-
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?
- Thread starter tomspug
- Start date
rojse
RF Addict
There is quite a difference between positing a God and positing multiple Universes.
In regards to the universes, there is at least one already, and to posit that there might be others might be akin to saying aliens might exist (although I might wish for a better metaphor). I'm not making any claims as to how these other universes are, their conditions, or anything like that, just making the claim that there might be more than one Universe.
Now, "God", on the other hand, is quite different. We are claiming that something exists that has no physical prior evidence (mythology from various tribes and groups is not evidence), and is able to do things that have not been done by anyone or anything before.
rocketman
Out there...
When Dawkins for example proposes a mutating multiverse he never really deals with what causes the necessary mutations. Instead we are left with the possibility of God (gasp) again. What therefore is the difference between belief in a multiverse and belief in God? Well, if we are talking bias, and that is what the OP asks about, then I would say the answer is: Next to nothing.
rojse
RF Addict
I love how you make the leap from multiple universes possibly existing to exclaiming how all of this really means that God must be about.
There is a clear difference. God, vague as the concept is, still by necessity has a will. It wants some thing (or several) to happen.
An aimless multiverse wouldn't.
An aimless multiverse wouldn't.
rocketman
Out there...
I made no such claim.I love how you make the leap from multiple universes possibly existing to exclaiming how all of this really means that God must be about.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
A much more interesting question than the one posed in the title of the thread.
I agree about the determinism on both ends. Which is why I do not believe in a God that controls everything, nor a universe that runs on nothing more than determinism and chance. I believe in the mystery and the sacred creative power of choice. We, creation, are co-creating with God.
rojse
RF Addict
Fair enough, but you still manage to regress back to the conceptualisation of God.
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
Determinism? May I suggest God is Not Dead by physicist Amit Goswami?
No*s
Captain Obvious
It works great mathematically on paper and allows us to push the question of the origin back to something as untestable as God. Even if someone doesn't believe it, at least people claim God acts. I've yet to see even a claim to have seen a mote from another universe.
rocketman
Out there...
Huh? I did not 'regress' to a conceptualisation. I pointed out a possibility. And thus I showed that multiverse theory has a kind of equivalence with the God question, and I did so as a response to your claim that there is 'quite a difference between the two'. And I agree there is quite a difference, just not in the area that this thread deals with.
If I may be permitted a quote, this one from Robert Stewart. He wrote "Principles of Existence: God, Democracy and Evolution" but this quote is from his scathing critique of Dawkin's 'God Delusion', specifically the part where Dawkins proposes multiverses, found here. Emphasis mine.
"Dawkins' claim about differing probabilities appears very naive. Whatever explanation you give for the existence of our universe, whether you believe that the ultimate source of all reality is a mindless cosmic machine, an infinite cosmic chaos, or a purposeful creative force; they are all logically impossible.
Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy. Intelligent design theorists use the same tactic."
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
And you still manage to regress back to condescension.
No, we are not "just choosing." We are inferring possibilities that are consistent with science.
tomspug
Absorbant
Are we really? There is no scientific basis for the belief in the multiverse.
We attempt to use equations to "create" a multiverse in the same method that you claim that theists "create" a god by using words.
If only the world's cosmologists and and quantum physicists were as bright as you ... :bow:
tomspug
Absorbant
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.
First of all, how old is the multiverse theory? And exactly what is agreed upon by a majority of scientists (since your post implies consensus, ignorantly)?
Rolling_Stone
Well-Known Member
The "multiverse" theory was and is a deliberate "metascientific" ploy to avoid the problem of the "anthropic principle."
