WHY NON-CHRISTIAN?

[Ed1wolf]

This discussion has gone on a long time, and I can understand if you are ceasing to pay close attention and are forgetting what I have been arguing.

I don't argue that human beings don't have minds. I argue that minds are a function of brains, notably human brains. An example of an entity with a mind that can reason logically is a human being, and it is the human brain that makes that mind possible.

I know from experience that this answer won't satisfy you, but it is the correct answer.



They do interact in a chemical way, but they do so in a far more complex way than your reductionistic oversimplification of chemistry, which seems to be based on high school chemistry labs with test tubes. Brains aren't test tubes.

I have never stated that a physical view of the mind is like a few simple chemicals reacting, but there is no doubt that no matter how complex a chemical reaction is, it cannot violate the laws of physics and chemistry and all empirical scientific research has shown that those laws cannot weigh arguments and evidence to produce a product or conclusion. Only something operating using the laws of logic can do so.

eud: It is both physical and non-physical, each as seen from a different perspective. The mind is something that the physical brain does, in the sense that "computation" is something that physical computers do. You can view the result as something non-physical, but it is physical at the same time.

There is no empirical evidence that the mind is something the brain does that is like the computation that a computer does. But I do agree that the non-physical mind probably needs the brain to do certain lower level mental activities. But plainly not higher thought activities as shown by the evidences I have cited in this thread.

eud: Forget about "fundamental" levels. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. There are properties of wholes that are not possessed by the parts taken individually.

True up to a point but not to the level where something comes into existence that violates the laws of physics.

eud: Activities of physical brains are the "non-physical" thing you are talking about. The activity is of physical brains, and so there is a physical connection to a physical body.

Yes, but there was no physical activity that would have cured the illness that the person had.

eud: Urban legends may easily claim that. But doctor's reports are not the same thing as careful studies.

No, these ARE careful studies.

eud: No, it isn't. There's no reason why one must feel "male" in a male body if one has a physical brain. The feeling of being "male" is a product of brain function. If there is, for instance, a genetic condition that alters that brain function, one might feel like one has the "wrong" body. There is no separation of the mind from the physical implied by that.

You are getting off subject here now. If the condition of transgenderism is some genetic mutation then it is not real. I am referring to the hypothetical case of transgenderism being REAL. A real woman trapped in a man's body. Now you are going in the direction of where most of the science is heading but the mainstream media is not going, ie the evidence that transgenderism is a psychological condition due to genetic or hormonal pathologies and not truly what the person claims to be.

eud: I've already posted evidence of a genetic link to gender dysphoria, which makes sense if the mind arises from physical brain function.

If gender dysphoria can in some instances have a genetic cause, then Dawkins would be correct, and you would be mistaken.

You are getting off topic here. I am referring to how the media and the transgenders themselves portray transgenderism, ie that they really ARE a man/woman trapped in a opposite gender body, not the scientific evidence that it is a pathology caused by genetics or homonal abnormalities.

 

[Ed1wolf]

This discussion has gone on a long time, and I can understand if you are ceasing to pay close attention and are forgetting what I have been arguing.

I don't argue that human beings don't have minds. I argue that minds are a function of brains, notably human brains. An example of an entity with a mind that can reason logically is a human being, and it is the human brain that makes that mind possible.

I know from experience that this answer won't satisfy you, but it is the correct answer.



They do interact in a chemical way, but they do so in a far more complex way than your reductionistic oversimplification of chemistry, which seems to be based on high school chemistry labs with test tubes. Brains aren't test tubes.

I have never stated that a physical view of the mind is like a few simple chemicals reacting, but there is no doubt that no matter how complex a chemical reaction is, it cannot violate the laws of physics and chemistry and all empirical scientific research has shown that those laws cannot weigh arguments and evidence to produce a product or conclusion. Only something operating using the laws of logic can do so.

eud: It is both physical and non-physical, each as seen from a different perspective. The mind is something that the physical brain does, in the sense that "computation" is something that physical computers do. You can view the result as something non-physical, but it is physical at the same time.

There is no empirical evidence that the mind is something the brain does that is like the computation that a computer does. But I do agree that the non-physical mind probably needs the brain to do certain lower level mental activities. But plainly not higher thought activities as shown by the evidences I have cited in this thread.

eud: Forget about "fundamental" levels. The whole can be greater than the sum of its parts. There are properties of wholes that are not possessed by the parts taken individually.

True up to a point but not to the level where something comes into existence that violates the laws of physics.

eud: Activities of physical brains are the "non-physical" thing you are talking about. The activity is of physical brains, and so there is a physical connection to a physical body.

Yes, but there was no physical activity that would have cured the illness that the person had.

eud: Urban legends may easily claim that. But doctor's reports are not the same thing as careful studies.

No, these ARE careful studies.

eud: No, it isn't. There's no reason why one must feel "male" in a male body if one has a physical brain. The feeling of being "male" is a product of brain function. If there is, for instance, a genetic condition that alters that brain function, one might feel like one has the "wrong" body. There is no separation of the mind from the physical implied by that.

You are getting off subject here now. If the condition of transgenderism is some genetic mutation then it is not real. I am referring to the hypothetical case of transgenderism being REAL. A real woman trapped in a man's body. Now you are going in the direction of where most of the science is heading but the mainstream media is not going, ie the evidence that transgenderism is a psychological condition due to genetic or hormonal pathologies and not truly what the person claims to be.

eud: I've already posted evidence of a genetic link to gender dysphoria, which makes sense if the mind arises from physical brain function.

If gender dysphoria can in some instances have a genetic cause, then Dawkins would be correct, and you would be mistaken.

You are getting off topic here. I am referring to how the media and the transgenders themselves portray transgenderism, ie that they really ARE a man/woman trapped in a opposite gender body, not the scientific evidence that it is a pathology caused by genetics or homonal abnormalities.

 

[Uber Genius]

I've studied many religions, and many mythologies, past and present, and find them all wanting. No exceptions.

I too find all psat cultures that don't share my modern sensibilities wanting!

Can you believe that none of the original religions ever even conceived of cell phones, let alone texting? Bunch of Neanderthals! We should just throw out all historical references as we find them "all wanting!"

Opps... Including this viewpoint one day from now.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I too find all psat cultures that don't share my modern sensibilities wanting!

Can you believe that none of the original religions ever even conceived of cell phones, let alone texting? Bunch of Neanderthals! We should just throw out all historical references as we find them "all wanting!"

Opps... Including this viewpoint one day from now.

Now who said anything about modern sensibilities? Oh, right -- you.

Enjoy your strawman.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ratio of the reagents? You just failed chemistry if so.

tm: No, that's not the part I was disagreeing with.
I was disagreeing with your assertion that "therefor, it's not a result of weighing the evidence".

Brain chemistry, rather, is the physical process by which weighing the evidence happens.

Your brain is what you do your thinking/reasoning with. Brain chemistry is how that process physically works.

Yes, and the brain is made up chemicals. Chemicals react and produce products based on their ratio. Not on whether something is rational or based on the weighing of evidence and argument.

ed: It can only look at the options it was programmed with.

eud: No. The whole point of machine learning (=the backbone of modern AI) is that the system becomes "smarter" through "experience".

Only within the confines of its programming. I notice you put quote marks around smarter and experience. So you admit that it is not really learning and experiencing.

ed: And will only come up with the conclusions of problems that the programs can solve.

tm: Sure. And our brains were "programmed" by our evolutionary history. As Krauss likes to say at times: "our brains evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa".

No, impersonal random processes cannot program anything. Such a thing has never been empirically observed. Only intelligent minds can program things. Thereby confirming theism.

ed: And in the field of psychology, it is rather remarkable how many human psychological traits can be traced back to exactly that idea. Including human inclination for superstition and religious belief.

Since you deny the existence of the mind (you say it is just a process), there is no such thing as psychology. And there is no empirical evidence that evolution can explain religious belief, it is just another evolutionary "just so story'. Many intelligent animals survive quite well without religious belief, so it unlikely to be selected for by natural selection.

ed: It makes perfect sense according to the laws of chemistry and if you believe that the brain is just chemicals with a little electricity thrown in.

tm: Again, "thinking" is a process that occurs in the brain. The brain accomplishes this function by a physical process, which is brain chemistry.

Yes, and all chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the reagents irrespective of how complex the chemical reactions are. This has been proven by science. So therefore if the mind is just a chemical process then it cannot weight arguments or evidence.

tm: You can disagree with it all you like, but you're simply going to miss the fact that it is true.
It's actually rather undeniable. You can put someone's brain in a scanner and like literally see the brain activity as the subject is asked to think, reason, sing, brings up memories, etc.

No, you are assuming what we are trying to prove. A brain scan does not take a picture of the mind. It just captures the electrochemical reactions in the brain to certain stimuli, that are probably being produced by the non-physical mind as it interacts with the physical realm.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ratio of the reagents? You just failed chemistry if so.

tm: No, that's not the part I was disagreeing with.
I was disagreeing with your assertion that "therefor, it's not a result of weighing the evidence".

Brain chemistry, rather, is the physical process by which weighing the evidence happens.

Your brain is what you do your thinking/reasoning with. Brain chemistry is how that process physically works.

Yes, and the brain is made up chemicals. Chemicals react and produce products based on their ratio. Not on whether something is rational or based on the weighing of evidence and argument.

ed: It can only look at the options it was programmed with.

eud: No. The whole point of machine learning (=the backbone of modern AI) is that the system becomes "smarter" through "experience".

Only within the confines of its programming. I notice you put quote marks around smarter and experience. So you admit that it is not really learning and experiencing.

ed: And will only come up with the conclusions of problems that the programs can solve.

tm: Sure. And our brains were "programmed" by our evolutionary history. As Krauss likes to say at times: "our brains evolved to avoid being eating by lions in Africa".

No, impersonal random processes cannot program anything. Such a thing has never been empirically observed. Only intelligent minds can program things. Thereby confirming theism.

ed: And in the field of psychology, it is rather remarkable how many human psychological traits can be traced back to exactly that idea. Including human inclination for superstition and religious belief.

Since you deny the existence of the mind (you say it is just a process), there is no such thing as psychology. And there is no empirical evidence that evolution can explain religious belief, it is just another evolutionary "just so story'. Many intelligent animals survive quite well without religious belief, so it unlikely to be selected for by natural selection.

ed: It makes perfect sense according to the laws of chemistry and if you believe that the brain is just chemicals with a little electricity thrown in.

tm: Again, "thinking" is a process that occurs in the brain. The brain accomplishes this function by a physical process, which is brain chemistry.

Yes, and all chemical reactions are determined by the ratio of the reagents irrespective of how complex the chemical reactions are. This has been proven by science. So therefore if the mind is just a chemical process then it cannot weight arguments or evidence.

tm: You can disagree with it all you like, but you're simply going to miss the fact that it is true.
It's actually rather undeniable. You can put someone's brain in a scanner and like literally see the brain activity as the subject is asked to think, reason, sing, brings up memories, etc.

No, you are assuming what we are trying to prove. A brain scan does not take a picture of the mind. It just captures the electrochemical reactions in the brain to certain stimuli, that are probably being produced by the non-physical mind as it interacts with the physical realm.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Exactly, it is the "nonexistent" non physical mind that cures the physical body. That is the evidence.

tm: No, it doesn't. There's no such thing.

No, such thing as what? Minds? If so then, you just proved my point.

tm: 13 things that do not make sense

If anything, it expresses several times that we do not know how it works exactly.
There is nothing in there that even mentions anything about people being cured of any illness.

Of course, they are not going to go against the orthodoxy of naturalism, they would get fired. But there are studies that show that the mind HAS cured illnesses. Read the Mother Jones article "Is it Prozac or Placebo" Nov./Dec. 2003.

tm: Causes of transsexuality - Wikipedia

Especially the part about transsexuality among twins is remarkable.
In one third of the identical twins where at least one was transsexual, both were transsexual. Which is a significant signal that transsexuallity might be heavily influenced by genetics. One third is a LOT.

This is getting off topic. But actually since identical twins have identical genes, if it was genetic then 100% of the twins would be transgender. This actually shows that it is not genetic. But nevertheless I am talking about if transgenderism is real, ie that there really is a man trapped in a womans body. The studies referenced in Wikipedia are providing evidence that it is due to hormonal or genetic malfunctions and therefore is not real, which is close to my position. But I was saying if what transgenders and the mainstream media says and that it is real then that would be evidence that the mind is mostly independent of the body/biology.

And regarding Dr. Van Lammon, he is a respected cardiologist, just as competent as a neurologist to make scientific conclusions. Especially just as competent as Carl Sagan to make statements about biology and Bill Nye an engineer to make infallible statements about evolution. And Richard Dawkins to make philosophical statements and theological ones. So he is plainly just as qualified as they are if not more.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, cosmos DOES mean the universe. Why do you think that scientists that study the universe are called COSMOLOGISTS. And universe means everything that physically exists.

nd: Meh, we made the term "cosmologist" before people started thinking there was a possibility of more than one universe. So tell me this, if a Big Bang produces a universe, and there's more than one big bang, is the term "universe" really applicable for everything that exists? That creates a contradiction in the fact that there are more than one universe, and there is one universe.

Actually, as I stated in my post, there is no real hard empirical evidence for other universes. They were primarily theoretically proposed in order to avoid the overwhelming evidence for a single finely tuned universe. IOW materialist cosmologists came up with these other universes so they could say that each universe could cover all possibilities so there would be no evidence of design or fine tuning. But actually this causes major problems since if any thing is possible then in one of these universes there could be a tree whose leaves are made up of scientific studies and therefore there is nothing rational or special about scientific theories. We are just in a universe where some beings write the papers instead of them growing on trees. But also, even most multiverse advocates believe in a cause for the initial universe and then all the others just bubble out of it.
↑

ed: No, actually the majority view is still only one universe. There is no empirical evidence that other universes exist, it is all theoretical. But even if there are other universes, the Level 1 and Level 2 models for the multiverse still show that the multiverse is an effect and requires a cause that fits the characteristics of the Christian God.

nd: I tried to find how many cosmologists ascribe to the multiverse idea and how many don't. You're right that there's more contention than I thought, and inflation theory doesn't necessarily predict multiple universes though. However it isn't all theoretical. The theories are based in part on observations made in labs and in space. String theory is an example of something that is all theoretical because it is all math.

What observations made in labs and space provide evidence for multiple universes? Most MU cosmologists believe that there is no overlap between the universes except at the beginning, so nothing could be observed in a lab or in space of another universe.

nd: The models for the multiverse you mention make no mention of an origin of the multiverse. Model one just describes a bunch of universe existing in their own bubble, and model two is based off of a "membrane" that could very well be eternal, as it isn't doesn't require any origin.

No, there are at least two models where the other universes bubble off into existence after the initial Big bang.
↑

ed: No, the multiverse does not refute the existence of God as shown above. It still requires a cause very similar to the Christian God.

nd: Why did you start with a "no" here? In the part you quoted, I actually agreed with you so...

Because the whole purpose of the multiverse was originally proposed to eliminate the need for a Creator God.
↑

ed: Yes, even Einstein said that the laws of physics require a Lawgiver. IOW a supernatural personal being. Actually even though the bible is not a science book, when it does touch on science, it is correct. Such as the fact that the Bible is the only sacred religious book that teaches the inflationary theory of the universe. It teaches that the universe had a definite beginning and is expanding and is winding down energetically. This is evidence for its divine origin.

nd: Einstein said that the idea of a "personal" god is childish, so you should work on your paraphrasing (IOW) skills.

I know he didn't believe in personal god, so he was just contradicting himself. Because an impersonal god cannot be a lawgiver. Laws by definition are created by personal intelligent beings. Einstein was not always perfectly consistent in his beliefs. But his comment about a lawgiver being necessary is extremely rational and most likely correct.

nd: The Bible doesn't say anything about science. What you perceive is your selective interpretation to try and match poetic language to scientific facts.

No, when it talks about things like the basic characteristics of the universe it has been shown to correct. A careful analysis of the original Hebrew and greek have confirmed this, most of the texts that talk about this are not poetic texts.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Prove it.

Computers can reason up to a point, but it is limited by what their programming has allowed them to do. But without the subconscious mind, computers do not know the context. They can solve almost any problem you give them - but you must give them this problem with all relevant data. Human minds do not work this way. Humans use their whole lifetime experience in solving every single problem, even the simplest one.

We are trying to give computers the same capability, but this proved to be very difficult. One problem is the sole amount of data that humans accumulate during their lifetimes. Other problem is the fact that we are not aware how this data is processed by our subconscious mind, so we do not know what we should implement.

Someday we may eventually be able to create a computer or AI that can actually freely reason. And if we do that will just confirm that only intelligent personal beings can create intelligent personal beings, thereby providing more strong evidence for the existence of a Creator God.

 

[Moral Orel]

@Ed1wolf
First of all, the multiverse isn't the result of the fine tuning argument. First there was the argument that the Earth is perfect for human life, sure. And that goes way, way back. You and I already argued over it, and I won't start it again, but evolution and the existence of billions and billions of planets is used to refute that idea, the multiverse isn't necessary for that argument. Then came the Many Worlds Interpretation (Everett, 1957) based on quantum mechanics, then came the fine tuning argument (Dicke, 1961).

As for empirical evidence, I hope you appreciate the irony that you're telling me not to believe in something due to a lack of empirical evidence. And no, there isn't empirical evidence of another universe, there is empirical evidence of things that make a multiverse plausible, such as virtual particles and eternal inflation.

The model I hear the most about is the bubble model, but each bubble isn't caused by the previous bubble, it's caused by a lack of stuff in space. Once one bubble is sufficiently stretched out enough that a big patch of empty space exists, that causes the quantum fluctuations. Basically, nothingness causes them, so it doesn't require an existing universe to take place, it requires nothing to take place. We know about inflation, we know about virtual particles, we know the laws of physics, and we know math. Put em all together, and multiple universes are entirely plausible based on our best understanding of all these things that we do observe. Again, I'll remind you that I'm not saying we have the evidence to say it's proven, just plausible.

The way I see it, we have an Earth in a solar system, so why wouldn't there be other planets? It wasn't until recently that we were able to start seeing other exoplanets in nearby solar systems, so it was a good guess with no empirical evidence. Now I see we have a universe, why wouldn't there by others? Seems like a good guess to me.

Also, you keep saying "most cosmologists". You're going to have to cite that one for me. How do you know how many cosmologists hold to one theory or the other? I couldn't find it, so you're going to have to back that claim up.

 

[quatona]

At times people ponder a reason for believing in the one and only God (consider Isa. 45:5-6). Some souls do not want anyone to be over them and greater than they are; and others want answers to satisfy their rebellious spirit. Some others think much in terms of seeing, feeling, and touching, so will not bow to that which is intangible, as they say ---though they will believe the atheistic views which are very intangible; and many other things they cannot see and feel.

A. First one needs to believe there is a Creator-God as the Bible says, for He is eternal and we have an eternal soul (as even science says); so we will meet up with Him when we leave this world, and God says that will be too late for redemption, since being in the presence of purity and holiness in our sinful nature cannot happen ---God is "...a consuming fire" as He has told us.
B. If the Bible is not accepted as "all the counsel of God" as God explains, then we are left to our own ideas.
C. One might consider that the Creator who tells of His great love for mankind, would not leave man to wander and wonder and worry; and hold us responsible for anything He has not shown us as true.
D. God has told us of His "...so great salvation" in His own beloved Son, who He sacrificed on the altar for our sins IF we will receive Him ---Jesus, the Christ of God (note John 1; John 3; John 14).
E. Wisdom speaks of doing the right thing in the right time in the right way, so one needs to consider the brevity of life, and look up and obey God by His Word while there is yet time, as some of us believe.

The thread title almost sounded like you were going to ask non-believers why they don´t believe - as opposed to tellling them their motives.

 

[ToBeLoved]

Not for me though.

For me, it is simply a matter of logic.
When being presented with an argument, I tend to look at the core logic and apply the same logic to other things to see if it still works.

With religious arguments (that I've been presented with, anyway), the core logic can be applied to anything your imagination can produce.

When you have "logic" that only applies to a special case, then you are engaging in special pleading.



I certainly agree that organized religion has resulted in quite despicable things in the past as well as the present. And when asked to present a few examples, even theists generally have thought of a few examples rather instantly.

But as far as I am concerned, these are seperate issues.
Likewise, I don't judge the ethical implications of science based on the fact that the atomic bomb was produced with that knowledge.

To me there is a clear difference between the accuracy of certain things on the one hand and what people do with it on the other.

After all, for every despicable action done in the name of religion, we can just as easily find plenty of other good things that were equally motivated by religion.

A muslim in my community for example, spends his sundays feeding the hungry (no matter their religion) and/or doing other volunteer work. And he considers that to be his islamic duty and explicitly motivates it with the Quran.

Just like ISIS doesn't motivate me to be an atheist, that nice dude also doesn't motivate me to become muslim. My rejection of the claims of Islam is not based on how muslims live their lives.



There you go.... that sounds more like it.

".

I don't get it. Why does how people act effect an atheist belief so much.

If you are ornery before being saved you still retain the same general personality. You just see there is a big plan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't get it. Why does how people act effect an atheist belief so much.

I don't get it either. Specifically since you are replying to a post where I explicitly argue for the exact opposite of what you are saying: that how people act is irrelevant to what is true (or false).

If you are ornery before being saved you still retain the same general personality. You just see there is a big plan.

You mean, you just believe there is a bigger plan.

There is a big difference between believing and knowing.

 

[Ed1wolf]

@Ed1wolf
First of all, the multiverse isn't the result of the fine tuning argument. First there was the argument that the Earth is perfect for human life, sure. And that goes way, way back. You and I already argued over it, and I won't start it again, but evolution and the existence of billions and billions of planets is used to refute that idea, the multiverse isn't necessary for that argument. Then came the Many Worlds Interpretation (Everett, 1957) based on quantum mechanics, then came the fine tuning argument (Dicke, 1961).

No, there is evidence that the multiverse theory WAS specifically developed to refute the fine tuning argument. Those models did not come into existence until Freeman Dyson said "the universe is some sense must have known we were coming" and Stephen Hawking said "it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

nd: As for empirical evidence, I hope you appreciate the irony that you're telling me not to believe in something due to a lack of empirical evidence.

Actually there IS empirical evidence for the Creator God, it is called the universe.

nd: And no, there isn't empirical evidence of another universe, there is empirical evidence of things that make a multiverse plausible, such as virtual particles and eternal inflation.

How do those things make a multiverse possible?

nd: The model I hear the most about is the bubble model, but each bubble isn't caused by the previous bubble, it's caused by a lack of stuff in space. Once one bubble is sufficiently stretched out enough that a big patch of empty space exists, that causes the quantum fluctuations. Basically, nothingness causes them, so it doesn't require an existing universe to take place, it requires nothing to take place. We know about inflation, we know about virtual particles, we know the laws of physics, and we know math. Put em all together, and multiple universes are entirely plausible based on our best understanding of all these things that we do observe. Again, I'll remind you that I'm not saying we have the evidence to say it's proven, just plausible.

Actual nothingness cannot cause anything because it isn't anything. Even quantum fluctuations can not be caused by nothing especially since even they require an interval of time to occur and at time = 0, there is no time for them to occur so no universe can come into existence. Actually an appeal to multiverses is an appeal to the supernatural since these universes exist outside of the space, time and matter of our universe.

nd: The way I see it, we have an Earth in a solar system, so why wouldn't there be other planets? It wasn't until recently that we were able to start seeing other exoplanets in nearby solar systems, so it was a good guess with no empirical evidence. Now I see we have a universe, why wouldn't there by others? Seems like a good guess to me.

The huge difference is that other planets have been empirically observed for over 500 years since the invention of the first telescopes. And exoplanets have been observed ever since we had strong enough telescopes to see them. There is no way that a multiverse can EVER be empirically observed because of the reasons stated above.

nd: Also, you keep saying "most cosmologists". You're going to have to cite that one for me. How do you know how many cosmologists hold to one theory or the other? I couldn't find it, so you're going to have to back that claim up.

I was just quoting Dr. Donald Goldsmith from the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, there is evidence that the multiverse theory WAS specifically developed to refute the fine tuning argument. Those models did not come into existence until Freeman Dyson said "the universe is some sense must have known we were coming" and Stephen Hawking said "it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

Actually I was wrong in my citation of the first mention of the multiverse. Schrodinger actually mentioned it in 1952, so again, the date of the origin of the multiverse theory beats the fine tuning argument by almost a decade. When Schrodinger said it, that was the origin of the theory. I don't care how long it took them to make models. The idea came first.

Actually there IS empirical evidence for the Creator God, it is called the universe.

Actually there IS empirical evidence for universes sprouting out of the natural laws of physics, it is called the universe. See how unimpressive that is?

How do those things make a multiverse possible?

So virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They are a particle and its antiparticle, and when they collide almost instantly, they cease to exist. Given a big vacuum in space, sometimes they don't collide, move apart from each other, stretching space, and create an expanding universe that can't be stopped once it's started.

Actual nothingness cannot cause anything because it isn't anything. Even quantum fluctuations can not be caused by nothing especially since even they require an interval of time to occur and at time = 0, there is no time for them to occur so no universe can come into existence. Actually an appeal to multiverses is an appeal to the supernatural since these universes exist outside of the space, time and matter of our universe.

Nothing as I used it means a vacuum, like I said. Space still exists. Just no particles (except the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence) and no energy.

And no, the multiverse isn't an appeal to the supernatural because it still deals with matter, energy, space, time, the laws of physics etc. That would be like saying that talking about other galaxies is an appeal to the supernatural because of the arbitrary lines of where you've decided "our" space, time and matter end and their space, time, and matter begin.
If space is infinite, then it is impossible to travel to other universes as far as we know. Heck, we've got pretty strong theories on how to make a one way trip into a black hole already. Saying we'll never know how to detect another universe is just an appeal to ignorance.

The huge difference is that other planets have been empirically observed for over 500 years since the invention of the first telescopes. And exoplanets have been observed ever since we had strong enough telescopes to see them. There is no way that a multiverse can EVER be empirically observed because of the reasons stated above.

Uh-huh. And before we had strong enough telescopes, exoplanets lacked any empirical evidence. Saying we don't have empirical evidence right now and we never will is just an appeal to ignorance.

I was just quoting Dr. Donald Goldsmith from the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.

A ten year old opinion of one guy isn't a solid citation about the opinions of most cosmologists today.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't get it either. Specifically since you are replying to a post where I explicitly argue for the exact opposite of what you are saying: that how people act is irrelevant to what is true (or false).



You mean, you just believe there is a bigger plan.

There is a big difference between believing and knowing.

I was agreeing with you.

 

[ToBeLoved]

I don't get it either. Specifically since you are replying to a post where I explicitly argue for the exact opposite of what you are saying: that how people act is irrelevant to what is true (or false).



You mean, you just believe there is a bigger plan.

There is a big difference between believing and knowing.

No, I think that people when they are saved improve on their basic characteristics in obedience to Christ. but sometimes people expect people that were one way to be the exact opposite and sometimes that does not happen.

Sanctification is growing in God's perfection, but not always getting to an opposite point.

For example, if someone is short tempered before they are saved, they still may be for some time, less short tempered than before, but we are all growing so this idea that Christians should be totally changed to the opposite of what they were does not always happen. Sometimes it is smaller steps.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

No, I think that people when they are saved improve on their basic characteristics in obedience to Christ.

The only reason you use the word "improve" is because you speak from a christian perspective.

but sometimes people expect people that were one way to be the exact opposite and sometimes that does not happen.

Sanctification is growing in God's perfection, but not always getting to an opposite point.

For example, if someone is short tempered before they are saved, they still may be for some time, less short tempered than before, but we are all growing so this idea that Christians should be totally changed to the opposite of what they were does not always happen. Sometimes it is smaller steps.

All this is irrelevant, to wheter or not christianity is true or not.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, there is evidence that the multiverse theory WAS specifically developed to refute the fine tuning argument. Those models did not come into existence until Freeman Dyson said "the universe is some sense must have known we were coming" and Stephen Hawking said "it would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us."

nd: Actually I was wrong in my citation of the first mention of the multiverse. Schrodinger actually mentioned it in 1952, so again, the date of the origin of the multiverse theory beats the fine tuning argument by almost a decade. When Schrodinger said it, that was the origin of the theory. I don't care how long it took them to make models. The idea came first.

Well it didn't become popular until cosmologists starting seeing that the evidence was pointing towards an intelligent Creator and Designer. Though as I demonstrated earlier, it has always been the minority view.
↑

ed: Actually there IS empirical evidence for the Creator God, it is called the universe.

nd: Actually there IS empirical evidence for universes sprouting out of the natural laws of physics, it is called the universe. See how unimpressive that is?

Please provide an example where other universes were empirically observed.

↑

ed: How do those things make a multiverse possible?

nd: So virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. They are a particle and its antiparticle, and when they collide almost instantly, they cease to exist. Given a big vacuum in space, sometimes they don't collide, move apart from each other, stretching space, and create an expanding universe that can't be stopped once it's started.

No, they only do that when a space time universe already exists, because they require time to occur. At time=0 no virtual particles or quantum events can occur. So even if there are other universes there had to be an original universe to produce the others therefore it still needs an ultimate Cause, ie Creator.
↑

ed: Actual nothingness cannot cause anything because it isn't anything. Even quantum fluctuations can not be caused by nothing especially since even they require an interval of time to occur and at time = 0, there is no time for them to occur so no universe can come into existence. Actually an appeal to multiverses is an appeal to the supernatural since these universes exist outside of the space, time and matter of our universe.

nd: Nothing as I used it means a vacuum, like I said. Space still exists. Just no particles (except the virtual particles that spontaneously pop into existence) and no energy.

Space and virtual particles are not nothing. You are the one that claimed that something can come from nothing. So where did the space and particles come from? Anyway see above about virtual quantum particles.

nd: And no, the multiverse isn't an appeal to the supernatural because it still deals with matter, energy, space, time, the laws of physics etc. That would be like saying that talking about other galaxies is an appeal to the supernatural because of the arbitrary lines of where you've decided "our" space, time and matter end and their space, time, and matter begin.

No, it would be supernatural in relation to OUR nature because the matter, energy, space, time, and physical laws would not be OUR space, time, and matter. It would exist "outside" or transcendent to our universe. That is the definition of many forms of the supernatural.

nd: If space is infinite, then it is impossible to travel to other universes as far as we know. Heck, we've got pretty strong theories on how to make a one way trip into a black hole already. Saying we'll never know how to detect another universe is just an appeal to ignorance.

But actually most of the evidence points to space NOT being infinite. And A a one way trip to a black hole is plainly NOT impossible, it would be very easy if we could travel that far. There are many in our universe. But the whole reason other universes are impossible to travel to is the very fact that they are NOT in our Universe. To get to another universe you would have to transcend our space and time, IOW you would have to travel Supernaturally.
↑

nd: The huge difference is that other planets have been empirically observed for over 500 years since the invention of the first telescopes. And exoplanets have been observed ever since we had strong enough telescopes to see them. There is no way that a multiverse can EVER be empirically observed because of the reasons stated above.

nd: Uh-huh. And before we had strong enough telescopes, exoplanets lacked any empirical evidence. Saying we don't have empirical evidence right now and we never will is just an appeal to ignorance.

Actually before we could even empirically see exoplanets we could see their effects, ie bending of light around stars. Just like our evidence for God, we can not empirically see God, but we can see His effects, such as the universe. But see above about other universes, why it is impossible to empirically see them or travel to them. But even that is not the main problem, we don't even see any effects of these other universes. So that is strong evidence that they don't exist.
↑

ed: I was just quoting Dr. Donald Goldsmith from the Nov. 2007 issue of Natural History Magazine.

nd: A ten year old opinion of one guy isn't a solid citation about the opinions of most cosmologists today.

Have you got any evidence that the majority opinion has changed since then?

 

[ToBeLoved]

The only reason you use the word "improve" is because you speak from a christian perspective.

Of course I do. But it has been shown that Christians live longer and their lives are considered happier than non Christians, so there is proof.