What is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God?

Seyorni said:

God is a Person. He has a face; a personality, opinions, likes, dislikes, petty jealosies; he interacts with people, one to one.

The multiverse is an impersonal, indifferent interaction of matter, energy, dimensions, &c.

Click to expand...

I suppose the thread title is misleading. In the OP, it is more specific (the thread title was long enough I thought!). The belief in either is reached to by the same logic and method. And there is, according to atheists, no "apparent" evidence of God. Well neither is there any "apparent" evidence of a multi-verse.

tomspug said:

Ah, I'm glad you like to think that "the world's" cosmologists and quantum physicists all believe the same thing, but guess what? They don't.

Click to expand...

Gee ... thanks for sharing. Of course, I never said such a thing - a point you seem incapable of grasping.

Those multiverse theories deemed worthy of consideration are consistent with what we know about astrophysics and quantum mechanics. Furthermore, they are constrained by the rules of mathematics. I understand that you haven't a clue as to what any of this means and, quite frankly, I don't care.

Jayhawker Soule said:

Those multiverse theories deemed worthy of consideration are consistent with what we know about astrophysics and quantum mechanics. Furthermore, they are constrained by the rules of mathematics.

Click to expand...

The same is true for a lot of crazy ideas. What matters here is that Multiverse Theory does not present a falsifiable hypothesis.

Seyorni said:

God is a Person. He has a face; a personality, opinions, likes, dislikes, petty jealosies; he interacts with people, one to one.

Click to expand...

:sarcastic Not my God. And since I believe in God and you don't, it seems strange to me that you would be so adamant about the characteristics of this "person" in whom you don't believe.

rocketman said:

The same is true for a lot of crazy ideas. What matters here is that Multiverse Theory does not present a falsifiable hypothesis.

Click to expand...

How so?

lilithu said:

How so?

Click to expand...

That's just how it is at the moment. The scientific method cannot confirm or deny the existence of multiverses. It stands outside of the realm of scientific investigation, and can only be considered in an abstract mathematical sense on paper at the moment. There is one possible candidate being considered that may provide some insight, the WMAP cold spot, but this claim is highly controversial.

rocketman said:

That's just how it is at the moment. The scientific method cannot confirm or deny the existence of multiverses. It stands outside of the realm of scientific investigation, and can only be considered in an abstract mathematical sense on paper at the moment. There is one possible candidate being considered that may provide some insight, the WMAP cold spot, but this claim is highly controversial.

Click to expand...

But that's due to functional limitations, is it not? As you say, "at the moment." Whereas the "God did it" hypothesis is inherently untestable (unless one believes in the humanoid with superpowers that Seyorni was talking about).

It seems to me there is a big difference between presenting a scientific theory that cannot at the moment be tested but theoretically could later on, as opposed to presenting a "theory" that can never be tested.

Also, there is another component to valid scientific theories in that they have explanatory power. Even if a theory cannot be tested, if it is suggested by and compatible with the evidence, even conceptual evidence such as mathematical models, there is still more basis for that theory than one that did not arise from the evidence.

lilithu said:

But that's due to functional limitations, is it not? As you say, "at the moment."

Click to expand...

If not being able to step outside of the universe and look around is a functional limitaion, then sure. There is no way to know 'at the moment' if the theory will ever provide a testable hypothesis. Even if you find another universe, you still have the problem of it's origin.

lilithu said:

It seems to me there is a big difference between presenting a scientific theory that cannot at the moment be tested but theoretically could later on, as opposed to presenting a "theory" that can never be tested.

Click to expand...

I would venture the opinion that it is unwise to declare that a theory 'can never be tested'. I prefer the term 'highly unlikely'....just in case there are other surprises out there, like, say, mirror universes with different laws of physics..............

But I do take your point.

lilithu said:

Even if a theory cannot be tested, if it is suggested by and compatible with the evidence, even conceptual evidence such as mathematical models, there is still more basis for that theory than one that did not arise from the evidence.

Click to expand...

That's what the ID crowd say. Btw, if you have evidence for multiverse theory please let me know. Jumping back to ID for a minute, there are some good mathematical models that show how an irreducibly complex system cannot evolve for example, with complex details that perfectly align to the nth degree, but guess what, that doesn't mean there are such systems in nature.

Mutliverse theory is pure speculation, of the most sophisticated kind mind you, but speculation nevertheless. It's a pity we don't have a way to test it. Maybe we never will. For now it is a creation myth, as Robert Stewart pointed out. So, what is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God? Not much that I can see in this context.

lilithu said:

:sarcastic Not my God. And since I believe in God and you don't, it seems strange to me that you would be so adamant about the characteristics of this "person" in whom you don't believe.

Click to expand...

I wasn't asserting an ontological reality here, Lilithu, I was just trying to clarify the concept. God is generally conceived of as a personality. It's what distinguishes the term from something like "Nature."

tomspug said:

The belief in either is reached to by the same logic and method.

Click to expand...

If you mean that the beliefs are both "reached to" via the evidence their entailing philosophies provide, I suppose so.

rocketman said:

The same is true for a lot of crazy ideas.

Click to expand...

Name three.

rocketman said:

What matters here is that Multiverse Theory does not present a falsifiable hypothesis.

Click to expand...

Though it matters greatly in the context of other discussions, it does not matter at all in the context of this one.

tomspug said:

When it comes to determinism, aren't we just choosing one unknown over the other, based on our own personal bias?

Click to expand...

1) If the universe is deterministic, then choice is an illusion.
2) Even if there's a multiverse, it's still all part of a universe.
3) There's more than one thing that could be called a "multiverse" and more than one thing that could be called "God," depending on one's universe. The differences will therefore vary as well.

rocketman said:

That's just how it is at the moment. The scientific method cannot confirm or deny the existence of multiverses. It stands outside of the realm of scientific investigation, and can only be considered in an abstract mathematical sense on paper at the moment. There is one possible candidate being considered that may provide some insight, the WMAP cold spot, but this claim is highly controversial.

Click to expand...

It's not "just at the moment." The theory is unverifiable even in theory. It's a smokescreen deliberately put up to undermine any God hypothesis.

Well, to answer the OP, belief in a multiverse:
Doesn't affect how you live your life.
Doesn't inspire you to tell other people how to live their lives.
Has never been the subject of a holy war.
Doesn't inspire terrorism.
Is always subject to revision, depending on new data.
Is tentative.
Has some basis in reality.
May actually be true.
Isn't based on circular reasoning and special pleading.
Wasn't created centuries ago.
Isn't the official doctrine of any country or powerful group.

Those are just a couple of distinctions that come to mind.

Rolling_Stone said:

It's not "just at the moment." The theory is unverifiable even in theory. It's a smokescreen deliberately put up to undermine any God hypothesis.

Click to expand...

O rly? Are the big bad scientists trying to undermine God again? Here I was thinking that the multiverse theory and the God belief were not mutually exclusive.

The difference as far as I can tell is that Multiverse Theory is testable. Theoretically and mathematically. The God proposition is not testable and never will be. I don't know anyone running around spouting Multiverse theory as irrevocabal truth. But I know pleanty-o-people shouting Jesus from their rooftops.

If indeed we happen upon some evidence that does not coincide with Multiverse theory then that theory will be scrapped.

Naturalist_Atheist said:

O rly? Are the big bad scientists trying to undermine God again?

Click to expand...

By their own admission. :flirt:

Rolling_Stone said:

It's not "just at the moment." The theory is unverifiable even in theory. It's a smokescreen deliberately put up to undermine any God hypothesis.

Click to expand...

what's so wrong with undermining hypothesis, when youdrool undermine THEORYs?

:angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2::angel2:
God bless ya!:yes:

You have to understand a theory to undermine it.

Rolling_Stone said:

["are scientists undermining God?"]By their own admission. :flirt:

Click to expand...

God cannot be undermined, but religions sure can be.

doppelgänger;1333467 said:

You have to understand a theory to undermine it.

Click to expand...

Touché; sorry Rolling_Stone.:sorry1::sorry1::sorry1::sarcastic

Jayhawker Soule said:

Name three.

Click to expand...

Superstrings, the K4 Crystal, Tachyons, ID...

Jayhawker Soule said:

Though it matters greatly in the context of other discussions, it does not matter at all in the context of this one.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ. Tomspug says: “….aren't we just choosing one unknown over the other...” In the sense that both are unknowns, and dare I say 'unknowable', then yes it does matter.