people have been fooled by that phenomenon.

You are aware that there appear to be rational explanations for NDE's, I hope.

In his book My Descent Into Death, Howard Storm Ph. D. went into all the
possible explanations that he could think of for what he had seen and felt during
his NDE and he concluded that Ossam's Razor indicated that the whole thing being
real was the simplest one of all.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In his book My Descent Into Death, Howard Storm Ph. D. went into all the
possible explanations that he could think of for what he had seen and felt during
his NDE and he concluded that Ossam's Razor indicated that the whole thing being
real was the simplest one of all.

There's yer problem - he should have used Occam's Razor.

Also, there's the small problem of thinking that all the possible explanations he could think of were all the possible explanations...

 

[Subduction Zone]

In his book My Descent Into Death, Howard Storm Ph. D. went into all the
possible explanations that he could think of for what he had seen and felt during
his NDE and he concluded that Ossam's Razor indicated that the whole thing being
real was the simplest one of all.

So what? He was well outside his area of expertise. His opinion does not hold any water. In fact his "Phd" is not worth anything in this discussion. He was an art professor:
Howard Storm (author) - Wikipedia

My BS degree beats his Phd since at least mine was in the sciences. You seem to be easily swayed by nonsense. Try making sure that your so called "experts" are actually experts. NDE's appear to be perfectly natural phenomena and don't have anything to do with people going to heaven or to hell.

ETA: There is more than one explanation for NDE's since there could be multiple causes. Here is one:

Near-Death Experiences Explained by Science

And another, backed up by some research and experimentation:

Near-death experiences are 'electrical surge in dying brain' - BBC News

And this one goes over ten different explanations. Once again not all NDE's are the same so they easily could have different causes:

http://listverse.com/2015/04/14/10-scientific-explanations-for-near-death-experiences/

 

[Subduction Zone]

There's yer problem - he should have used Occam's Razor.

Also, there's the small problem of thinking that all the possible explanations he could think of were all the possible explanations...

He made the mistake of assuming that anyone with a PhD has some authority. One can get a PhD in almost any doctrine it could even be in basket weaving, and since he was an art professor it looks like "basket weaving" was not too far off:

Howard Storm (author) - Wikipedia

I would not expect an art professor to know how to use Occam's Razor properly. But then I would not use him as an authority when such arguments arose.

 

[Thursday]

So what? He was well outside his area of expertise. His opinion does not hold any water. In fact his "Phd" is not worth anything in this discussion. He was an art professor:
Howard Storm (author) - Wikipedia

My BS degree beats his Phd since at least mine was in the sciences. You seem to be easily swayed by nonsense. Try making sure that your so called "experts" are actually experts. NDE's appear to be perfectly natural phenomena and don't have anything to do with people going to heaven or to hell.

What can science tell us about events outside our universe?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What can science tell us about events outside our universe?

As of now nothing. I guess that is one area where the Bible is equivalent to science.

 

[Thursday]

As of now nothing. I guess that is one area where the Bible is equivalent to science.

Superior, actually.

The bible offers a legitimate explanation for existence. Science does not.

Science is useful for analyzing that which already exists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What can science tell us about events outside our universe?

Which events outside our universe? Seem to me that if you know of a physically real event, it was, or is, within our observable universe - that's pretty much what 'observable universe' means.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Superior, actually.

You don't seem to know what "superior" is.

The bible offers a legitimate explanation for existence. Science does not.

What are these supposed "legitimate explanation"s? To me it is a mixture of ancient mythology mixed in with some good and some bad morals. And some of the morals in the Bible are very bad.

Science is useful for analyzing that which already exists.

Yes, that is true. I don't know of any tools that can really be used to analyze that which does not exist.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The bible offers a legitimate explanation for existence. Science does not.

Define 'legitimate'. An explanation helps us to understand the phenomenon; seems to me that any imaginative label as a cause is as legitimate and as explanatory as 'God-did-it', e.g. magic, faeries, nothing, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, any other origin myth.

An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it answers explains nothing, particularly when those questions are unanswerable. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

 

[Thursday]

Which events outside our universe? Seem to me that if you know of a physically real event, it was, or is, within our observable universe - that's pretty much what 'observable universe' means.

Exactly. Science has nothing to say about events outside our universe. By definition God is outside of our universe.

 

[Thursday]

Yes, that is true. I don't know of any tools that can really be used to analyze that which does not exist.

Nor tools that can tell us how that which exists came into existence.

You can merely move the chairs around on your titanic.

 

[Thursday]

Define 'legitimate'. An explanation helps us to understand the phenomenon; seems to me that any imaginative label as a cause is as legitimate and as explanatory as 'God-did-it', e.g. magic, faeries, nothing, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, any other origin myth.

An 'explanation' that raises more questions than it answers explains nothing, particularly when those questions are unanswerable. You can't explain the unexplained with the inexplicable.

God's existence explains our existence. Science has no explanation and can have no explanation.

Some scientists seek to claim that it is rational to assume the universe created itself.

Is that your position?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Exactly. Science has nothing to say about events outside our universe. By definition God is outside of our universe.

In which case, by definition, you cannot know God exists.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God's existence explains our existence.

It explains nothing; it's just an empty assertion, an arbitrary label strategically placed to cover an uncomfortable ignorance.

Some scientists seek to claim that it is rational to assume the universe created itself.

Is that your position?

No.

How about you address the points I raised?

In what way is the God hypothesis 'legitimate'?
In what way does "God-did-it" give us a better understanding of, or more information about, the universe than, say, "It's magic"?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nor tools that can tell us how that which exists came into existence.

You can merely move the chairs around on your titanic.

We can't yet. But at least we have more than you do at this time. Much of what is in the Bible is rather badly flawed. It is not totally without merit, but it is far from being the guide that you seem to think that it is.

 

[Thursday]

In which case, by definition, you cannot know God exists.

True.

 

[Thursday]

We can't yet. But at least we have more than you do at this time. Much of what is in the Bible is rather badly flawed. It is not totally without merit, but it is far from being the guide that you seem to think that it is.

You have no idea how I view the bible.

 

[Thursday]

In what way is the God hypothesis 'legitimate'?
In what way does "God-did-it" give us a better understanding of, or more information about, the universe than, say, "It's magic"?

It is legitimate in that it offers a valid explanation for our existence.

The "It's Magic" argument is your argument. I think the historical and experiential evidence for God's existence makes my side of the argument much more legitimate.

The universe is a system for conveying information. A system has a programmer.