Implications of a Multiverse on Christian Faith

[Tassman]

I'd agree that multiverses aren't "extremely iffy" That's way too overkill. I think those models are in more trouble because of the utter lack of testability they have. More than one person have said that speculation on multiverses has long left what can be considered physics, and has now entered the philosophy realm. And its certainly possible, there's a multiverse mania going about, but so far its not producing anything impressive but an evergrowing pile of toy models of multiverses with all sorts of paradoxes attached. I remain open to the possibility though, but I'm not utterly excited about it.

You seem to be confused between the multiverse interpretation of QM and multiverses as they exist in Cosmology. There's absolutely no evidence for the Everettian interpretation, and certainly no cosmological evidence. So saying that in short cosmology, supports this interpretation of QM mixes terms and domains.

I personally think Everett's interpretation is one of the more interesting takes on quantum mechanics, though metaphysically its bollocks.

Anything to avoid creation, eh?

Science is not concerned with presuppositions such as a divine creation, it follows the evidence where it leads.

[Leonhard]

Science is not concerned with presuppositions such as a divine creation, it follows the evidence where it leads.

Traditionally Christianity hasn't held that God creating the world is to be treated as a presupposition (that's actually a fairly modern take).

[Tassman]

Traditionally Christianity hasn't held that God creating the world is to be treated as a presupposition (that's actually a fairly modern take).

[Leonhard]

That its part of our heritage would still not make it something presupposed. It might be an unimportant distinction to you. However in traditional theology, the world being created by God is taken as Revelation. We know of it, not because its presupposed it to be true, and subsequently never questioned, but because we first and foremost have a trust in a source of Divine Revelation, from which we learn that the world was created by God.

You might not agree that we have good reasons to trust this revelation, but this is how Christianity views this belief.

I don't think seer is a presuppositionalist though he seems sympathetic to that apologetic approach. If he, and Jedidiah, point out flaws in the multiverse worldviews its because I think they consider them transparent moves by atheists to account for various conceptual problems with materialistic worldviews.

[shunyadragon]

Maybe if I make believe that I'm a scientist, like you do, I would be more credible? But Shuny, feel free to present credible physical evidence for this multiverse. I will be waiting... And of course atheistic scientists also have an agenda.

I have a strong academic background in science and math, which I doubt you do. I do not attempt to challenge the academic professionals in Physics, Math and Cosmology based on religious or scientific agendas. I simply follow the advancement of scientific knowledge in these disciplines to better understand the nature of our physical existence.

On the other hand you use name calling, mindless obfuscation, and arrogant assertions to challenge science based on a religious agenda with very little or no knowledge of physics and cosmology.

The multiverse theories are based on sound scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in the disciplines of math, physics and cosmology. Thee is no such thing as theories and hypothesis being 'proven true no false.

[37818]

This brief citation does not tell the story of this reference nor the physics and cosmology of the Multiverse concept. You need to cite references in a more comprehensive and relevant manner instead of quote mining to justify a religious agenda.

When read as a whole the reference does very well describing the problems and positive advances of physics concering quantum mechanics and issues like 'string theory.' As specific concerning the issues in this thread the reference does not specifically address the problems nor the positive scientific issues of Multiverse theories.

Your reference here is a Red Herring.

RedHerring.jpg

[shunyadragon]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]10669[/ATTACH]

You need to better than this. Your line of reasoning is more than a little fishy.

Again, you need to cite the whole context of reference instead of a misleading sound bite. In fact your one sentence citation is fundamentally false.

[Jedidiah]

The multiverse theories are based on sound scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in the disciplines of math, physics and cosmology.

Can you give us some specifics here?

[shunyadragon]

Can you give us some specifics here?

The multiverse theories are based on sound scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in the disciplines of math, physics and cosmology.

Your kidding!?!?!

First get a basic understanding of the scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis. You can read the many references in reasonable scientific journals and publications concerning the Multiverse theories.

Get a PhD in Physics, Math or Cosmology and get the details.

Ah . . . and not base your views of science on a religious agenda.

[Jedidiah]

The multiverse theories are based on sound scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis in the disciplines of math, physics and cosmology.

Your kidding!?!?!

First get a basic understanding of the scientific methods of the falsification of theories and hypothesis. You can read the many references in reasonable scientific journals and publications concerning the Multiverse theories.

Get a PhD in Physics, Math or Cosmology and get the details.

Ah . . . and not base your views of science on a religious agenda.

In other words, no!

[Tassman]

That its part of our heritage would still not make it something presupposed. It might be an unimportant distinction to you. However in traditional theology, the world being created by God is taken as Revelation. We know of it, not because its presupposed it to be true, and subsequently never questioned, but because we first and foremost have a trust in a source of Divine Revelation, from which we learn that the world was created by God.

You might not agree that we have good reasons to trust this revelation, but this is how Christianity views this belief.

I don't think seer is a presuppositionalist though he seems sympathetic to that apologetic approach. If he, and Jedidiah, point out flaws in the multiverse worldviews its because I think they consider them transparent moves by atheists to account for various conceptual problems with materialistic worldviews.

Really! And here's me thinking that multiverse theory is merely an attempt by science to interpret quantum mechanics and its implications regarding the universe. I doubt that Jedidiah and seer are in a position to seriously question the experts in the field. I think they're automatically adopting the presuppositionalist worldview that Christianity is assumed to be the only

[seer]

I have a strong academic background in science and math, which I doubt you do.

I don't believe you, you certainly have not shown any such academic ability on these boards.

[shunyadragon]

In other words, no!

In other words, your clueless as to the science involved, and choose a religious agenda to justify your rejection of the science of Multiverse theories. You also apparently make no effort to understand the science of Multiverse theories.

I do not spoon fed intentional ignorance.

Refer to Tassman's post #71. He described the problem well enough so that I need not repeat it.

[shunyadragon]

I don't believe you, you certainly have not shown any such academic ability on these boards.

The bottom line is you are dismissive of ALL science that does not fit your religious agenda.

Refer to Tassman's post #71. He described the problem well enough so that I need not repeat it.

[seer]

In other words, your clueless as to the science involved, and choose a religious agenda to justify your rejection of the science of Multiverse theories. You also apparently make no effort to understand the science of Multiverse theories.

I do not spoon fed intentional ignorance.

Refer to Tassman's post #71. He described the problem well enough so that I need not repeat it.

Clueless, Shuny? you have demonstrated nothing but cluelessness on these boards. But there certainly is no actual evidence for a multiverse. If you think otherwise please link it.