What do parallel universes mean for Christians

[BukiRob]

You don't seem to be grasping what I'm saying at all. The scientific evidence supports scripture. Science has discovered that other parallel universe might be possible, if so, then heaven and hell are quite possible too.

The idea of heaven or hell might be hard for a skeptic to accept. Scientists like Hawking and Dawkins would freely accept the idea of parallel universe, but not heaven and hell, until you point out, heaven and hell are parallel universes.

The bible makes many references to the idea that much of existence is invisible. Science is finally catching up and understanding that we are surrounded by invisible stuff. Some of it we have been able to see like ultraviolet light, but there's likely more stuff we can't see.


I don't know how interested you are in science, if you don't have much interest, the rest of the post might not interest you. Believers would be better off to stop hiding from science, science is the believers friend.

Science has proven there is invisible matter everywhere. We can't see Ultra violet light, but we now know it's there. How many other things could be around us all the time that we can't see? Science will tell you there could be entire universes occupying the same space we occupy and just like ultraviolet light, we might never know they are there. Science has developed special tools to see some of what was before invisible, but it's reasonable to think, there's more we haven't seen.

Coincidentally, some descriptions of hell are that it exists right here in the world. So when science promotes the idea of parallel universes occupying this same space but mocks the idea of hell, you simply respond, hell is an alternate universe occupying the same space and time we are, we just can't see it. Science supports the Bible, heaven and hell could be very real, and not being able to see them doesn't mean they are not there. Science has proven this possible.

What we call the spirit is very likely just more invisible matter. The bible describes the spirit as a real thing, meaning it has physical properties and even conscious awareness. How can that be? Science has proven it's very possible, the spirit is very likely just more invisible matter. It can no longer said it isn't there because we can't see it.

I am very. very interested in science and read quite a bit of it albeit from a lay perspective. I FULLY grasp what you are saying it is you who apparently are not following what I am saying.

The idea of multiverse is STRICTLY theoretical in nature meaning, that mathematical models (assuming the proper assumptions are accepted) ALLOW for their existence. Science does not have any DIRECT OR INDIRECT physical evidence of the existence of a parallel or multiple universes.

You also do realize that the word HELL as translated from both the Greek (NT) and Hebrew (OT) do not mean what you seem to be implying it means. Hades (Greek) and Sheol (Hebrew) are the most common words translated to Hell NEITHER word means what most people think it means. Sheol is the grave as is Hades. Tartarus is used only once and it is where the most wicked of angels who took part in the rebellion in heaven are chained and kept until the final judgement. Its use is found by Peter's writing.

Heaven is not in our dimension we can not see it, measure it or journey to it in this earthly form apart from G-d himself calling up there for HIS purpose. G-d is spirit and as such Heaven is not a physical location as you and I would think of it.... furthermore, the Messiah himself declares John 3: 13 No one has ascended into heaven except the One who descended from heaven--the Son of Man.

Your lack of understanding of science is disturbing. We can in fact "see" ultraviolet light. Not with our eyes but with a variety of tools that can measure it as well as its effects on other objects. Dark energy and Dark Matter can not bee seen or measured by any technology that exists. The only reason we know it is real is because we can measure its effects on other objects. Our mathematical models explain correctly, the effects that these 2 forces should have on other objects in space and as a result we know they exist because of this. It explains why the universe is not only expanding but the rate of expansion is INCREASING.

 

[2consider]

You like to argue don't you?

Regardless of what you say, it is you that is missing the point. My point is simply, it is possible, easy in fact to refute the skeptic, who often claims science backs up their belief by using the very science they claim supports them. Case in point, The invisibility of God and God's domain. The skeptic will often resort to statements that amount to "it's not logical to believe in what cannot be seen." Science has proven there is a great deal of things that exist that we cannot see. Obviously, as we can't see them, we have no idea what we are not seeing.

And BTW, we cannot see ultraviolet light, we have invented machines that can detect it and translate that into a visual image we can see.

The fact remains, it is within the realm of possibility that there are a great number of other "things" we cannot see or invented machines to detect. It is in fact possible that there are two or even more universes occupying the same space and time, and we would never know it.

To conclude, science has provided us with knowledge of how a God could be everywhere, and yet not be seen.

Now if you want to debate science, I will gladly pick apart every detail of your post, and refute it all. As we are both apparently of like mind in that we are believers, I feel that arguing with fellow believers who may not completely agree is counter productive when the world is full of complete non believers. I feel that taking your "lay" science and using it to get people to consider the possibility of God is more productive than arguing with more or less like minded people. So stop arguing with me, and use that time more productively.

If believers would stop arguing with other believers and instead spend that time arguing with nonbelievers, we could transform the world. We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are, to debate the nonbeliever it's important to see the world from the nonbeliever's perspective, which is their faith is in science.

 

[BukiRob]

You like to argue don't you?

Regardless of what you say, it is you that is missing the point. My point is simply, it is possible, easy in fact to refute the skeptic, who often claims science backs up their belief by using the very science they claim supports them. Case in point, The invisibility of God and God's domain. The skeptic will often resort to statements that amount to "it's not logical to believe in what cannot be seen." Science has proven there is a great deal of things that exist that we cannot see. Obviously, as we can't see them, we have no idea what we are not seeing.

And BTW, we cannot see ultraviolet light, we have invented machines that can detect it and translate that into a visual image we can see.

The fact remains, it is within the realm of possibility that there are a great number of other "things" we cannot see or invented machines to detect. It is in fact possible that there are two or even more universes occupying the same space and time, and we would never know it.

To conclude, science has provided us with knowledge of how a God could be everywhere, and yet not be seen.

Now if you want to debate science, I will gladly pick apart every detail of your post, and refute it all. As we are both apparently of like mind in that we are believers, I feel that arguing with fellow believers who may not completely agree is counter productive when the world is full of complete non believers. I feel that taking your "lay" science and using it to get people to consider the possibility of God is more productive than arguing with more or less like minded people. So stop arguing with me, and use that time more productively.

If believers would stop arguing with other believers and instead spend that time arguing with nonbelievers, we could transform the world. We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are, to debate the nonbeliever it's important to see the world from the nonbeliever's perspective, which is their faith is in science.

No its called DEBATE....

If you can ot defend your position intellectually then your position is weak. Nothing more nothing less.

 

[AJTruth]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

Two Jerusalem's Earthly & Heavenly

Jerusalem from the Hebrew Yerushalayim. Remember any Hebrew word ending in """im""" is always plural. When ever we say the word or read about Jerusalem. We are saying Jerusalem's.

The Bible speaks of three different heavens.

Two are in our universe. One is where God dwells.

Genesis 1:1 says that God created "the heavens" .

The 1st heaven is the atmosphere around the earth. Where birds & planes fly.

The 2nd heaven is moon, stars, galaxies etc.

The 3rd heaven is where Gods throne is. And exists outside of our observable universe.

2 Cor 2:2 I knew a man in Christ above fourteen years ago, (whether in the body, I cannot tell; or whether out of the body, I cannot tell: God knoweth such an one caught up to """the third heaven""".

Deut 10:14 Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the LORD'S thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is.

1 Kings 8:27 But will God indeed dwell on the earth? behold, the heaven and heaven of heavens cannot contain thee; how much less this house that I have builded?

Psalm 11:4 The LORD is in his holy temple, the LORD'S throne is in heaven: his eyes behold, his eyelids try, the children of men

Psalms 24:7 Lift up your heads, O ye gates; and be ye lift up, ye everlasting doors; and the King of glory shall come in.

God Doesn't Live Inside Our Observable Universe:

How could the universe be created from within. Within means already there. So, clearly, God the creator. Doesn't live within our observable universe.

Scriptures make it clear, He does have the ability to operate inside it. There was no TIME or MATTER as we know it, when God gave the command "LIGHT BE".

The fact He exists in a dimension/realm outside of time. Answers a much asked question. Who created God? Only """within the confines of TIME""" is a beginning or an end necessary.

Jacob's Ladder leads to a Gate that opens the door to the 3rd heaven. Gen 28:11-13 16-18

One day soon, God will again, open that gate. And we will see:

Revelation 4:1 (A) After this I looked, and, behold, a door [was] opened in heaven:

Rev 21:2 And I saw the holy city, ""the new (Heavenly) Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God"", all arrayed like a bride beautified and adorned for her husband;

Soon Very Soon! Maranatha

 

[stevevw]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

Just about nothing as these theories have not been scientifically verified. There are many different hypotheses of the multiverse theory but none can be tested. This has caused some scientists to be against the idea of proposing multiverses as it requires people to have faith in the ideas proposed. This is not that different to what science says about a belief in God.

The ironic thing is that some scientists are more willing to believe in multiverses than God being an idea to answer some of the difficult questions about what we see in the universe. One of the reasons a multiverse is proposed is to account for our universe being so finely tuned for conscious life (Anthropic principle). By allowing many other universes with varying physical laws means that our finely tuned universe will be just one of many and came about by chance. We just happened to be in the universe that is suitable for life.

Even so one of the problems I would see with a multiverse or many world idea is that if there were other worlds with conscious beings then they would also need salvation. Would that mean Christ having to visit their world and die for them as well? Does this mean Christ's sacrifice would have to be made over and over again if there were many worlds with living beings in them? This seems to devalue Christ's sacrifice and the bible says that Christ died once and for all so this would make it hard for people in other worlds being able to find Christ.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

 

[BukiRob]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

Its some, not all. Second what they claim is MEANINGLESS because there is absolutely no evidence that supports these theories. There is no evidence that can be observed of their effects on our universe or nearby stars that suggest even the most minute for of evidence that supports this theory.

Example. The existence of black holes is a theory. Black holes CAN NOT be observed. Since they can not observe them they know they exist only because of the effect of their gravity they impose on nearby stars.

 

[RDKirk]

Even so one of the problems I would see with a multiverse or many world idea is that if there were other worlds with conscious beings then they would also need salvation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Tegmark

Why? Why couldn't this universe be the only one?

There are two situations:

1. God didn't intend for any of this to happen. In that case, "the fall of Adam" should be a rare incident in the multiverse, and perhaps happened only once.

2. God did intend for all of this to happen in this universe alone, or in selected universes. In which case, whatever remedy God devised would be proper and acceptable and not by any means demeaned by His having planned to accomplish it however many times He planned to accomplish it.

 

[RDKirk]

Its some, not all. Second what they claim is MEANINGLESS because there is absolutely no evidence that supports these theories. There is no evidence that can be observed of their effects on our universe or nearby stars that suggest even the most minute for of evidence that supports this theory.

Example. The existence of black holes is a theory. Black holes CAN NOT be observed. Since they can not observe them they know they exist only because of the effect of their gravity they impose on nearby stars.

You first paragraph is accurate. Your second paragraph is not. The fact that a thing cannot be directly observed does not make its existence merely a theory (is God merely a theory?).

And for that matter, black holes can be directly observed, in that their gravity wells can be measured. Be sure to understand that our own sun cannot be "directly observed" either, except by measuring its effects on other objects, such as our retinas.

 

[stevevw]

Why? Why couldn't this universe be the only one?

There are two situations:

1. God didn't intend for any of this to happen. In that case, "the fall of Adam" should be a rare incident in the multiverse, and perhaps happened only once.

2. God did intend for all of this to happen in this universe alone, or in selected universes. In which case, whatever remedy God devised would be proper and acceptable and not by any means demeaned by His having planned to accomplish it however many times He planned to accomplish it.

If this universe was the only one then there would be no problem with other worlds needing salvation. I guess if there were other universes with other physical parameters we could not know what sort of reality they would be. But they would have to be connected to our universe and would have some influence on us according to quantum mechanics and wave function. So they would still operate within a certain physical plane as part of a bigger process that is connected with us.

If there were conscious beings in other worlds they would be derivatives of our world unless they were animals of some sort they would have souls. Becuase the bible says Christ died once and for all then Christ would have to be their Savior. But they would not have had the benefit of this happening on their planet and therefore the message would not be the same.

 

[RDKirk]

If this universe was the only one then there would be no problem with other worlds needing salvation. I guess if there were other universes with other physical parameters we could not know what sort of reality they would be. But they would have to be connected to our universe and would have some influence on us according to quantum mechanics and wave function. So they would still operate within a certain physical plane as part of a bigger process that is connected with us.

Nope. There is no reason why other universes would be connected--by definition, they would not be connected...otherwise they'd merely be a permutation (a "branch") of this universe. There would not be any congruence whatsoever between the universes.

If there were conscious beings in other worlds they would be derivatives of our world unless they were animals of some sort they would have souls. Becuase the bible says Christ died once and for all then Christ would have to be their Savior. But they would not have had the benefit of this happening on their planet and therefore the message would not be the same.

No, they'd be separate universes. Whatever happened in one would have no effect on the other, and there is no reason an infinite God could not have created separate universes in such a way.

 

[stevevw]

Nope. There is no reason why other universes would be connected--by definition, they would not be connected...otherwise, they'd merely be a permutation (a "branch") of this universe. There would not be any congruence whatsoever between the universes.

Yes, they are a sort of permutation of our universe and would not be a reality if our universe was not here and the same for every other universe as that is how the quantum wave effect works in a many worlds theory. Each new reality is a spin-off of the same quantum event. You can't have one universe without the other in that multiverse.

No, they'd be separate universes. Whatever happened in one would have no effect on the other, and there is no reason an infinite God could not have created separate universes in such a way.

Yes, each universe or world would be separate but they are all part of a giant mosaic that makes up a bigger picture. If you pull one of those universes out of that giant mosaic then it will have an effect on the whole. So because they are all spin-offs of the one quantum effect they are connected and need to be in place to allow the connected universes to have the reality they have.

It's like the soap bubble example some give to explain the multiverse. If you were to pop a few of those bubbles it will affect the other bubbles which will move and change shape to fill the voids. Becuase they change shape and move they will also change their physics by being smaller or bigger or a different shape.

So in that sense, each universe or the parallel world would be a spin-off of the same creation. Because they are part of the same whole then there would only need to be one act of Christ to be the saviour of all the worlds within that multiverse. How many times can the same Christ die and be resurrected and defeat sin? That sin came into the whole of Gods creation. As the bible states, all creation worships God, not just that in our world if there were other worlds. So all creation is subject to the same sin that entered into it and the same Christ who saved it.

There was only one act of salvation for all. When Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit with God the deed was done and could not be undone so that the same Christ could become man again and repeat the same sacrifice over and over again.

 

[RDKirk]

Yes, they are a sort of permutation of our universe and would not be a reality if our universe was not here and the same for every other universe as that is how the quantum wave effect works in a many worlds theory. Each new reality is a spin-off of the same quantum event. You can't have one universe without the other in that multiverse.


Yes, each universe or world would be separate but they are all part of a giant mosaic that makes up a bigger picture. If you pull one of those universes out of that giant mosaic then it will have an effect on the whole. So because they are all spin-offs of the one quantum effect they are connected and need to be in place to allow the connected universes to have the reality they have.

It's like the soap bubble example some give to explain the multiverse. If you were to pop a few of those bubbles it will affect the other bubbles which will move and change shape to fill the voids. Becuase they change shape and move they will also change their physics by being smaller or bigger or a different shape.

So in that sense, each universe or the parallel world would be a spin-off of the same creation. Because they are part of the same whole then there would only need to be one act of Christ to be the saviour of all the worlds within that multiverse. How many times can the same Christ die and be resurrected and defeat sin? That sin came into the whole of Gods creation. As the bible states, all creation worships God, not just that in our world if there were other worlds. So all creation is subject to the same sin that entered into it and the same Christ who saved it.

There was only one act of salvation for all. When Christ rose from the dead and ascended into heaven to sit with God the deed was done and could not be undone so that the same Christ could become man again and repeat the same sacrifice over and over again.

You realize you're talking about something that doesn't even exist as a respected theory, right? So how can you assert with certainty what its physical properties are?

 

[BukiRob]

You first paragraph is accurate. Your second paragraph is not. The fact that a thing cannot be directly observed does not make its existence merely a theory (is God merely a theory?).

And for that matter, black holes can be directly observed, in that their gravity wells can be measured. Be sure to understand that our own sun cannot be "directly observed" either, except by measuring its effects on other objects, such as our retinas.

Nope you are wrong. And by the way, my second paragraph is right.... I specifically stated that we know they exist and we can plot their location BY MEASURING THEIR GRAVITATIONAL effect....

By the way, the fact that we can measure their effect in no way, shape or form means that we can "observe" a black hole. Clearly, you do not know what the word observe means so I will help you out with the scientific definition.

This is what Nasa has to say.... I think we can both agree they are more qualified than you to speak about space.

Black Holes | Science Mission Directorate

Scientists can't directly observe black holes with telescopes that detect x-rays, light, or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. We can, however, infer the presence of black holes and study them by detecting their effect on other matter nearby.

 

[BukiRob]

And BTW, we cannot see ultraviolet light, we have invented machines that can detect it and translate that into a visual image we can see.

observe

[uh b-zurv]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object), observed, observing.
1.
to see, watch, perceive, or notice:

The fact remains, it is within the realm of possibility that there are a great number of other "things" we cannot see or invented machines to detect. It is in fact possible that there are two or even more universes occupying the same space and time, and we would never know it.

And the Sun could explode tomorrow.

The reality is that there is ZERO evidence directly observed or indirectly observed that parallel or multiple universes exist. The concept of multiple universes only exists in mathematics models given certain (questionable) conditions are accepted.

Start with a false premise and anything becomes true. Since there is 0 direct evidence or inferred evidence as a result of expect influence on nearby matter, there is absolutely NO WAY to know if the premises accepted are true or false and as such one can not infer that the models are indeed true or false.

Now if you want to debate science, I will gladly pick apart every detail of your post, and refute it all.

LOL you've done an amazingly poor job thus far!

If believers would stop arguing with other believers and instead spend that time arguing with nonbelievers, we could transform the world. We do not see the world as it is, we see the world as we are, to debate the nonbeliever it's important to see the world from the nonbeliever's perspective, which is their faith is in science.

Steel sharpens steel.

 

[stevevw]

You realize you're talking about something that doesn't even exist as a respected theory, right? So how can you assert with certainty what its physical properties are?

I realise this and it's all hypothetical. No one can assert too much about multiverses as there is no way of going there and testing the physical properties. An interesting point is that some scientists want to lower the verification criteria for the hypothesis like multiverses, hologram dimensions and parallel worlds because they can never be verified. They claim that these ideas fit so well and are so elegant that they ought to be accepted. Of course, other scientists say that this cannot happen as this is contradicts the strict verification process of scientific testing.

It's funny though how some are willing to accept far fetched ideas of other worlds and dimensions and reject the idea of any intelligent agent or God associated with what we see.

 

[BukiRob]

I realize this and it's all hypothetical. No one can assert too much about multiverses as there is no way of going there and testing the physical properties. An interesting point is that some scientists want to lower the verification criteria for the hypothesis like multiverses, hologram dimensions and parallel worlds because they can never be verified. They claim that these ideas fit so well and are so elegant that they ought to be accepted. Of course, other scientists say that this cannot happen as this is contradicts the strict verification process of scientific testing.

Ahhh of course they do. It allows them to supply answers (theoretically speaking though there are serious problems even if we accept them) However as I pointed out in another reply they are making a classic mistake and flaw in their thinking a rather fundamental one at that.... If a premise is false but is accepted as true, then everything that flows form the false premise becomes true.

At the very heart of this argument is the problem physics has with the Finely tuned universe and it has them terrified because of the obvious implications. Some are attempting to use the multi -verse as a means to get around the finely tuned universe but as Steven Weinberg points out, there are even bigger problems with the multiverse.

This is really nothing more than the position science had 60 years ago regarding our universe. In May 20, 1964 science was turned UPSIDE DOWN. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the ancient light that began saturating the universe 380,000 years after its creation. This discovery literally shook science to its core because up to that point the over whelming consensus of science was that the universe had no beginning and the bible was just a book as a result since the universe was eternal. Since then further discoveries have continued to provide mounting evidence of intelligent design

It's funny though how some are willing to accept far fetched ideas of other worlds and dimensions and reject the idea of any intelligent agent associated with what we see. It seems the rejection is not about science but personal beliefs.

If one removes from acceptance the idea of the multiverse their only remains one answer that addresses the Finely tuned elements of the universe.

 

[lesliedellow]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

God can presumably create as many universes as he likes, but speculation about there being other universes is just that, and is likely to remain so.

 

[BukiRob]

Physicists often claim that there are multiverses or parallel universes. Some claim that there are an unimaginably large number of these universes (or even an infinite number).

I'm interested in how Christians should approach the idea of other universes. The idea seems completely incompatible with Christianity.

There are MASSIVE problems with these theories. These "theories" are FAR more popular with the median and people OUTSIDE of the cosmology and physics community than their are inside said communities.

The problem with ANY theory of an infinite number of universes is that an infinite number means you run into the problem of equilibrium being reached and thus heat death.

Ultimately these theories of an infinite number of universes are a very poor attempt to explain away the standard model which thus far is the ONLY model that doesn't run into some very severe problems.

 

[stevevw]

Ahhh of course they do. It allows them to supply answers (theoretically speaking though there are serious problems even if we accept them) However as I pointed out in another reply they are making a classic mistake and flaw in their thinking a rather fundamental one at that.... If a premise is false but is accepted as true, then everything that flows form the false premise becomes true.

At the very heart of this argument is the problem physics has with the Finely tuned universe and it has them terrified because of the obvious implications. Some are attempting to use the multi -verse as a means to get around the finely tuned universe but as Steven Weinberg points out, there are even bigger problems with the multiverse.

This is really nothing more than the position science had 60 years ago regarding our universe. In May 20, 1964 science was turned UPSIDE DOWN. Robert Wilson and Arno Penzias discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), the ancient light that began saturating the universe 380,000 years after its creation. This discovery literally shook science to its core because up to that point the over whelming consensus of science was that the universe had no beginning and the bible was just a book as a result since the universe was eternal. Since then further discoveries have continued to provide mounting evidence of intelligent design


If one removes from acceptance the idea of the multiverse their only remains one answer that addresses the Finely tuned elements of the universe.

Yes, the universe is full of design.
The theory of everything: The universe is 'like a COMPUTER underlined by information'