• 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!

Why Multiverse?

ChristineM

ChristineM

"Be strong", I whispered to my coffee.
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
I have proven all my statements. Using the mind-power and ability to think logically.
Click to expand...
tenor (2).gif
 
blü 2

blü 2

Veteran Member
Premium Member
questfortruth said:
I have used logic.. Do you hate the Laws of Aristotle's logic?
Click to expand...
But I suspect that you, like everyone else I've asked, have no meaningful definition of God appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not. That is, there is no coherent concept of a real God.

And if God is not real, does not have objective existence, then God can only be conceptual / imaginary, as @ChristineM just said, no?

So it seems plain to me that no amount of logic is going to remove that hole in the middle of the topic ─ unless, of course, you have a satisfactory definition.
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
ecco said:
The odds against a human as first life is probably approaching 1 in infinity. Wouldn't you agree?

Yet, somehow, you accept that first life was a fully functional omni-all entity. Somehow you ignore all aspects of probability, and reason and logic, when it comes to your own form of "first-life". Is that a double standard or just hypocrisy?
Click to expand...

questfortruth said:
God did it. But my thread is of use both for Evolutionists and Creationists.
Click to expand...

Why is it you duck and dodge so often. Try addressing what I actually said.

I questioned your ability to reason logically. I questioned your integrity. And your only response is GodDidIt. In the context of my comments, you are saying that your god created himself. How is that "of use both for Evolutionists and Creationists"? How is that of use for anything?
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
There are two options only:
1. God is existent,
2. god is not existent.
Click to expand...

Your comment is typical of the simplistic binary thinking of the religious conservative.

You seem to be unaware that your god isn't the only god posited by man.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
ecco said:
You seem to be unaware that your god isn't the only god posited by man.
Click to expand...
blü 2 said:
But I suspect that you, like everyone else I've asked, have no meaningful definition of God appropriate to a real being, such that if we found a real candidate we could tell whether it was God or not. That is, there is no coherent concept of a real God.

And if God is not real, does not have objective existence, then God can only be conceptual / imaginary, as @ChristineM just said, no?

So it seems plain to me that no amount of logic is going to remove that hole in the middle of the topic ─ unless, of course, you have a satisfactory definition.
Click to expand...
The God is Holy Name. Name of the most powerful being in the Universe and Heaven. The most important thing for any being is his own name. The most pleasant sound is the sound of your own name.
Look up, please:


Secondly, how can there be a real God in the world which is partly illusional? The electron is the wave and the particle at the same moment. My Church disagrees with Realism and Individualism. The Atheists are very rational people but to extremes. There must be room left for a fairytale, because life is one.

 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
The living Earth happens to be in a sphere with N lifeless planets.
The probability of this event to happen was P=Q*V, where Q<1 is the probability of life to emerge on an Earth-like planet, V=(1-Q)^N is the probability that life has not emerged on N planets. Hence, by increasing the size of the sphere, the N grows, and so P turns to zero. Therefore, the idea of a Multiverse with all kinds of possibilities and physical constants does not help the idea of Abiogenesis.

If we take the totality of an infinite number of lifeless planets (which are suitable for life), then this does not help the idea that life appeared on Earth. The general rule of sterility does not allow this. The exception to the law of sterility is a real (God's) miracle.
NASA tries not to violate the sterility of space by sterilizing its probes before launch.

[0801.0246] Does God So Love the Multiverse? (arxiv.org)


DISCUSSION:

I have mind-vision, not eye-vision. What about my logic? I know textbooks, but I have a new results. Science is only then Science if it can be falsified by a genius.

Opinion: "But we'll have a better understanding of the actual likelihood of life arising here after we've got a satisfactory description of abiogenesis. Until then, it's all guesses."
Me:
"I have mind-vision. I have presented a logical theory, which is not debunked yet by you. Thus, according to Presumption of Innocence, the theory adequately describes reality."

Opinion: "I do not agree. The probability that I will win the lottery is almost nil, while the probability that someone wins the lottery is very high. Now, should that someone wonder why he, and not somebody else, won the lottery?"

I reply: "There is no lower limit for life emerging probability on Earth-like planet. It ranges from total zero to some Q. Therefore, my theory has the right to exist. The probability of life emerging in perfect conditions on a planet can be zero, to win lottery is not zero. But even if probability Q is not zero, then my theory proves, that the Multiverse idea has not helped the chances for life to emerge on Earth, prior it has emerged. You are talking about 100 % probability of life on Earth after life has emerged on Earth. That all information you gave here. The probability, that you won the lottery if you have won it, is 100%. But the probability, that you will win lottery is less than 100%. The same way the probability of life emerging on Earth, before it has happened is near zero.

Opinion: " The Q is not small:
https://www.quantamagazine.org/a-new-thermodynamics-theory-of-the-origin-of-life-20140122/

Me:
"Mind is being used only for justification of Emotion" (Albert Einstein). If one wants God to be
non-active in life, he will find evidence for it.

Even the extremely improbable is still possible. But the probability of more than 5 sigma in Science is presumed impossible. That was used for the discovery of the Higgs boson.

Opinion: "You really started another thread on probability? Really? You must have a need for people to tell you your thoughts and concepts are nonsensical. You must revel in it."
Me:
You sound like those voices in my head.

Q: "But having multi-universes is no closer to answering the ultimate question than
having a single universe. Why and how?"

1. I have presented my argument in the thread, namely the rule of sterility of all cosmos does not allow life on Earth. If it is on Earth, then it is scientific miracle.

2. Yes, there are talks now of non-local laws of nature. Namely, quantum entanglement.
But I have unpublished yet argument, that even entanglement is just a local law.
Thus, all that matters are the things on Earth. There is no connection with the Multiverse, hence it can not alter the processes on Earth. The probability, that life will emerge on Earth if we were some billions of years ago on Earth, is small Q<1. But the probability, that this Earth will be surrounded by N lifeless planets, is P=Q*V=Q*(1-Q)^N<Q. Both these events have happened. One has happened with probability Q and the other with probability P. Both events must happen for Earth to get alive.
Thus, the real probability of life on Earth is dependent on the number of lifeless planets out there.
Hereby the Q is being calculated from the local laws of physics. The P is non-locality.
Well, there is non-locality in nature.

There are two options only:
1. God is existent,
2. god is not existent.
Because the basis of a person is god, then there are two gods. I have used logic.. Do you hate the Laws of Aristotle's logic?
Click to expand...

If the multiverse is infinite, how could that be confined into a "space" when space is a property of a bubble as much as time?

Good God. This is ridiculous.
 
questfortruth

questfortruth

Well-Known Member
firedragon said:
If the multiverse is infinite, how could that be confined into a "space" when space is a property of a bubble as much as time?
Click to expand...
The Multiverse is topologically equivalent to one single universe if all universes in the multiverse have the simplest topology (single-connected one). This is demonstrated in the course of Russian Doctor Grigori Perelman's proof of Poincare Conjecture (one of the Millennium Prize Problems).

Author of idea: Dmitri Martila, [email protected] , 16.06.2021
 
firedragon

firedragon

Veteran Member
questfortruth said:
The Multiverse is topologically equivalent to one single universe if all universes in the multiverse have the simplest topology (single-connected one). This is demonstrated in the course of Russian Doctor Grigori Perelman's proof of Poincare Conjecture (one of the Millennium Prize Problems).
Click to expand...

Cmon. Can you tell me what is the gravitation in between bubble 1 to bubble 2?
 
ecco

ecco

Veteran Member
ChristineM said:
First humans evolved around that time
Click to expand...
Google Search: How long have humans existed?
about 200,000 years

While our ancestors have been around for about six million years, the modern form of humans only evolved about 200,000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top