Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

[TagliatelliMonster]

The difference is that Pluto is in this universe. So again how do you get to another universe to conduct experimentation or observation?

You don't.

The multiverse is prediction by implication of scientific models like inflation theory. So you could look at the actual theory and the rest of its predictions, instead of staring yourself to death on this one prediction that isn't testable (at present, and likely in the future - but who knows...).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, but if it can't even in principle be submitted to experimentation or observation, it is nothing but that.

"nothing BUT that", is quite an understatement, considering what "that" really is: a prediction that naturally flows from a scientific model by implication.


Which, for obvious reasons, is quite different from claiming to have seen a guy who has have magical powers and who is the son of a god, or god himself, or what not.

It is a theory

1. a "theory" in context of science, is about the best status an idea can achieve. i'm guessing you're using the term rather loosely here.....

2. No, it's not. It's a prediction. Theories and predictions, are not the same thing. Inflation is the theory. The multiverse is but an implication of said theory. Just like black holes were an implication of relativity.

which can't turned into science as per experimentation or observation.

Doesn't change the fact that it's a scientific prediction made by a scientific model.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

... words in support of the multiverse ...

Remember you use words, so check your words. The core word is "predict". But the model doesn't predict anything.
Here is the problem with the word "predict" as it applies to magical thinking and the induction problem.
Image a turkey(bird) scientist and over time it observes a regularity. It gets fed everyday and thus it makes a model that predicts it will get fed the next day. It is so, that because the model predicts it, it will be fed next day. The prediction is what causes it to be true, that it is a fact, that it will be fed next day. Not the observation the next day that it became so.
Do you know what happened? The next day was Thanksgiving Day.
That the problem with the words "predicts" and "the model" are that neither cause there to be a multiverse universe. All the words and math are about in themselves, are in the heads of some scientists and not everywhere else as the totality of the model.

So here are some words from Wikipedia about the Multiverse

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there is an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, The New York Times, "A Brief History of the Multiverse"

Here are some more:

[A]n entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler... (Similarly), the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all... A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm.

— Max Tegmark

Notice the bold part I made. The judgment is the head of these scientists is what causes there to be a multiverse. How they think (judgment) determines and causes there to be a multiverse and that is based on wasteful - an emotion and inelegant - aesthetics.

The model of the multiverse is not science as it stands. It is faith in the thinking of some humans and faith in themselves that how they think, determines and causes there to be a multiverse. That has a name and it is magical thinking. It is woo in the name of science, nothing but woo.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Remember you use words, so check your words. The core word is "predict". But the model doesn't predict anything.

/facepalm

Yes, I use words. Words tend to come in handy when you wish to communicate something.
Yes, the model predicts things. All scientific models predict things. Inflation is no different.

Here is the problem with the word "predict" as it applies to magical thinking and the induction problem.

Dude.....................................................

Scientific predictions have nothing to do with "magical thinking".

It's literally just "if this and this, then that".
Like in "if relativity, then black holes".

Image a turkey(bird) scientist and over time it observes a regularity. It gets fed everyday and thus it makes a model that predicts it will get fed the next day. It is so, that because the model predicts it, it will be fed next day. The prediction is what causes it to be true, that it is a fact, that it will be fed next day. Not the observation the next day that it became so.
Do you know what happened? The next day was Thanksgiving Day.
That the problem with the words "predicts" and "the model" are that neither cause there to be a multiverse universe. All the words and math are about in themselves, are in the heads of some scientists and not everywhere else as the totality of the model.

Was this turkey hypothetical supposed to be analogous to model building according to the scientific method? I mean, seriously?

If so, then ridiculously false analogy.
If not, then I fail to see the relevancy.

PS: your example isn't a prediction. It's an expectation based on the observation of a pattern. This is not at all the same thing as a scientific prediction that naturally flows from a model by implication.
As in: dropping a hammer a million times will form the expectation it will fall the next time as well and not shoot into space. The problem is that such is just pattern recognition - it doesn't teach you anything about gravity or WHY it is falling. A theory of gravity (like relativity) will lead to the prediction of black holes - BEFORE anyone has ever seen one. No pattern recognition / expectation there. Instead, just a scientific model, which makes predictions by implication.

So here are some words from Wikipedia about the Multiverse


Here are some more:


Notice the bold part I made. The judgment is the head of these scientists is what causes there to be a multiverse. How they think (judgment) determines and causes there to be a multiverse and that is based on wasteful - an emotion and inelegant - aesthetics.

Sorry, I don't care what the opinions are of scientists about the idea / concept of a multiverse (pro OR con), nore is it relevant to the point being made.

The model of the multiverse is not science as it stands.

You keep getting this completely wrong.... I wonder how many times it must be repeated.

There is no model of the multiverse.
The multiverse is a PREDICTION of a model that DOES NOT DEAL WITH THE MULTIVERSE.

A model like inflation deals with our universe. It just happens to have among its predictions, the prediction of a multiverse.

Why is this so hard for you to comprehend?
There is no "theory of the multiverse".
There is no "hypothesis of the multiverse".
There isn't even a claim of a multiverse.

Instead, there is a model called inflation (wich deals with the cosmology of the universe we find ourselves in) and which happens to predict a multiverse.

It is faith in the thinking of some humans and faith in themselves that how they think, determines and causes there to be a multiverse. That has a name and it is magical thinking. It is woo in the name of science, nothing but woo.

No "faith" is associated with this whatsoever.
Just like there was no "faith" whatsoever associated with the PREDICTION of black holes by Einstein's relativity.

Once more (you seem to consistently ignore this point): Einstein believed his theory had to be wrong, because he didn't believe black holes could exist. That's how interrelated predictions and the models they flow from are.... If the model is true, then the predictions necessary follow.

If relativity was true, then black holes had to exist.
Einstein didn't think that the prediction of black holes was wrong, while his theories were correct.
And the reason for that is simple: you can NOT disconnect the two.

Again: if the premises are true and the logic is sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows.

ie: if the theory is accurate and the logic is sound, then the predictions necessarily follow.

If relativity is correct, then black holes have to exist.
If inflation is correct, then the multiverse has to exist.

There's nothing "magical" about this.
It's just logic. It's what it means to be a scientific prediction.



I'm gonna back out of this I think. Clearly it's not sinking in. I find myself just having to repeat my self time and again, as well as having to point out the same strawmen over and over and over again.

This isn't going anywhere....

 

[Neutral Name]

That is great! My feelings exactly. And I have tried to explain to atheists that something can't come from nothing.

 

[Wandering Monk]

That is great! My feelings exactly. And I have tried to explain to atheists that something can't come from nothing.

Except when God does it?

 

[Milton Platt]

Not really 'nothing',
"we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible." HEB.11

Read your own quote......
It says "by" not "out of"

 

[Milton Platt]

That is great! My feelings exactly. And I have tried to explain to atheists that something can't come from nothing.

Most atheists rely on the current scientific hypothesis ie: The Big Bang....which does not postulate that something came from nothing, at least not the philosophical nothing.

but something could have always existed, eliminating the need for a god to create it.....

 

[Milton Platt]

Words and math mean nothing, if you can't use experimentation or observation.
All defintions of natural science, not math and logic, I have read requires experimentation or observation. The prediction has to be submitted to experimentation or observation of it to be natural science, otherwise it stay as untested, since there is no experimentation or observation.

We know the time it takes for Pluto to make one revolution around the sun....but it takes longer for that to happen than we have known that Pluto existed. Direct observation is not necessary to coming to scientifically sound conclusions.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We know the time it takes for Pluto to make one revolution around the sun....but it takes longer for that to happen than we have known that Pluto existed. Direct observation is not necessary to coming to scientifically sound conclusions.

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia

The cosmological principle is usually stated formally as 'Viewed on a sufficiently large scale, the properties of the universe are the same for all observers.' This amounts to the strongly philosophical statement that the part of the universe which we can see is a fair sample, and that the same physical laws apply throughout. In essence, this in a sense says that the universe is knowable and is playing fair with scientists.
William C. Keel (2007). The Road to Galaxy Formation (2nd ed.). Springer-Praxis.

Philosophy and trust in that the universe is fair in the form of the fair you believe in, creeps in the most annoying places.
Science rest on the assumption that the universe is fair and natural. Some people treat that assumption as dogma.

 

[Audie]

That is great! My feelings exactly. And I have tried to explain to atheists that something can't come from nothing.

You must not be much of a explainer.
Here is something obvious and agreed to by all, and
you cannot get people to figger what you is talking about.

 

[Milton Platt]

Cosmological principle - Wikipedia


Philosophy and trust in that the universe is fair in the form of the fair you believe in, creeps in the most annoying places.
Science rest on the assumption that the universe is fair and natural. Some people treat that assumption as dogma.

I believe I was addressing the assertion that direct observation of a phenomenon was always necessary to arrive at a satisfactory answer. I’m not sure how this response addresses that. Are you agreeing that direct observation is not always needed or do you believe that every hypothesis must include direct observation of the phenomenon itself? I have provided an example in which it is not needed.