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

[Mark Quayle]

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.

Again, the fact one does not know the cause, does not even begin to indicate it is truly spontaneous.

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.

If the universe is not caused, it is self existent. The universe is not alive, not 'with intent', it is not self-motivated, self-purposed, and therefore not self-existent. But if that seems like an insufficient proof, ok: The universe is mere mechanical fact, which is governed by exterior principles, therefore such principles are the eternal fact (if not themselves also caused), and the universe is not.

If there is First Cause, it is omnipotent by definition, and with intent. Such is regarded pretty much universally as Deity. If God is not First Cause, he is only a god, not THE GOD.

Demonstrate that even if there is a First Cause and it is a deity, that the deity is the Christian God.

It makes sense to me to solidify the existence of First Cause as its own question, before jumping into some illogical call of, "You can't prove to me this First Cause is the Christian God, therefore, you can't prove to me this First Causes exists at all." So that can wait, but just so you know I'm not afraid of it, the Christian God possesses all the attributes that can logically be said of First Cause, such as Omnipotence, Aseity, etc. Yes, of course there is more to be said on the matter.

And while you are at it, let me know the winning numbers in all lotteries around the world for the next three weeks.

Ha!

But are you implying that one can know that just as easily as one can know God? Or are you implying that winning the lottery is as likely as the existence of God?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

Sure.

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

I'm just going by the traditional bible account and what I was taught growing up.

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?

I didn't say "God works in mysterious ways" is 'bogus', I said it is an admission of ignorance. My point about 'anthropomorphic reasons' is that they assume human values.

The argument I made is about the credences we should have, given the available evidence. IOW, what would we expect a universe created by an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator, especially for humans, to be like? What would we expect a universe that developed by natural processes according to simple rules (i.e. without an omnipotent omnibenevolent creator), in which we are an epiphenomenon, to look like? Given the universe we observe, which is the better fitting model?

 

[Mr Laurier]

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

Gravitational instability caused the singularity to expand and become our universe.
Whether it was a god, or a near collision with another singularity, or an irregularity of mass distribution, that cause the instability... nobody knows.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Gravitational instability caused the singularity to expand and become our universe.
Whether it was a god, or a near collision with another singularity, or an irregularity of mass distribution, that cause the instability... nobody knows.

The singularity itself is not generally thought to be real; rather, it's a 'naive' projection of Einsteinian relativity back in time, beyond what we have evidence for, to a point where that model breaks down, producing infinities. When quantum mechanics is taken into account, it's expected that we'll get a model that will provide some understanding of what occurred, without the infinities.

 

[Ophiolite]

Again, the fact one does not know the cause, does not even begin to indicate it is truly spontaneous.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, I'm not saying its a duck, but its reasonable to assert it's not a whisky sour.

If the universe is not caused, it is self existent.The universe is not alive, not 'with intent', it is not self-motivated, self-purposed, and therefore not self-existent.

I have no idea what self-existent means. The closest I can come to as a meaning does not match your assertion that it cannot be self-existent. i.e. your argument makes zero sense to me.

If there is First Cause, it is omnipotent by definition, and with intent.

I see neither omnipotence or intent being embedded in a First Cause. You need to demonstrate that.

"You can't prove to me this First Cause is the Christian God, therefore, you can't prove to me this First Causes exists at all."

That would be a nonsensical argument and is not one I intend, or intended, to use. If a First Cause exists, for which there is no rational reason to think there must be, there is no compelling to think it is conscious, or intelligent, and certainly none to associate it with a God, whom your own religion describes - among other things - as unknowable.

I understand these arguments may make you comfortable. I just dislike the pretence they are supported by science.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Mark Quayle said: ↑
Again, the fact one does not know the cause, does not even begin to indicate it is truly spontaneous.

If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and lays duck eggs, I'm not saying its a duck, but its reasonable to assert it's not a whisky sour.

WE (temporal, physical, humans) use words like chance, random, spontaneous as if there really was such a thing, when what we really mean, if we think about it right, is that there are things beyond us to assess accurately, or at least that it would be exhausting to pursue it. It is self-contradictory to say chance can cause anything, even if something *appears* to be happening by mere chance.

My argument doesn't claim God directly makes particles 'pop in and out of existence', (though there is an interesting tangent to that thought), but that perhaps some day scientific inquiry may figure out something about what's going on there.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
If the universe is not caused, it is self existent.The universe is not alive, not 'with intent'; it is not self-motivated, self-purposed, and therefore not self-existent.

I have no idea what self-existent means. The closest I can come to as a meaning does not match your assertion that it cannot be self-existent. i.e. your argument makes zero sense to me.

'Self-existent' is a simple logical extrapolation of 'existing uncaused', one of the core concepts implied by 'first cause'. It does not imply that first cause made itself (a logical impossibility, since it would have to first exist in order to make anything), but that nothing else made it.

The universe cannot be self-existent, uncaused, because it is governed by principles from outside itself. It is mere mechanical fact, and furthermore, progressing, changing —another logical impossibility for first cause.

Mark Quayle said: ↑
If there is First Cause, it is omnipotent by definition, and with intent.

I see neither omnipotence or intent being embedded in a First Cause. You need to demonstrate that.

First Cause is by definition not caused by exterior causes. Therefore, whatever it does is specific in its causing, as to what things result, no matter to what degree of separation from first cause, the secondary (etc) causes are, that produce those results. "Nothing just happens." (Which, by the way, is a principle upon which science depends.) Thus, all other things (besides first cause) are caused by first cause. This necessarily means all fact is produced by first cause, including all governing principles by which the universe operates. There is nothing that can happen that first cause did not cause. Thus, it is omnipotent, (unless you need it proven that first cause cannot create anything greater than itself —which to me is self-evident.)

Mark Quayle said: ↑
"You can't prove to me this First Cause is the Christian God, therefore, you can't prove to me this First Causes exists at all."

That would be a nonsensical argument and is not one I intend, or intended, to use. If a First Cause exists, for which there is no rational reason to think there must be, there is no compelling to think it is conscious, or intelligent, and certainly none to associate it with a God, whom your own religion describes - among other things - as unknowable.

Haha! I guess I should assume you mean, "If a First Cause exists, (which, by the way, I don't think there is a rational reason to think such a thing exists), there is no compelling ..." rather than, "If a First Cause for which there is no rational reason to think exists, does exist, there is no compelling..."?

Yes for sure it is a nonsensical argument, yet what you were saying seemed to imply that. Otherwise, why include it in your argument?

The rest of your statement has been dealt with above, except for the remark that my own religion describes God as 'unknowable' as though my religion would claim him to be altogether unknowable, which would imply it is irrational to describe him. We all know some things about him. You, and nobody fully understands Quantum Mechanics, yet many understand some things about it. Your remark seems more mocking than reasonable.

I understand these arguments may make you comfortable. I just dislike the pretence they are supported by science.

I don't claim that they are supported by science. I claim they are supported by logical reasoning.

 

[Gene2memE]

The universe cannot be self-existent, uncaused, because it is governed by principles from outside itself.

Which principles are outside of the universe?
How, if they are outside of the universe, do they govern it?

 

[Mark Quayle]

Which principles are outside of the universe?
How, if they are outside of the universe, do they govern it?

They are FROM outside the universe, but regardless of 'where they are', the universe is held to their governance. First Cause is not. It is not governed. It merely is. Principles that govern all else must proceed from first cause.

The question implies that if I am wrong, and the principles governing the universe are from within the universe, they were caused by the universe.

From those who propose a universe with a beginning, they, to avoid the "mechanical fact cannot be first cause" notion, say it is possible those principles were "co-emergent" with the universe. Yet I insist, here you propose a specific thing, springing from nowhere for no reason, yet somehow with specificity. Accident? But Chance cannot cause anything. It is a self-contradictory notion.

But for those who propose an eternal universe, they don't even have that, but a 'repugnant to reason' claim of "Just because...". as if that meant anything. They will retort that I have only "Just because" in my claim of first cause with intent. But no, From this first cause, springs all fact. An eternal universe has no notion of existence, but first cause with intent defines existence.

I agree this is very disjointed but it is late, and I'm in a hurry.