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

[Tinker Grey]

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

That's a brilliant quote. Thanks

 

[Mark Quayle]

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?

But that's not really a refutation. It's an excuse (sorry). This constant kicking the can down the road does nothing, goes nowhere, answers nothing (not that we need an answer, but...). It too is a 'God of the Gap' sort of thing, but circular logic by design.

At least, that is what it looks like to me.

 

[Occams Barber]

But that's not really a refutation. It's an excuse (sorry). This constant kicking the can down the road does nothing, goes nowhere, answers nothing (not that we need an answer, but...). It too is a 'God of the Gap' sort of thing, but circular logic by design.

At least, that is what it looks like to me.

You can't argue that everything must have a cause and then resolve the 'cause' of the Universe by introducing an (unevidenced) uncaused cause (e.g. God). That's Special Pleading on steroids.

There are a couple of other issues that need resolving before we insert God into Gaps:

• At what point in a scientific investigation do we cease to investigate and accept that Goddidit?. As the Bornhoeffer quote (Post #12) suggests, God has been inserted into past scientific gaps only to be later displaced by a scientific explanation

• Which god (or other supernatural force) do we insert? There is no reason to automatically assume a Christian God

The rational approach is to accept that there are certain things we don't yet know* (perhaps will never know?) and leave the question open.

* Examples:

• The Origin of the Universe
• A detailed understanding of Abiogenesis
• The Theory of Everything

OB

 

[Occams Barber]

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.

Since I'd mentioned Deism I was trying to differentiate between a Deist view and a run-of-the-mill Christian viewpoint.

Deism allows God as a First Cause but specifically excludes an ongoing role.

OB

 

[Shemjaza]

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

The events of the Big Bang clearly created the situation for the formation of galaxies and stars, but we don't know how the Big Bang and a hypothetical singularity actually came about.

The substance of the universe may not ultimately be affected by entropy, we just don't know, but we do know it exists which is a start point for investigation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

You can't argue that everything must have a cause and then resolve the 'cause' of the Universe by introducing an (unevidenced) uncaused cause (e.g. God). That's Special Pleading on steroids.

It's simple logic, the same is done in accepting anything that makes sense in science and philosophy, specially in the absence of reasonable alternatives. If this claim (first cause) is true, one would find everything one does find.

Haha, I've even gone trolling on another forum with the line, "Atheism posits a naturalism that behaves exactly as if God created". Snagged a few remarks.

I'm of the opinion that there are huge things we have all taken for granted in our reasoning. But we can't help it. We must, or we can't start.

There are a couple of other issues that need resolving before we insert God into Gaps:

• At what point in a scientific investigation do we cease to investigate and accept that Goddidit?. As the Bornhoeffer quote (Post #12) suggests, God has been inserted into past scientific gaps only to be later displaced by a scientific explanation

• Which god (or other supernatural force) do we insert? There is no reason to automatically assume a Christian God

The rational approach is to accept that there are certain things we don't yet know* (perhaps will never know?) and leave the question open.

* Examples:

• The Origin of the Universe
• A detailed understanding of Abiogenesis
• The Theory of Everything

You are getting beyond the question of first cause when you jump to "why the Christian God?" Not that it is any different, but that is a ways down the human chain of reasoning, I think.

Likewise, the fact past things have been attributed to God only to later be shown to be scientifically explainable, is irrelevant to the question of first cause.

IF there is First Cause, then that is default, and basic to all further considerations. Not the other way around. Current science does not and cannot prove nor disprove God. In first cause, there is a melding of both modes of reasoning, spiritual and physical. So, yeah, there are many things we don't know, and much as we would like to, we accept that we do not. But the basic, we do accept. First Cause. Nothing else makes sense.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Since I'd mentioned Deism I was trying to differentiate between a Deist view and a run-of-the-mill Christian viewpoint.

Deism allows God as a First Cause but specifically excludes an ongoing role.

OB

Yes, and there is deism's end of thinking on the matter. It cannot conceive of a "did and therefore still does". It is altogether rooted in the temporal.

 

[Bradskii]

Haha, I've even gone trolling on another forum with the line, "Atheism posits a naturalism that behaves exactly as if God created".

That's the other side of the position that asks 'If the universe was entirely natural, what would it look like?' Well, exactly as it does now. It beats me how one could possibly separate what God has done/is doing from the natural processes that we observe. Which is where the ID crowd makes an appearance and tries to claim that some things were impossible without Him stepping in and giving a helping hand. As if He couldn't get it right the first time...

 

[Mark Quayle]

That's the other side of the position that asks 'If the universe was entirely natural, what would it look like?' Well, exactly as it does now. It beats me how one could possibly separate what God has done/is doing from the natural processes that we observe. Which is where the ID crowd makes an appearance and tries to claim that some things were impossible without Him stepping in and giving a helping hand. As if He couldn't get it right the first time...

Frankly, I have a problem with the demand that God's acts be unnatural. That just doesn't add up to me. Not that he can't intervene in ways that seem unnatural, and accomplish things that are unusual, but to me it is all miracle.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

We don't know if the universe had a beginning. Why assume it?

 

[Tolworth John]

We don't know if the universe had a beginning. Why assume it?

Science says it hs a begining.

If you don't accept that, what other science do you not believe? Evolution matbe.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Science says it hs a begining.

Citation?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Frankly, I have a problem with the demand that God's acts be unnatural. That just doesn't add up to me. Not that he can't intervene in ways that seem unnatural, and accomplish things that are unusual, but to me it is all miracle.

The only things we have to go on are what we observe and our admittedly limited reasoning abilities.

It seems to me that we can reasonably ask what we might expect the universe to look like if it was created for us by an omnipotent omnibenevolent God of the Abrahamic tradition. From this point of view, it looks like massive overkill - a vast universe, almost all of which we'll never be able to access, and almost all completely hostile to human life. There are also a number of oddities that appear quite unnecessary, such as the very low entropy at the big bang. One could also argue that an omnipotent creator would not need to fine-tune any physical parameters. We would not expect to see the select creatures, for whom all this was specially created, showing multiple lines of evidence of having common ancestry with the other creatures over which they're supposed to have dominion, nor the degree of unnecessary suffering the sentient creatures are subject to.

On the other hand, if we, and the creatures we share this planet with, and the universe itself, are the products of natural processes that are the products of relatively simple rules, and we are just an incidental feature of a universe not designed especially for us, the features described above fit that model very well.

Of course, it's always possible to find anthropomorphic reasons why God might want to do things this way rather than that way, so that they look less like divine creation and more like natural development and evolution, and it's always possible to say, 'God works in mysterious ways', but the former is circular argument and/or special pleading, and the latter is an admission of ignorance that invalidates reasoned argument altogether.

If we're going to reason about the origins of the universe based on what we see, the evidence, prima facie, does not suggest the omnipotent hand of a deity creating a universe for us, but a universe of unknown origin, developing according to natural rules, that gave rise to life on Earth from which we evolved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

YMMV

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Science says it hs a beginning.

No it doesn't. Science takes us back to a certain point and no further - we just don't know what, if anything, happened before that. You may be confusing the beginning of the universe as we know it with some potential absolute beginning. That would be the same kind of error that people make when they confuse the observable universe with the whole universe.

If you don't accept that, what other science do you not believe? Evolution matbe.

I don't 'believe' any science, I accept the expert consensus on the best explanations we have given the available evidence. That includes evolution.

 

[Ophiolite]

Because you have not answered them.

I have seen them answered on this forum many times. I am reasonably sure they have been answered in threads you have participated in.
I have implicitly answered them in my post. Let me make it clearer for you:
1. There is no need for the universe to have a cause, so basing your insistence upon there needing to be a First Cause, making a groundless demand.
2. Things can happen without a cause. If you believe otherwise that would explain how you could arrive at warped conclusions.

If you would educate yourself on these matters you wouldn't keep asking the same silly questions.

 

[Ophiolite]

But that's not really a refutation. It's an excuse (sorry). This constant kicking the can down the road does nothing, goes nowhere, answers nothing (not that we need an answer, but...). It too is a 'God of the Gap' sort of thing, but circular logic by design.

At least, that is what it looks like to me.

I'm sorry if I seemed to imply that my comments and questions were, of themselves, a refutation. I don't have the patience to offer one in detail, since I have seen excellent refutation ignored many time by Creationists.*

Rather I am pointing out that the questions are based upon a persistent, profound ignorance of the context and deep background to the subject. Once these are appreciated the questions are recgonised as being irrelevant, or silly, or contrived, or some combination thereof.

*If you can tell me why a given atom of uranium should spontaneously undergo fission now rather than then, I shall concede that you have removed one of the pieces of evidence that establish that causeless temporal events can occur. Until them, consider that piece of Creationist propanda refuted. (And go study the relevant phsyics to understand why it is refuted. I'll not do your thinking for you.)

 

[Mark Quayle]

*If you can tell me why a given atom of uranium should spontaneously undergo fission now rather than then, I shall concede that you have removed one of the pieces of evidence that establish that causeless temporal events can occur. Until them, consider that piece of Creationist propanda refuted. (And go study the relevant phsyics to understand why it is refuted. I'll not do your thinking for you.)

I don't think a reasonable person needs to know many specifics to answer that question: The question is not why a given atom of uranium should spontaneously undergo fission now rather than then, but whether it is spontaneous. As far as the mind can go, all things are caused (whether they seem to be or not) except first cause. And first cause cannot be mere mechanical fact, since mechanical fact is dependent on principles from outside itself.

 

[Mark Quayle]

2. Things can happen without a cause. If you believe otherwise that would explain how you could arrive at warped conclusions.

Demonstrate. Remember, the fact we don't know the cause doesn't mean there is none. You can't use math to prove that math doesn't work.

 

[Ophiolite]

I don't think a reasonable person needs to know many specifics to answer that question: The question is not why a given atom of uranium should spontaneously undergo fission now rather than then, but whether it is spontaneous. As far as the mind can go, all things are caused (whether they seem to be or not) except first cause. And first cause cannot be mere mechanical fact, since mechanical fact is dependent on principles from outside itself.

Sorry, the question is why would a given atom of uranium undergo fission now rather than later, or earlier. i.e spontaneously. It sits there for three billion years and then fissions. Why? Well, give me a reason. Give me a cause.

Remember, the fact we don't know the cause doesn't mean there is none.

Nor, does it mean there is one.
Demonstrate the universe must have a cause.
Demonstrate the universe is not eternal.
Demonstrate that time existed before the current phase of the universe.
Demonstrate that even if there is a First Cause it must be a deity.
Demonstrate that even if there is a First Cause and it is a deity, that the deity is the Christian God.
And while you are at it, let me know the winning numbers in all lotteries around the world for the next three weeks.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The only things we have to go on are what we observe and our admittedly limited reasoning abilities.

There are things we observe that science has no tools to assess.

It seems to me that we can reasonably ask what we might expect the universe to look like if it was created for us by an omnipotent omnibenevolent God of the Abrahamic tradition. From this point of view, it looks like massive overkill - a vast universe, almost all of which we'll never be able to access, and almost all completely hostile to human life. There are also a number of oddities that appear quite unnecessary, such as the very low entropy at the big bang. One could also argue that an omnipotent creator would not need to fine-tune any physical parameters. We would not expect to see the select creatures, for whom all this was specially created, showing multiple lines of evidence of having common ancestry with the other creatures over which they're supposed to have dominion, nor the degree of unnecessary suffering the sentient creatures are subject to.

Your assumption is that the Abrahamic tradition posits a God who made the universe for us, not for himself.

On the other hand, if we, and the creatures we share this planet with, and the universe itself, are the products of natural processes that are the products of relatively simple rules, and we are just an incidental feature of a universe not designed especially for us, the features described above fit that model very well.

Same thing. He made this for himself, and according to Abrahamic tradition, for us too as glorified beings, but that is later to come.

Of course, it's always possible to find anthropomorphic reasons why God might want to do things this way rather than that way, so that they look less like divine creation and more like natural development and evolution, and it's always possible to say, 'God works in mysterious ways', but the former is circular argument and/or special pleading, and the latter is an admission of ignorance that invalidates reasoned argument altogether.

Not exactly. "God works in mysterious ways" is a shortcut for something else, that some don't know how to express. Not necessarily bogus. But your first remark (the anthropomorphic thing), seems to imply it is impossible that God's very character fits the look of the universe exactly. Let me put that another way: why would it be unGod-like to do things where there is no contradiction, (unless when we give credence to our limited temporal view), in creating something that is both truly instantaneously complete and truly 14 billion years old? Is First Cause not by definition the 'inventor' of time? What makes us think we can see so much?

If we're going to reason about the origins of the universe based on what we see, the evidence, prima facie, does not suggest the omnipotent hand of a deity creating a universe for us, but a universe of unknown origin, developing according to natural rules, that gave rise to life on Earth from which we evolved ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Again, why would that not be what God made? How old was Adam, when God made him? —I'm asking for an answer from God's POV, the only real POV, if he exists.

Consider the notion that God is so alien to our understanding that time itself may be nothing more to him than a form of communication with ignorant folks like ourselves. Why not?