If one believe in the Multiverse, then one must belive in Creationism

originally posted by: thinline
If one believes the theory of the Multiverse, a theoretical reality that includes a possibly infinite number of parallel universes, then one must believe a universe was created by God. I am not saying it is this one, or what percentage in the Multiverse, but at least one universe was created by God.

I would think the opposite. Infinite/multiple universes comes off to me as random, but one seems rare and special. A masterpiece.

originally posted by: DietJoke
God meets FOUR definitions!

God is totality, not morality! Anything less than the all is not God!

Totality is totality. Why call it god?

God is omnipresent! Without presence there is nothing ... not even abstraction (i.e. like maths)

If totality wasn't omnipresent, it wouldn't be totality.

God is omniscient! Being everything it knows everything!

Not necessarily. Being everything doesn't imply knowledge at all ie. are you knowledgeable of each of the cells and bacteria that comprise you..?.....and we know that you at least have conscious awareness. If you are claiming the universe/god has cognizance this way, you got some 'splaining to do.

God is omnipotent! Being everything and Knowing everything is all powerful!

It would appear not. At least from what we can observe, for much of the universe/god is bound (limited) by certain rules of physics.

Now the Cosmos itself meets all 4 definitions!

Not for the normal definition of god. It's just giving the universe another name.

Being everything, it encompasses all knowledge!

Being everything and knowing everything it is all powerful and the proof of that is us ourselves as lifeforms, being a creation of creation itself.

Being everything doesn't imply "knowing" everything. How do we know the universe has awareness? We know at most on an infinitismal speck, in an infinitely large universe, some creatures have cognizant awareness to some extent (notably one species of Ape, that has been around for the blink of an eye and seems to overstate its self importance lol). Overwhelmingly when we look around we see matter that is inanimate.

You therefor do not need to invoke any other dimensions or universes as the Cosmos covers all of that in a single nice simple distinct term.

You could just as easily say...there is no god, only the universe.

a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Precisely and what would we rather worship, a god of empty existence with no personality that is as much the butter in our fridge as it is us or a god whom has a personality and see's us as people as well as caring about it's creation.

a reply to: LABTECH767

Ha Actually the one I believe in has.

a reply to: thinline

Speaking as a token polyapathiest, I agree completely with your assertion. I suspect there are an infinite number of universes created by a god, or ruled over by one or more of them, somewhere along the line. If our own universe is any indication, they are probably waging war across the multiverse, vying for followers or slaves from among their various creations. In fact -- I suspect that the sundry gods of our own universe accidentally killed each other in a massive battle, shortly after their creation poofed into existence. As you have probably guessed, the imitation angels left behind after the divine die-off are gifted mimics, and have continued and even expanded upon the original destruction.

Which begs the question: If the masters of the universe are not its original creators, can they ever completely destroy it?

a reply to: 0zzymand0s

I, also, agree that if there is an infinity of different universes than there must be at least one (probably more than one) that is created. But the OP did not make his argument properly — he or she said 'more than one, possibly an infinity'. The argument only holds of an infinity of different universes.

By the way, Schuyler, there's a difference between the many-worlds concept of multiple universes (created by probability field collapses) and the idea of multiple universes separated along a fifth or higher spatial dimension(s), which is what the OP is, I believe, referring to.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
a reply to: Cogito, Ergo Sum

Precisely and what would we rather worship, a god of empty existence with no personality that is as much the butter in our fridge as it is us or a god whom has a personality and see's us as people as well as caring about it's creation.

Not sure you can make an argument for the god we have been sold, based on personality lol. Things like narcissist, petty, ruthless, nutter etc. spring to mind. At any rate, I'll settle for the one we have, aka "the god who isn't there".

a reply to: thinline

It requires no such thing. Biological evolution is a process in our universe.

a reply to: Cypress

I am a thoroughly dedicated scientific materialist, but you are wrong. If there is an infinity of different universes then one difference that must exist is that of a universe that was created. I don't see that this is especially hard to take on board; people on this site are forever going on about the possibility that our own universe is a simulation, and I'm sure you're aware that there can be no disproving that premise, either logically or empirically.

Lee Smolin has proposed that universes give rise to daughter universes through the production of black hole singularities. Perhaps there are beings advanced enough to produce a black hole to specification, thereby setting the initial conditions of the singularity from which the daughter universe arises. Great intelligence and vast technical resources would certainly be required, but I wouldn't say it was ipso facto impossible.

Neither omnipotence nor omniscience are needed, but for all that, the creators of these artificial black-hole-bred universes would be nothing less than gods to their inhabitants.

originally posted by: rickymouse
I'm still trying to comprehend multiverses. I learned that the universe was all that existed when I was in school, sort of like it included things we couldn't see. Now they had to go and complicate the thing.

Maybe before they start inventing multiverses, they should go and erase the definition of Universe.

The whole reason the multiverse was invented (and that is what it is, a complete invention) is because all signs point to a universe that is so finely tuned the odds are astronomically high that it could have all happened by chance. The way around this fact is to hypothesize a multiverse where there are an infinite number of alternative universes. This conveniently eliminates the evidence for fine tuning by suggesting that in an infinite number of universes, at least one of them would eventually turn out like ours, purely by chance.

Unfortunately, the multiverse is not and cannot be proven. It's as credible a theory as theism/deism, and has even less evidence to support it. It cannot ever be verified by the very nature of the theory itself, so all it amounts to is eternal conjecture. An alternative theory for atheists who are uncomfortable with the fine tuning which is clearly present in the known universe.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The whole reason the multiverse was invented (and that is what it is, a complete invention) is because all signs point to a universe that is so finely tuned the odds are astronomically high that it could have all happened by chance.

The 'Multiverse' wasn't 'invented'. It fell out of the equations of string and brane theory, which were developed to resolve a completely different problem, the incompatibility of classical and quantum worldviews. String and brane theories are unproven, by the way, and by no means all physicists believe in a Multiverse (or, as Leonard Susskind called it, the Megaverse).

The Strong Anthropic Principle in no way indicates the existence of a creator, because the problem of infinite recursion immediately arises: what universe does the Creator inhabit, and who created that one?

It never fails to amaze me how many minds think God is an explanation for everything. God is a substitute for an explanation.

a reply to: Astyanax

What would you call the idea of a multiverse then? An adequate explanation? Why is one more likely than the other when neither can ever be proven?

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What would you call the idea of a multiverse then? An adequate explanation?

I already explained this. It is an implication derived from the results of string theory.

Why is one more likely than the other when neither can ever be proven?

Who says there has to be a choice?

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DeadSeraph

What would you call the idea of a multiverse then? An adequate explanation?

I already explained this. It is an implication derived from the results of string theory.

Why is one more likely than the other when neither can ever be proven?

Who says there has to be a choice?

String theory isn't proven either, regardless of whether there are equations involved or not. You can build up a mathematical model around anything if you plug in the right numbers first.

As for your second comment, I don't really get what you are trying to imply here? What do you mean by who says there has to be a choice?

Nobody has to make a choice. People are completely free to ignore the issue altogether if they choose (and many do), but as human beings we are naturally inclined to ask questions about the world around us, and thus the universe. The origins of the universe is a mystery that we will seek to solve as long as we exist as a species. It has driven spirituality, religion, science, etc. It's a fundamental part of who we are as human beings to seek answers to that most profound question. Just because there isn't an easy answer that is readily apparent doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking.

What I was trying to point out however, is that none of the current theories are any less absurd than the others. The Universe popping out of nothing is just as absurd as the notion God created it, or that we live in a multiverse that popped out of nothing. If we approach the subject rationally, the most logical outcome is that the universe shouldn't be here at all, yet it is. That forces us to ask questions that may be uncomfortable for some, and consider all possibilities, even if we find them personally repugnant.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

I know what you're trying to 'point out'. The usual sky-fairy apologetics. Not interested, sorry.

I mentioned myself that string theory isn't proven.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: DeadSeraph

I know what you're trying to 'point out'. The usual sky-fairy apologetics. Not interested, sorry.

I mentioned myself that string theory isn't proven.

Ah. Sky fairy. Well that settles it then. Thanks for copping out with a logical fallacy instead of addressing my genuine appeal for dialog. Enjoy your stars.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

The Universe popping out of nothing is just as absurd as the notion God created it

How so, Inserting agents "sky- fairy's" only creates infinite regression, it answers nothing.
We come full circle.. something from nothing..

originally posted by: flyingfish
a reply to: DeadSeraph

The Universe popping out of nothing is just as absurd as the notion God created it

How so, Inserting agents "sky- fairy's" only creates infinite regression, it answers nothing.
We come full circle.. something from nothing..

I guess you missed the point...

Why is Your something from nothing better than anyone elses? As you have pointed out about an infinite regression, a multiverse only pushes the big question back. So why is one something from nothing more acceptable than the other? Because you say so?

At one point the work around was that we lived in an infinite and eternal universe. Once it was proven the universe had a beginning we started fudging the numbers around a "singularity" which is essentially an invented concept equal to (in rationality) the theory of a creator. Once we knew enough about the cosmological constant and the fine tuning of the universe we had to look elsewhere. Anywhere but the obvious.

So why is one absurdity more acceptable than another to you? Oh... That's right... Because "Sky fairy". What a ridiculous response. I'd get more out of grade schoolers to be honest. I don't even know why I bother with some of you people.

Your assertion that God (made from nothing) created the universe (from nothing) has one more hypothetical leap than the assertion you're opposing. An unnecessary leap that only further complicates the issue and as such can be disposed of.

'sky fairy' is a fitting description and I'm not sure why it generates such vitriol from those that haven't actually seen the entity they worship.

a reply to: DeadSeraph

What he said... You don't get the point, being complicated.
It's like trying to figure out a complex equation and adding random zeros simply because those zeros are your favorite flavor of zeros. It's not necessary...
The only reason to add a "sky- fairy" into the equation is to try and shoehorn an ever shrinking god into a growing understanding of our reality.