Is a Pantheist God More Plausible than a Panentheist God?

[MrMrdevincamus]

No because if we live in a multiverse as I and other better qualified scientists suspect we do, then a Panentheist God would make more sense.

I think.

I don't think you are claiming the multiverse is the leading or most popular theory for the facts of our universes history etc. The Big Bang standard model is. However even though the Big Bang theory is well known etc I just want to briefly go over it. The Big Bang standard model still reigns as the most the popular 'go to' theory for cosmologists and other scientists. Its supported as that probably because it has stood the test of time and it has the best evidence of all the theories. Just a bit more BB trivia; The Standard Model *Hot* assumes only one universe exists, but does not rule out the possibility of more, including the mutiverse. The standard hot model also states that began to exist about 14b+ - years ago.

As for which God is more likely to exist, well, even though I am a 'Christian' my personal position is if the 'God being' in question has attributes that the Hebrew bible assigns to its God, the 'Pantheist' and other questions don't matter to me. The reason for that statement is because if a race or being that is so advanced that it possess the nuances normally associated with the Hebrew 'God' it is God.

** The reason I choose the Hebrew God is a personal choice that I make due to many, evidences of history and other things from archeology to anthropology to original documents and more.

 

[Mox]

I don't think you are claiming the multiverse is the leading or most popular theory. The Big Bang standard model still reigns as the most popular 'go to' theory for cosmologists and other scientists.

Indeed. I certainly wasnt claiming the multiverse theory is scientific orthodoxy. However it is the most reasonable meta physical explanation I have come across which explains away the so called anthropological prinicple that is often attributed to this universe. The so called fine tuning. In a multiverse, the so called fine tuning (conducive to life) is not needed, since in an infinite set of universes, one like ours is inevitable.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Indeed. I certainly wasnt claiming the multiverse theory is scientific orthodoxy. However it is the most reasonable meta physical explanation I have come across which explains away the so called anthropological prinicple that is often attributed to this universe. The so called fine tuning. In a multiverse, the so called fine tuning (conducive to life) is not needed, since in an infinite set of universes, one like ours is inevitable.

Yes you are correct. However the reason Ii tend to reject the many worlds theory or the multiverse theories are partly science based and partly faith based, lol. One there is very little to no empirical evidence to support the MV. There are the gravitational (not to be confused with gravity) waves which may indicate the presence of another universe. And there is the
CMB data where Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with variation (cooler) in the CMB. This is the best evidence yet because if everything pans out as hoped the circles may be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over. But infinite universes do get silly, because infinity allows every reality that can be imagined and those that can't to really exist!

 

[Mox]

This is the best evidence yet because if everything pans out as hoped the circles may be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over. But infinite universes do get silly, because infinity allows every reality that can be imagined and those that can't to really exist!

I don't believe universes that violate the laws of physics could exist, infinite or not. So a multiverse would not contain a universe full of cuboid planets or talking chairs etc..

In my opinion, the cyclic eternal universe hypothesis has a serious flaw, entropy. Everytime the universe goes through a cycle of expansion and collapse, energy is lost according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics . This would mean the universe gradually gets smaller and less massive. In a finite amount of time, there will be no mass energy left to generate anymore universes.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Well brace yourself; just as Quantum Physics have drastic non-intuitive weirdness so does the Multiverse theory. But Metaverse weirdness are orders of magnitude more weird than ANY weird quantum nuance! As I said if the multiverse theory is real any and all realities are out there. There is nothing wrong with your rejecting the science of the multiverse, I being a theist sometimes must do the same thing! Theories such as the multiverse makes it easy to go against scientific opinion, especially when the science is starting to sound like a Disney production! So far I am sticking with the standard BB model where our universe makes sense, somewhat!

2 of thousands of sources;

When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html#jCp

Or from The Guardian

The stakes are high. Each alternate universe carries its own different version of reality. There will be one where you wrote this column and I read it; one where the Guardian is an alt-right propaganda rag; even a really weird one in which Donald Trump uses twitter to spread nothing but amusing cat

videoshttps://www.theguardian.com/science/across-the-universe/2017/may/17/multiverse-have-astronomers-found-evidence-of-parallel-universes.

 

[Cary Cook]

Good observation! Thank you.

Unfortunately I see no way to answer your question.
Multiverse doesn't affect the answer.

I arbitrarily choose to bet on (not believe) monotheism - which when pushed to its logical conclusion becomes indistinguishable from panentheism.
My reason for rejecting pantheism is not based on perceived probability, but on a desire to be logically consistent. Pantheism embraces logical contradiction. Yes, some pantheists can reason logically, but they have arbitrarily chosen to do so, just to prove they can - just as most atheists choose to behave morally just to prove they can.

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Good observation! Thank you.

Unfortunately I see no way to answer your question.
Multiverse doesn't affect the answer.

I arbitrarily choose to bet on (not believe) monotheism - which when pushed to its logical conclusion becomes indistinguishable from panentheism.
My reason for rejecting pantheism is not based on perceived probability, but on a desire to be logically consistent. Pantheism embraces logical contradiction. Yes, some pantheists can reason logically, but they have arbitrarily chosen to do so, just to prove they can - just as most atheists choose to behave morally just to prove they can.

I understand and I think in roughly the same manner. I am open minded and leave the door open that I may be wrong about e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g ! So I give all arguments and debate topics their rightful degree of respect. Some years ago and even now but to a lesser degree most scientists and some laypeople considered anyone that believed in God and was a Christian was nearly illiterate and mentally lacking. Those ideas reached a crescendo in the late 60's to early 70's as this TIME mag cover from 1966 demonstrates.

However with the emergence of numerous PhD enabled Philosophers and other God friendly scientists in the last few decades that attitude has changed...kind of. I am just saying that today Christianity, or more accurately the 'God exists' argument can hold its own in debate's of logic, philosophy and sometimes science. So have a blessed day and happy trails to you!

 

[MrMrdevincamus]

Another question about youralls' belief in the Multiverse. Since its believed that each universe can have different laws of physics meaning that they could and would be 100% in violation with 'our' laws why choose to believe in it? The multiverse goes against many of your core beliefs! My personal opinion for the recent acceptance of the multiverse (that has almost zero empirical or other evidence to support it) by scientists are mostly for emotional* reasons. The MV scientists are nearly all atheists, and that is why I make the 'emotional' statement. These scientists are running from the traditional Big Bang theory because of the well known theistic implications of the standard big bang model, and they can not accept that fact 'emotionally'. Their core personality will not allow them to accept what the big bang is telling them. But, of course that is my personal opinion...

Multiverse trivia. One set of scientists say that the infinite number of universes in the Multiverse may not be quite that. They have calculated a number of how many universes there are in the multiverse. It is; 10^10^10^7.