• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
An omnipresent God does not have to be constantly throwing lightning bolts. He could be present even when he is not throwing them.
I think we mean different things by the term omnipresent. I am not thinking of a man who is constantly present in the room yet only rings the bell sometimes. By omnipresent I mean sustaining everything.

Let's try a different tact. I agree with the statement "God is a verb." If God were to stop "doing," existence would stop.
 
lilithu said:
I think we mean different things by the term omnipresent. I am not thinking of a man who is constantly present in the room yet only rings the bell sometimes. By omnipresent I mean sustaining everything.
Ah, I see, I mistook your meaning.

lilithu said:
Let's try a different tact. I agree with the statement "God is a verb." If God were to stop "doing," existence would stop.
That's not inconsistent with intermittent lightning. God could be constantly doing things without constantly throwing lightning bolts.
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
That's not inconsistent with intermittent lightning. God could be constantly doing things without constantly throwing lightning bolts.
Well, true. As I believe that God sustains all existence, I do ultimately believe that God is responsible for lightening bolts.... but via the processes defined by natural law.

And the corollary of that, to take us back to the OP, is that one can investigate and describe the processes without ever evoking the concept of God.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
That's nice. :rolleyes:

There is always dissent in science. That's how new theories constantly arise to try to best fit the evidence. It's really quite like the process of natural selection. New variances are introduced. If they are backed up by evidence, they are kept... for so long as another version isn't shown to be better. But the majority of versions are brought up and then discarded. There is always dissent in science. That doesn't mean that a dissenting view is correct. In most cases (but not all), they are incorrect.

That said. Even if he's right... all that says is that the multiverse theory is wrong. It certainly does NOT suggest that "God" is in any way a valid theory. In fact, it's quite clear from his language that he is comparing "extreme multiverse explanations" to invoking a Creator in order to ridicule the former, not to validate the latter.
Maybe you should read some of his books. True, he doesn't suggest that God is a valid theory and in fact would like to get away from the word entirely, but he sees a cosmic meaning and purpose as something more significant that our own creation.
Some, perhaps. The vast majority do not.
So what? As the authors of Quantum Enigma said, you can quibble about the interpretation, but not the facts. "When experts disagree, you may choose your own expert."
It's really quite simple: if you want physicists to take your hypothesis seriously, whether it's a God hypothesis or anything else, produce something rigorous. An equation. An inequality. A schematic for a proposed experimental setup. An analysis of previous data. SOMETHING! :) Yes the frontiers of physics are always pure speculation, but rigorous and precise speculation can at least be discussed, we can test them in principle or prove they cannot be tested (as Einstein proved with the ether). Fuzzy philosophical arguments cannot be treated with the rigor required for scientific discourse and cannot be tested *even in principle*.
You are right: "Fuzzy philosophical arguments cannot be treated with the rigor required for scientific discourse and cannot be tested *even in principle*." On the other hand, "fuzzy philosophical arguments" are the only thing keeping "God" off their radar screen.

BTW, physicist Amit Goswami has an interesting interpretation in his book, God is Not Dead.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
That's the point. Materialist science wants to keep it that way.

That's a curious expectation, this one you apparently have that scientists should be priests of some kind.

With the anthropic principle and quantum mechanics threatening to put a deanthropomorphized "God" back on the radar, some feel it necessary to offer something plausible that avoids any top down causation.

The question that will not go away, however, is: how on earth could they possibly have the means to do so (even assuming them to have such a curiously homogeneous desire)?

Quite a few scientists believe sincerely in God. Even if none did, one wonders what they could do to oppose the freaking big guy himself anyway.
 

rojse

RF Addict
And you still manage to regress back to condescension.

Merely pointing out that the line of reasoning that is employed leads back to the idea of God. No condensation, (after all, I like quite a few of the theists on here) merely expressing a point that I do not find surprising coming from Rocketman.
 

rojse

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

Please do not include ID in any discussion of crazy ideas that fall within the bounds of maths or science, it really undermines your position.

Now, for the ideas you have presented, what makes you believe that they are crazy, and where do your credentials for making these statements come from?
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
Maybe you should read some of his books. True, he doesn't suggest that God is a valid theory and in fact would like to get away from the word entirely, but he sees a cosmic meaning and purpose as something more significant that our own creation.
So do I. And yet I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of science.
 

crystalonyx

Well-Known Member
"What is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God? "

Which multiverse, there are several theories. Which god, there are numerous gods?

Beyond that, the first is science, the second theology/philosophy, 2 different things entirely. Multiverses must ultimately be proven scientifically, gods by definition never get proven.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
I thought there was a great deal of evidence supporting Quantum Physics, why is it being treated here as pure speculation?
 

rocketman

Out there...
There are numerous ways irreducibly complex systems can evolve and it has been demonstrated experimentally: Testing Darwin | Computers | DISCOVER Magazine
Spinkster, thanks for the info, though the program you cite deliberately does not introduce a complete stop function for catastrophic IC events. But in any case, I'm sure you got my original point that good math does not guarantee prior physical existence of something. :)
 

rocketman

Out there...
However, the vast majority of physicists would reject Paul Davies' injection of "God" into cosmology, and the ways in which he equates science and religion generally.
Spinks, I strongly think that the criticisms are both unfounded and not quite as widespread as you suggest. When he uses the term 'God' he is talking more of unexplained first causes rather than anything we know as religious. He has explained this in the past but people seem to have selective hearing. If anything he is courteous to everbody's sensibilities. Like this gentle approach (emphaisis mine): "Einstein raised this possibility when he said, in his typical poetic manner, that what really interested him was whether “God had any choice in the creation of the world.” To express this sentiment more neutrally, Einstein was asking whether the universe could have been otherwise". Those are not the words of one who is trying to make a positive claim about religion; the way some complain about him you'd think he was a preacher. Any cosmologist considering the range of possibilities of first causes is not wrong to do so, and those who criticise them for doing so are very shallow in my opinion. It is part of the job of well known cosmologists to be honest about the state of cosmology and it's limits. Davies does it rather well. It is also the job of a popular cosmology commentator to relay the human experience behind the scenes, including the leaps of faith involved. Davies does this particulary well and with bravery.

Multiverse theory offers no falsifiable test whatsoever. Everyone accepts that one day it may offer some testable indirect consequences, but even then the problem of showing beyond doubt that the consequences were not a natural effect native to this universe may lead back to square one. That is, at this stage, it's impossible to imagine how even an indirect consequence would itself be truly falsifiable. For now multiverse theory is a completely mental construct. At this point in time, to choose it over the god idea is no nobel thing. When Dawkins promotes multiverse theory as his prefered explanation for the existence of our universe he does so with no direct scientific evidence whatsoever. That's extraordinary coming from someone who demands so much more from others. How much more extraordinary then to hear of Dawkins criticising Davies for simply telling the truth about the faith required to hold onto these big claim/zero evidence ideas. Talk about normality going out the window. But the good thing about Davies is that he will potter along as he always does, telling it as it is.
 

rocketman

Out there...
Merely pointing out that the line of reasoning that is employed leads back to the idea of God. No condensation, (after all, I like quite a few of the theists on here) merely expressing a point that I do not find surprising coming from Rocketman.
No worries Rojse:), and I was merely pointing out the view of many scientists, such as Davies ('shift the problem up one level') and Ellis ('a regress of causation').
 

rocketman

Out there...
Please do not include ID in any discussion of crazy ideas that fall within the bounds of maths or science, it really undermines your position.

Now, for the ideas you have presented, what makes you believe that they are crazy, and where do your credentials for making these statements come from?
My position is fine thank you, although I could have used a better word than crazy; at the time I was thinking crazy as in 'amazing' crazy (too much time hanging around my nephews:areyoucra). The concepts I listed all contain (in part or in whole) amazing ideas of perfect mathematical construction; although which in no way guarantees their prior physical reality. My point that you quote from is simply this: good math does not guarantee hard physical evidence. Some people cling to the math and that gives them comfort, but it does not make an idea true in reality. Of-course it does give something to pursue, although not in an empirical sense, for that would require a falsifiable hypothesis. Multiverse theory makes very specific claims, for which there is zero direct evidence. And my credentials are quite sufficient, thank you for asking; not that I would ever ask for yours...
 

rocketman

Out there...
That said. Even if he's right... all that says is that the multiverse theory is wrong. It certainly does NOT suggest that "God" is in any way a valid theory.
No lilithu, he's not saying it's wrong, he's saying it's untestable, and possibly always will be, and that believing it to be true therefore requires a leap of faith. He's not trying to validate god concepts, he's simply showing the equivalence between the two ideas in terms of belief, an important point underlying this thread and why I quoted him. Remember that we are talking about an idea that makes very specific claims yet has zero evidence. I think Tomspug did well to raise this comparison and ask why we lean the way we do.
 

rocketman

Out there...
I thought there was a great deal of evidence supporting Quantum Physics, why is it being treated here as pure speculation?
Quatum physics yes, multiverses, no. For example, Lawrence Krauss, a well respected and widely read physicist and astronomer has reportedly said during a debate that "the whole multiverse idea is so speculative as to border on nonsense."
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
No lilithu, he's not saying it's wrong, he's saying it's untestable
I'm not talking about something being morally wrong or even factually wrong. I'm talking about it not fitting the criteria of science.

My point is that his comparison is not meant to suggest that God might be a valid theory but rather that multiverse theories are invalid.

Invalid. Is that better?
 

rocketman

Out there...
I'm not talking about something being morally wrong or even factually wrong. I'm talking about it not fitting the criteria of science.
Ok.:)

My point is that his comparison is not meant to suggest that God might be a valid theory but rather that multiverse theories are invalid.
That's what I said, and I added that he is showing the equivalence between the two ideas in terms of belief, which is precisely what he says at the end of the article. )(

Invalid. Is that better?
Yes, it's a better word than 'wrong'. ;)
 

lilithu

The Devil's Advocate
That's what I said, and I added that he is showing the equivalence between the two ideas in terms of belief, which is precisely what he says at the end of the article. )(
Let me try this again: He is NOT saying, "Both views are equally invalid, and therefore if you like the multiverse theory you should be willing to consider the God theory as well."

He is saying, "Both views are equally invalid, period."

If you agree with the latter sentence, then fine. End of discussion.
 

Rolling_Stone

Well-Known Member
That's a curious expectation, this one you apparently have that scientists should be priests of some kind.
They are. When Einstein was described as "reckless," the "High Priest" of physics, Max Planck, defended him by saying, "[T]hat he may sometimes have missed the target in his speculations, as, for example, in his hypothesis of light quanta, cannot really be held too much against him."

The question that will not go away, however, is: how on earth could they possibly have the means to do so (even assuming them to have such a curiously homogeneous desire)?
Not how, but why.

Quite a few scientists believe sincerely in God. Even if none did, one wonders what they could do to oppose the freaking big guy himself anyway.
True. But they have too much invested in their bottom-up theories to simply let it go. Did you know that Planck came to fear the negative social consequences of quantum mechanics?
So do I. And yet I couldn't disagree with you more on your assessment of science.
There is a difference between scientists and their science. The science is astonishingly good, but as a rule scientists make lousy philosophers. They have their "cliks," prejudices and invested interests just like politicians and religious authorities.

I thought there was a great deal of evidence supporting Quantum Physics, why is it being treated here as pure speculation?
That the problem. It's so well established and the evidence so overwhelming that anyone who takes the implications seriously must confront an enigma: the reality of the material world depends on the observation. Consciousness is somehow involved. No wonder Niels Bohr said that anyone not shocked by the theory doesn't understand it. Multiverse theories are a smokescreen for those who don't want to confront the implications of the most tested of all theories.
 
Top