Ignatius A
Active Member
All true.
I think it's more of a stretch to believe in multiverses than it isn't believe in fine tuning or even God for that matter.
-
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!
An Interesting Discussion on Pascal's Wager
- Thread starter Rational Agnostic
- Start date
I think it's more of a stretch to believe in multiverses than it isn't believe in fine tuning or even God for that matter.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You are missing the point. It is not that you can't bring up an example, rather it is that there is also merit in the counter argument.
Ignatius A
Active Member
I dont think so. No there isn't, especially since they ignore Scripture. Which they do.
Can you even put an order of magnitude on what those odds are, though? What's the possible - not just conceivable, but actually possible - range of values for all those "converging forces and phenomena"?
It's all fine and good to say that if some physical constant were different by 1%, the universe would look different, but could it be different by 1%? How do you know?
The anthropic principle speaks to a point that my grade 7 math teacher taught us: if an event has happened, then the probability of it happening is 1.
There's no problem to resolve. No matter how improbable this particular outcome was, there was going to be some outcome; why not this one?
There's only a problem if we assume that life or humanity were planned objectives, but why would we assume that (apart from human ego)?
Throwing a lawn dart so that it precisely hits one particular blade of grass exactly 17.8 mm from its tip is only impressive if it was a called shot.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
You obviously don't think so, but that is hardly relevant to the rest of us.
Ignatius A
Active Member
I don't live my life based on what's relevant to the rest of you. Some people it it's scripture. That's a fact.
Ignatius A
Active Member
What Would Happen If Gravity Became 5% Stronger?
What would happen if gravity became 5 percent stronger right now? This question was originally answered on Quora by Thomas Ulrich.
www.forbes.com
Koldo
Outstanding Member
What Would Happen If Gravity Became 5% Stronger?
What would happen if gravity became 5 percent stronger right now? This question was originally answered on Quora by Thomas Ulrich.
You are not addressing the actual contention here. The issue is not knowing what would happen if gravity was stronger, but rather whether it actually could be.
Ignatius A
Active Member
Im addressing the contention made by the person I responded to.
Now to address your contention which is completely different, the answer is yes. There is not reason to believe it must be this way but but is. Show that it couldnt possibly be anyone other way.
Sure. Give an example of something ignored as opposed to regarded as a metaphor or cultural or some such. I by l bet I can find verses you ignore as well.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I think I've solved the original conundrum.
Choose Buddhism. It will tell you that there is no punishment to be avoided in some afterlife. Instead the 'hell" is here now. It's not strictly punishment, just the way things are. What we have to look forward to is an endless repetition of incarnations, UNLESS we work in this life to eventually escape from it into a state of bliss.
There you go, problem solved.
Choose Buddhism. It will tell you that there is no punishment to be avoided in some afterlife. Instead the 'hell" is here now. It's not strictly punishment, just the way things are. What we have to look forward to is an endless repetition of incarnations, UNLESS we work in this life to eventually escape from it into a state of bliss.
There you go, problem solved.
Alien826
No religious beliefs
I may be wrong, but I think you are saying this.
There is a truth that exists independent of out opinions. I agree.
That truth can only be found a correct interpretation of the Bible.
Your interpretation is correct.
The second and third statements are, so far, supported only by assertion on your part.
Ignatius A
Active Member
Ok I'll give you 2
First Mark 16:16 Jesus JESUS is taking
"Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned." There are Christians who deny baptism is necessary for salvation in spite of a clear statement from Jesus. The usual response is to deluge you with quotes which say to believe is to be saved. Yes belief is necessary but not is not sufficient for salvation as Jesus clearly sates.
The second is my favorite. Some Christians believe in sola fide, faith alone. The ONLY place in scripture where "faith alone" appears is James 2:24 "You see l, then, that's man is justified by works and not by FAITH ALONE." Once again you will be bombarded by volumes of passages that say you must have faith not one says faith alone. They ignore "works".
Heretics
Ignatius A
Active Member
I just gave two examples.
There are *many* things wrong with this line of argument.
1. We don't know that the constants *can* change. As of now, we have not detected any changes nor is there any good theory that describes how they could change.
2. If the constants *can* change, we don't know if there is a natural dynamic giving rise to the values we see now. In other words, the currant values might be an equilibrium state arrived at after some dynamics. Maybe the dynamics maximize complexity....
3. The argument assumes we have the right constants and that they are independent. The latter, especially, is doubtful. maybe the values we see are the result of fewer constants.
4. Related to this is the assumption that we have the right laws of physics (and thereby the right constants). I don't know of any physicists that would claim this at this point. For example, we certainly do NOT understand dark matter or dark energy.
5. Dark matter shows that either we don't understand gravity very well OR that we don't understand particle physics very well. Either way would have a huge impact on those constants.
6. Dark energy shows we don't understand much about the quantum aspects of gravity (ever hear of the prediction off by 120 orders of magnitude?). Again, as we learn more, we *expect* that the laws and underlying constants will be understood differently.
7. It is very much NOT clear what other values to the constants would lead to. We have to be very careful to not think the universe was made for *us* as opposed to us developing in this universe.
8. The argument is much stronger if the 'goal' is the production of stars and galaxies as opposed to thinking it is the formation of life. There are plenty of stars and galaxies, from even the earliest times (well, within the first few hundred million years). Life doesn't seem to have started until at least 10 billion years in. More of an afterthought, I'd say.
Yes, at one level it is rather vacuous.
Actually, it isn't the case that the theories are unverifiable. For example, most attempts we have made towards quantum gravity naturally lead to such a multiverse. If (and when) such theories are tested in *this* universe, if they work well enough, it would add to the acceptance of the overall multiverse description. This is still very much in the future, but is not at all unreasonable.
Most physical theories have aspects that are not directly testable, but are required for the theory to *be* testable in some aspects. it may well be that any workable theory of quantum gravity necessarily leads to a multiverse description. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
No, it is not a different one. I just explaining to you his contention.
Is there any reason to believe it could be some other way?
And I find it much more believable to think that the creator of the universe was a multidimensional art student that failed their class.
Was Jesus talking to only those present? Was he only talking to Jews as opposed to Gentiles? Is 'spiritual' baptism sufficient or does it need to be physical?
Note that Jesus does NOT say that those who are not baptized will be condemned: only those who do not believe. So already there is a contradiction in what is said here, which suggests a different interpretation is required (at least, for those who believe the Bible has authority).
And, of course, this doesn't even address the question of whether Mark's account is reliable.
Roman 3:28 suggest another route to salvation: by faith apart from works. Again, a conflict of interpretation, brought about by a conflict between two Biblical authors.
Fully expected by a book written by men.
McBell
mantra-chanting henotheistic snake handler
Ok.
But you forgot to present a "famous Biblical definition"...
What Would Happen If Gravity Became 5% Stronger?
What would happen if gravity became 5 percent stronger right now? This question was originally answered on Quora by Thomas Ulrich.
Notice that this is what would happen if the strength of gravity *suddenly* changed *right now*. Similar massive die offs would happen if the Earth *suddenly* slowed its rate of rotation to once every 22 hours.. But that is not what we are talking about. If gravity were 10% stronger from the beginning of the universe *with no other change*, the effects would not be nearly as catastrophic.
For example, it is likely that the universal expansion would not be accelerating, but it would still be happening. The increased pressure for stars would mean that the heavier elements would have formed earlier, and potentially mean that life would have formed earlier. A supernova would still be enough to project the formed elements into space. Stars would probably run a bit hotter and have decreased lifetimes. But hey would still last billions of years and the *range* of stars would still go from very hot stars (like the blue giants of today) to red dwarf stars (which would still be rather cool as stars go).
So, the overall effect would be noticeable but I don't see how life would be ruled out in such a universe.