What are the implications of the multiverse or parallel universes in the E/C debate

[the Vital One]

What role does it play in the E/C controversy or in the question of the existence of God?

 

[Carl Emerson]

Accountability to historical and current demonstrations of God's encounters with mankind.

The door would be wide open to extreme relativism.

 

[Bradskii]

What role does it play in the E/C controversy or in the question of the existence of God?

I don't know what the e/c controversy is. But multiple universes has no bearing on the existence of God. No more than multiple planets or galaxies did.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know what the e/c controversy is. But multiple universes has no bearing on the existence of God. No more than multiple planets or galaxies did.

Haha! I agree! But from the other side.

 

[Occams Barber]

What role does it play in the E/C controversy or in the question of the existence of God?

If by 'E/C controversy' you mean Evolution vs Creationism then Multi/Parallel Universes have no bearing on the discussion. Scientifically speaking the Theory of Evolution does not require an explanation for the origins of the Universe.

As far as the existence of God goes, science does not affirm (or deny) godly intervention in the origin(s) of the Universe. Christian views vary from a literal 6 day creation event to something approaching Deism. The Creationist view would simply not accept Multi/Parallel Universes since they are not part of the literal Biblical description. It's a little more complex for the Deistic point of view. It may be as simple as accepting that God could have created Multi/Parallel universes, as opposed to a single Universe, before hanging up his overalls. For Christians generally the question of how God might have set up the Universe is probably secondary to an acceptance that God was responsible for its creation and ongoing management.

OB

 

[jamiec]

What role does it play in the E/C controversy or in the question of the existence of God?

God’s existence is in no way affected by what God creates. So, not at all. God is not an entity within the universe, like a planet or a galaxy.

 

[Tolworth John]

The question remains.
What ever has a begining also has a cause so what caused the universe or multiverse to begin?

 

[Ophiolite]

The question remains.
What ever has a begining also has a cause so what caused the universe or multiverse to begin?

1. Who says the universe has a cause? It might do, but the Big Bang may only be the beginning of the current phase, following from an earlier eternity.
2. What makes you (mistakenly) think that every beginning needs a cause.
3. What makes you think that time existed prior to the Big Bang?

The question remains, why do Creationists keep bringing up the same tired, refuted questions?

 

[Bradskii]

The question remains.
What ever has a begining also has a cause so what caused the universe or multiverse to begin?

You missed out 'If we assume that...'.

 

[Tolworth John]

1. Who says the universe has a cause? It might do, but the Big Bang may only be the beginning of the current phase, following from an earlier eternity.
2. What makes you (mistakenly) think that every beginning needs a cause.
3. What makes you think that time existed prior to the Big Bang?

The question remains, why do Creationists keep bringing up the same tired, refuted questions?

Because you have not answered them.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Because you have not answered them.

What is the correct answer to an incorrect question?

 

[Occams Barber]

Because you have not answered them.

Your argument is commonly known as the 'God of the Gaps'.

Here's a nice little quote from Christian theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer which explains it far better than I can:

how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know.[7]​

God of the gaps - Wikipedia

OB

 

[jamiec]

The question remains.
What ever has a begining also has a cause so what caused the universe or multiverse to begin?

That is a matter for the material sciences. Not for theology.

 

[Shemjaza]

Because you have not answered them.

Do you have a response to Ophiolite's clarifying questions then?

 

[Torah Keeper]

Heaven and Hell could possibly be parallel universes.

 

[Occams Barber]

Heaven and Hell could possibly be parallel universes.

And ducks might be chickens.

OB

 

[public hermit]

The question remains.
What ever has a begining also has a cause so what caused the universe or multiverse to begin?

Even Thomas Aquinas had to admit there was no obvious argument for why the universe could not be eternal. Couple that with the old Heracleitus/Stoic notion of eternal recurrence, and we have a universe that begins, expands, collapses, and begins again, eternally.

Of course, an eternal universe does not negate the possibility of an eternal creator, what else does an eternal creator do if not create? Still, being able to point to a beginning doesn't settle the question of God's existence, at all. If it did, this discussion would not he happening.

Cyclical models of the universe still have some proponents.
Cyclic model - Wikipedia

 

[Tolworth John]

Even Thomas Aquinas had to admit there was no obvious argument for why the universe could not be eternal. Couple that with the old Heracleitus/Stoic notion of eternal recurrence, and we have a universe that begins, expands, collapses, and begins again, eternally.

Of course, an eternal universe does not negate the possibility of an eternal creator, what else does an eternal creator do if not create? Still, being able to point to a beginning doesn't settle the question of God's existence, at all. If it did, this discussion would not he happening.

Cyclical models of the universe still have some proponents.
Cyclic model - Wikipedia

Except an eternal universe needs an explaination of why there are still stars etc.
Finet objects cannot exist inside an eternal universe.

 

[public hermit]

Except an eternal universe needs an explaination of why there are still stars etc.
Finet objects cannot exist inside an eternal universe.

I agree that finitude seems to prevent an eternal universe from being self-explanatory. It seems that if the universe is composed solely of finite entities some ground other than those entities would be needed. But that intuition comes from our experience of how finite entities operate, i.e. they are not self-generating. If it could be shown that an infinite series of finite entities could be self-sustaining, then the need for an explanation no longer holds. That still doesn't eliminate God as a possible reality, but it might change how God is conceptualized, e.g. identified with the universe (Spinoza).

Could an infinite series of finite entities be self sustaining? I think I've read a paper that argued there could be unique properties to the whole that sustain the individual parts, properties that are epiphenominal/emergent, I guess. But since the finite set is infinite, emergent properties can be retroactive. Or, maybe I just made that up in my mind.

I'm certain Edward Feser has a developed argument for why an infinite series of finite entities would still need a non-finite ground. I can't remember stuff, I just make it up.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The Creationist view would simply not accept Multi/Parallel Universes since they are not part of the literal Biblical description.

Not exactly. You give Christians generally too much credit here. Usually, whether by laziness or just dullness, or perhaps by disrespect for such useless speculations, they just fail to think on the question. I am a creationist, though maybe not in the usual sense of the word. And to me it is simple, IF there are multiple universes, Genesis need not have mentioned it, and God is the God of all of them, indeed the God who came up with the principle of multiple universes.

For Christians generally the question of how God might have set up the Universe is probably secondary to an acceptance that God was responsible for its creation and ongoing management.

You may be right, since Christians generally don't pursue origins and the logic concerning them, as they do pursue living in obedience to Christ, and being so often frustrated in their own performance in that, they cling to God for help.

But logically, or clinically, scientifically, theoretically, If God is First Cause, then he is also the ongoing manager. The two are one and the same thing, only (edit) not from our temporal perspective.