What we are forgetting here is that "Someone" already claimed that He (no gender implied) designed this universe, not just by one or two, but by hundreds or even thousands of messengers. Call Him God, Elohim, Jehovah, the Father, Allah or any other name, still the claim is very serious and worth serious investigation by all of us.
"both" would be best as a multiverse wouldn't be much fun without someone to observe it.
I also suspect a creator/observer that transcends the multiverse wouldn't appreciate the limitations of anthropomorphic adjectives - or to paraphrase Mr. Spock, "what would God want with a beard?" Would the creator/observer also accept the limitations of 10 dimensions? Wouldn't it be fun to be the observer AND the observed?
PS: in case God is watching... thanks for pizza and beer! :)
And think of it this way, if the multi-verse theory was true then there would be other worlds, but different. Maybe in another world Adam and Eve wouldn't have sinned, or it would've been Jesus Christ who rebelled, but that seems highly illogical. Another thing that proves this wrong is that Jehovah would have to follow the rules of multi-verse, which would make his divinity seem to exist. As a result he would be a normal being, like us.
This is easy.... Jehovah God!!! Oh, and God is a spirit , so he doesn't have a gender. Although, he possesses characteristics of both a mother and father. For example, Psalms 89:26 says, " He himself calls out to me, 'You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.' While Proverbs 8:23-25, it says that he created everything "as with labor pains". Obviously, only mothers experience labor pains.
This is easy.... Jehovah God!!! Oh, and God is a spirit , so he doesn't have a gender. Although, he possesses characteristics of both a mother and father. For example, Psalms 89:26 says, " He himself calls out to me, 'You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.' While Proverbs 8:23-25, it says that he created everything "as with labor pains". Obviously, only mothers expreience labor pains.
@FallofDarkness55 You probably referring about the Orch-Or theory. I'm not sure about this new theory since it's new & way too complicated for me to understand. I have to dig more deeper into it.
It seems that a multiverse would make sense to an omnipresent being. If creation by God is true one universe would be kind of retarded. If a multiverse were present it could be looked at as an experiment repeated by a scientist with God-like resources. There is room both.
I think both and I tell you why. The multiverse is there with all it's possibilities, but on the other hand, there needs to be a source of all these multiverses as well. Now I do not know an awful lot about cosmology, but I do think that there need to be a certain amount of conditions in order to create a "bang" where all the multiverses came from.
Someone smart, tell me what the "bigger picture" includes. Where did all the multiverses come from?
the whole "fine tuning" argument is bunk. i could have a wierd shaped cup and fill it with water but that doesnt mean the cup was finely tuned for the water. the water has to conform to the cup and from the waters perspective the cup is fine tuned. we live in this reality and evolved to fit into our niche, we are fine tuned to nature not the other way around
@ShortytheSquirrel the choices we make have an impact on how we adapt and in the long term we evolve that help us survive and reproduce. we fine tune ourselves to fit the habitat
@bbizzy89 Human evolution is not a process we have any control over or are even consciously aware of. Adaptation is an innate instinct driven by a further innate instinct to survive. Anyone for whom survival is a choice clearly has a psychological imbalance of some kind. Unless I've misunderstood something then I think you have truly taken hard determinacy to a ridiculous extreme with your viewpoint. I suggest rethinking your position.
@ShortytheSquirrel im not claiming that we have control over anything except for our choices we make. a choice like, where we choose to live, over millions of years will stear us onto a path where adaptations will have appeared that would help us survive.
@bbizzy89 Adaptation is a biological process that isn't affected by choice. Simply choosing where to live will not necessarily result in adaptation of any kind. We might simply die out in such an environment due to our lack of adaptive traits enabling us to survive within it or we may continue to survive with our current traits unchanged. Both of these scenarios could occur regardless of choices made or not made.
@ShortytheSquirrel i agree with everything you just said. but some species would, most likely, adapt and if those adaptations help the species survive and reproduce. the creature adapts to the surrounding the surroundings dont adapt to the creature.
@bbizzy89 Now you are simply changing your argument. In any case, you completely misunderstand what 'fine tuning' is. The phrase 'fine tuned universe' refers to the specific INITIAL conditions of the universe. As it relates to the process of adaptation, these initial conditions allow for the process of evolution/adaptation to occur in the first place. Thus it can be said that the universe is 'fine tuned' for evolution/adaptation.
@ShortytheSquirrel read my original. comment again. i didnt change my argument. and regarless of the time this "fine tuning" took place we my argument is that if we evolved, then the universe would show what appears to be "fine tuning". we have evolved and the universe appears to be fine tuned. but there is no evidence for the fine tuning
@bbizzy89 On the contrary there is a great deal of evidence for fine tuning. An example would be that our current model of the universe is the only one which supports life as we know it. If we take any of the natural laws that govern the universe and change them even the slightest bit, the projected outcome would be unsuitable for life. This is evidence that the universe is constructed specifically to support life.
I just love the elegant nature of the Omniverse. For me, it seems so self-explanatory that doesn't need of a supernatural thing (god) to be explained.
saying that god is the multiverse is like saying that nothing is something. God can not and should not replace "we don't know". I can say that God is a mutant hamster and defend it equally as any other religious academic and I mean any god not just a christian god. But of course I don't believe that myself. I believe in the holy flying spaghetti monster.
it makes no difference whether you think god is a flying spaghetti monster or a mutant hamster...they're both the same idea with different labels. discussions about god are about the idea, not the labels, and any arguments for jesus or the mutant hamster are only arguments for the people who claim to know more about that idea than others.
this is a debate about the idea, not about those people.
what you say has no bearing on the validity of the idea (the validity of God).
What gives you the idea that the multiverse theory is weak? Here's what physicist Raphael Bousso says about it:
"This may seem laughable, but without the multiverse our finest theories predict that empty space should contain about 10^123 times more energy than it actually does. This is known as the cosmological constant or dark energy problem. It has been called the worst prediction in the history of science and the mother of all physics problems.
well my first reason to think its a weak theory is the fact that we havent detected extra dimentions or other universes.....yet at least. just because physicists think it could be a great theory doesnt mean its true either.
It always amazes me how people assume 'God' came first when it really is more Goddess. Whereas the former patriarchal concept has him as distinct from his creation, the latter IS creation itself, her BODY, so it fits better to me than either monotheism or deism
@thesystemsfailed The practice of giving god a gender, particularly a male gender stems from the Judao-Christian culture present in western societies were the Judeo-Christian god was considered male. Its just a historical thing.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Dear Folks, God is not a multiverse but our make and Father, who has gone to extraordinary lengths (see the Bible) to get through to us so we can know Him. He sent His son to hike the journey from earth to heaven, who left us His road map and paid our way. He said God wants to live with us, wants to be more than a dot on the horizon and be close, like our partner. He said worldly wisdom does not reveal God but that He would if we ask. He said He wouldnt let us down (from the Gospel of John).
That's a great question. Within enfolded symmetry, every possible state exists as simultaneous potential. It's like imagining a multiverse landscape, as you move through that landscape you're moving from one potential selection pattern to another, from one universe with a set of basic physical laws to another. Looking more closely at one of those positions would reveal a spacetime tree for one particular universe, but that would still all be happening simultaneously. For physical universes...
like ours, made out of 3D atoms and molecules, you have to "zoom in" to tiny slices of that multiverse landscape to stop seeing everything as happening at the same time, from the beginning to the end, but that simultaneity remains as the true nature of our reality, even though our limited spacetime view doesn't allow us to directly all those possibilities at the same time.
Yes, that is what physicists like Brian Greene are conveying when they say they finally embrace the idea of a multiverse - that there are other universes where the basic physical laws are different from our own. According to string theory, there are about 10 to the power of 500 possible universes, each with different basic ways of organizing the information that can become a reality.
What Is Infinity ? Is there something outside our mind can be called infinite? The is a different when we say numbers are infinite and when we say that thing is infinite in the reel world . Can we say there is infinite multiverses outside or there infinite possibalities of multiverses in our mind only not the outside wolrd ?
infinity is meaningless in physics unless it's its a possibilty in our mind only or number that is growing or disgrowing without a bound so it's limited after all .
:) Actually 42 is going to be called Does Twitter Connect Us or Disctract Us?, nothing about the meaning of life. You can already read it if you go to the text version of my blog. Regarding death - here's some of my videos about that: 24 - Have Each of us Already Died? watch?v=mfDBW1Smu58 We're Already Dead (But That's Okay) watch?v=tQMO1eyMRuM 30- Do You Believe in Ghosts? watch?v=WN6Qi9jhses 33- Could I Meet My Incarnation? watch?v=OD-LRUptxFU Thanks for writing! Rob
well, about God. I don't understand why Christians say they 'feel' God, and why Muslims say they 'feel' Allah, and why Hinduists say they 'feel' Krishna and Shiva, etc... is this a paradox or is it that there's a god who doesn't care in which way we believe in him?
It's that people who believe in something hard enough can create delusions for themselves. Regardless of whether a god exists or not, the "feeling" of Jesus, Allah, whatever, is obviously a personal delusion created by the feeler himself. If I recall, there have actually been studies on this topic, and it's confirmed the brain's power to make someone's ideas very powerful and real. For example, when I was young I could swear I felt the presence of Santa Claus.
well is it "obvious" that these are personal delusions? no, there are also things that people believe strongly that are true and not delusions. whether or not it is probable is your personal take on the information given.
i dunno about God and the universe (as in this universe) being interchangeable...but God and the laws of physics in this universe can be interchangeable. but this guy is talking about the mutliverse, not just the universe...
Love your work Rob. Thanks is beneficial to ourselves and everyone around us.
If God already knows everything, then what use are we? Maybe we are a very very small part of God and he is growing as we grow, creating as we create.
My God is an Automation Engineer. ;)
Set the wheel (or spiral) in motion and it will create and grow on its own.
P.S. I believe evolution is an intelligent, astounding and elegant method of self-propagating creation.
If we think of all series of events that created every possible variation of different worlds with different laws and such does that include a world where a god or god-like being was created that maybe created something else such as a multiverse? or does that even make sense?
Thanks Rob, more great material for the broader and more inclusive debate of "Science vs Spirituality" rather than the usual "anti-theism vs theism". *****
That was my insight on how god does not exist, and a reply to yours because you said something along the lines of how come most people think he is a man.
Maybe you would be interested in hearing a view by a Mormon. Potentially unorthodox view but also doctrinally consistent.
There is a God (anthropomorphic, theistic) who may exist within this space and time and yet somehow has connection with things past the 3rd dimension. This connection may be an intimate connection with the deist "God" of the 11th Dimension you postulate here.
In all of this, God's role is for us to become like Him in all ways.
The connection may be one where our "3/4D God" is that manifestation of the being in greater dimensions, or it may be (and I believe this would be more likely) that it is a person like us who has learned how to make the connections intimate with higher dimensions.
I am not convinced though that there are 10 or 11 dimensions. Or if there are, that they have any significance.
Like always it comes down to how "God" is defined. If we are not ALL sharing the same definition, it is useless to discuss "God".
We should start by the distincion of "God" or "A god".
It is "custom" to fit (a) God in, whatever we find in science, just to please our believes. In science there should be no place for believe, unless it was a thesis or hypothesis which could be proven - so first we need a consensus on a definition of "A god". Outside of science anyone can believe what (s)he wants.
both require a "leap" of "faith" neither will ever be seen its kinda silly (but fun) trying to picture something we can never see a picture of..... how do you 'Know ' anything
Trust me man, it was awkward for me at first too, but then I started learning about the implications of a multiverse set in an omniverse, and I began researching more about quantum mechanics and the ideas of string theories, and now I think the notion of a single-universe is almost absurd.
I think a God and multiverse aspect are redundant. They both perform the same functions, so why do we need both? The same can be said about people who believe in God, AND evolution through natural selection... It just all seems so unnecessary and redundant to think both co-exist.
In light of this idea, I would definitely side with the multiverse rather than God, simply because the multiverse is a natural aspect of the universe (if it exists) and it doesn't violate laws of logic unlike God.
its just a matter of personal belief on whether or not u feel such forces are conscious or not. and God and evolution are definitely not redundant,God is about origins that are relevant on issues way bigger and go farther back than just life, while evolution is just an explanation of the diversification of life. evolution depends on things that exist before it, so it only possibly addresses the origin of life. it still depends on our laws of physics which may originate with a conscious God.
Why would natural forces need to be conscious, and how would conscious intelligent forces exist in the first place? If one believes in evolution and also a creator god, then he's have to believe that this all powerful deity decided to create life in the form of extremely simple blobs of organic matter, something that we humans can simulate in the lab. What kind of god uses his power to do something so simple? And the fundamental forces are being addressed by many modern theories like M-Theory.
its not about whether they need to be or not, its just a logical step for some and illogical for others, its subjective on that level. neither opinion are necessarily more reasonable than the other, of course a consciousness to the forces can't be proven, its just a theoretical next logical step for some.
There really isn't any logical reason for jumping to the conclusion of "god," aside from being it being a simple answer to difficult questions. It's not based on any logic, it's only based on ignorance. Not ignorance as in "you're dumb if you believe in this" but ignorance as in, there are some things about the universe we don't know yet, and some jump on these gaps of human knowledge and answer them by claiming it was "god."
Thus far, we've yet to find any evidence for anything supernatural.
-Continued- We've also discovered that everything in the universe (that we have a firm understanding of) operates on natural causes from a simpler, fundamental entity (quarks, strings) Everything in science that used to be a mystery, was solved using natural science. Why should we assume that the few mysteries we haven't solved yet are the ones from the supernatural? Can't we follow the path and reasonably assume that the universe doesn't allow for infinitely complex supernatural beings?
In conclusion, claiming that "god did it" is not so much a logical belief, but a simple convenient belief to fill in for a lack of scientific knowledge. Modern physics and biology are very promising for solving the mysteries of the origin of the fundamental forces, and the mysteries of the very first organisms on Earth, as well as other things people attribute to "god." The easy "god did it" answer is available now, but the natural scientific answer is still out there, waiting to be found.
Well, if god was natural, that would mean he would have had to create the universe abiding by all laws of the conservation of energy, all logical laws, many other scientific laws (if they apply, depending on what we think god created) This would make god a somewhat natural explanation. However, I've yet to ever hear a theist claim this, as most-if not all theists claim god somehow "willed" the universe into existence using his own mind. The latter explanation is not natural at all.
of course it is natural, would you say the concepts this guy is talking about are unnatural? other universes where the very laws we take for granted as constants would be different (like the law of conservation of energy). this is why this question comes up: is it God who originates our laws of physics, or is it that all possible laws exist in one of the many universes? at least that is how i understand it. you are still defining "natural" as in natural to our own universe.
"YET..." does not apply here unfortunately. Even if god did exist, we could never find out how he did it. So you should reword that last statement as "just not in a nature we can perceive or understand at all."
Either way, the traditional idea of a theistic or deistic god IS supernatural, simply because in order for that being to BE the fundamental creator, he'd have to either create existence using something (natural) or simply will it into existence (supernatural) Continued...
The supernatural latter choice is the only choice for a theist, because when one considers the former; that god used already existing entities to create what we see today, then he isn't the first cause, and he isn't the creator of all existence. This means he's not really a god, just more of an alien who somehow created us from his already existing universe. If you want to believe in this natural creator, go right ahead, but that doesn't solve the question "where does his existence come from?"
so then how do you answer this question without the answer being supernatural? whether it is God or the multiverse, from an ideology or from a physicist or just a thinker like this guy...all possible answers to this question would have to be supernatural by your understanding. this channel and basically the discussions and ideas that are being debated here are all about the supernatural.
I don't believed I ever said natural was "our laws." In fact, I feel like I've already described the difference between natural and the supernatural, but maybe I'm thinking of a different discussion.
Laws or constants being outside of our universe don't make them "supernatural" per say. They are still natural being that they have a fundamental origin similar to ours, and they abide by the laws of logic, they are just set differently than ours. The ideas of Rob are not supernatural at all. Cont.
You see, unlike God, Rob's ideas or the ideas of other string theorists ARE natural theories. Though they deal with things outside our universe, they are still natural, and they still abide by the laws of logic. Though the 10th dimension project is all about assuming different universes with different constants, the laws of logic NEVER change, and neither does the law of the conservation of energy. Forces can change, but energy can't be created or destroyed, regardless of the universe.
God, on the other hand, would not be natural as in the typical theistic view, he creates existence from nothing simply by his own will. That creation idea violates un-changable laws of logic, and breaks the un-changable law of the conservation of energy, among other things. Therefore; God = Supernatural. Multiverse (so long as it abides by logic) = Natural.
As for existence, either a supernatural being exists forever, or a natural omniverse exists forever. The logical, natural latter wins.
laws of logic? what are the laws of logic? wouldn't logic tell us that the same thing can't exist in two separate spaces at the same time? or that observation causes reality on the scale of quantum mechanics as opposed to reality existing and being observed. the "laws" of logic are always subject to revision and aren't laws in the same sense as the physical laws of this universe.
if anything, logic as we know it may very well be subjective in that it is always measured by the human perspective, it appears objective when we compare our observations with those of other people because we all have the same perspective, like the perspectives of the flat-landers. but i think things like quantum mechanics has shown us our cognitive handicaps: that our logic and even our understanding probably have limits, are necessarily subject to change and aren't "laws."
when i say "constants" and "laws" of our universe, they include the law of conservation of mass and energy. that an infinite number of other universes may exist with utterly different physical laws such that every variation is fulfilled OR,that God exists outside of the closed system of our universe. these laws of conservation only apply within closed systems, which is this universe where these laws are relevant. we are talking about other universes as other types of systems with different laws.
Hmm, what is your evidence for suggesting that the conservation law is only applied to certain universes? Are you suggesting that in some universes matter and energy can just pop into existence from nowhere? The total energy of all possibilities within the multiverses are contained in the omniverse. This means that the conservation of energy applies to all universes, multiverses, and of course the omniverse. Forces are subject to change, but changing the conservation law is absurd.
there isn't evidence, it is speculation as is much of what is being discussed here. why nowhere, what about matter popping into existence from a higgs field or god?
The Higgs does not break the conservation law, and I'm debating the existence of god, so why would you ask me how god created matter?
Matter = energy. Therefore energy CAN convert into matter and vice versa, but this doesn't create completely new energy or matter. For example, there can be 100% energy, 0% matter, or 50% matter 50% energy, or 10% energy 90% matter, but never can you add or subtract away from that 100% That's just a fundamental law... Continued...
Therefore; if you assume god created everything, then you'd either have to assume that he broke this fundamental law; making him supernatural. Or, you'd have to believe that the energy and matter already existed, and god just assembled it for his creation. The latter choice however, does not explain the beginning of everything, and therefore this natural god is no different than a human scientist creating new life in the lab, since this god is NOT the first cause and NOT the most fundamental.
supernatural is an old word that is used only by people who ignorantly think our imaginations could possibly be more vast than the mysteries of reality. there is no such thing as supernatural until we first know what is contained within nature and reality. all we have now are working definitions.
I'll try to explain ONE MORE TIME in a very easy to understand way, since you keep ignoring my points.
God = magic. Magic = Supernatural. In order for god to not be magic and thus not be supernatural, he'd have to create the universe using a scientific process. However, in order to create the universe using a scientific process, he'd need matter and energy to already exist so he could use them. If they already exist, he's NOT the first cause, and thus is not the creator of existence.
ok, well i guess that is what it comes down to. this isnt' about objective intellect that functions on the level of imagination it takes to think about the things Rob's channel is about. its about your beliefs and how you will not compromise in them. God = magic?? lol. says who? your sinless pope, richard dawkins?
by "scientific process" you mean one that only functions in our universe? the omniverse doesn't function in our universe...
I'm sick of having to delete my own writings in order for it to be contained within the 500 word limit. I don't care if anyone reads my messages, I'm switching to PMs. I've touched on all your points in my recent PM and I've given sufficient non-limited character length evidence to back them up. So if you're up to reading and replying to my semi-long messages, go for it. I will not continue this conversation here, as the character length is murder for my points and arguments.
all of our laws of physics (including thermodynamics) ENDS at the idea of the multiverse that contains our universe. again, by your understanding, God and the omniverse are both supernatural or both natural in a reality that exists objectively, whether humans can conceive of it or not.
the omniverse = all possible universes with ALL POSSIBLE LAWS OF PHYSICS (with your "fundamental law" being fundamental to one universe and probably its multiverse).
Ugh, you're just going around in circles. I've explained the difference between the natural and supernatural so many times, it's not even worth it to do it again. God can NOT be the first cause and a natural being at the same time. I've explained that in great detail many times.
ALL POSSIBLE LAWS does not mean violating the fundamental law of existence. A universe existing without the law of conservation is not possible. Total energy from all universes = conserved in the omniverse.
going around in circles? what?? so it doesn't matter if you were wrong or right, just that you have said something on the issue already? is that your way of avoiding a challenge to your ideas?
ok, lets simplify this then, what are the "fundamental laws of existence" and how are they different from the laws of physics? because the omniverse is defined as containing all possible laws of physics.
"total energy from all universes = conserved in the omniverse" validate that.
and anyway, if God is real...he would be natural. meaning the word supernatural suggests something that exists outside of all nature, but propositoins like the one this guy is making about god suggests he would be perfectly natural, just not in a nature we can understand/perceive. basically God is not meant to be a "magical" idea, for the people that believe in it, it is a natural truth to the universe.
well i agree that god is not a scientific answer to those questions, it is an easy answer with no proposed mechanism of action and is not meant to be a scientific proposition. but that doesn't mean it is a conclusion based on ignorance.
the idea of god as most of us talk about it (from the monotheistic religions) was never an answer to fill the gaps of knowledge or an explanation of the universe, it was only tied to an answer to the question of what code of conduct most benefits society. maybe older religions focused on an explanation of natural phenomenon, but not the ones that are basically the source of the idea of god we debate about now.
being rooted in behavioral ideology rather than explanation of phenomenon requires only plausibility to "conclude" or believe. since this god is still plausible, it is still a potential conclusion for some. but the idea of god separate from the ideologies that gave birth to it can only be an explanation of phenomenon. and as an explanation, i agree, it is only an easy answer.
if someone believes in evolution and a "creator god," then they believe in a lawmaker behind the physical laws that allow evolution to work and diversify ur blob. and this "all powerful deity," through these laws created MUCH more than just life. but even compare the blobs that we create versus the ones that we come from. if life were so simple, we should know the point where an inanimate blob develops the will to survive that evolution depends on.all we've done is push around inanimate objects.
and theories like M-theory may very well be the better scientific answer. who knows for sure? its a matter of what you choose to believe. and whether your belief is irrational or not, belief in a "creater God" or forces with a consciousness are not necessarily irrational. or the idea that we are all the same consciousness, etc...
As far as a God existing in a higher Dimension, If there is one, there is likely to be Billions of them. So Religion is stil Evil. A Multiverse does not need Religion does it?
To say religion is evil is a gross oversimplification. God might exist completely seperate from any religion, and humans would still be creating religion as well as other social and cultural barriers that create the circumstance for "evil." The multiverse as presented here can only be judged by humans in our less than objective positions as evil or good. We have very little certainty of the reasons for the organization of the universe, but we know that it is here and we are somewhere in it.
Rob, I just screamed at the screen in total frustration. Why do people think that the world has been tuned to fit us? It hasn't. This world is not all that habitable, Blistering Dry desert where we have to bring our own water, and frozen wilds of Polar regions where nothing will grow?
We are the ones who have adapted to the world, not the world changing to fit us.
The Universe is not made for us, it is not a friendly place.
Right! Have you read 'Time' By Stephen Baxter? In his book a character travels through time in such enormous leaps that he sees the end of our solar system and all life which has expanding and finding resources on other planets and been harvesting the suns powers and all has burned out until they end up Mining Black Holes for their energy.
It's a cool concept, but even that can only last for so long.
I thought you were going to say Black Holes are Gods little pockets or something. lol
Rob, I find your videos amazing, especially how you can take a step back and present a heated topic such as God or the Multiverse in an impartial light. It is a shame that enlightened individuals that realize that science an religion are not more common amongst us. The concept of God and the Multiverse opens many posibilities in addition to them being the same. Namely: Is God a 10th dimensional being OR is God one of the variables in one of our lower dimensions which exits in some universes?
What we are forgetting here is that "Someone" already claimed that He (no gender implied) designed this universe, not just by one or two, but by hundreds or even thousands of messengers. Call Him God, Elohim, Jehovah, the Father, Allah or any other name, still the claim is very serious and worth serious investigation by all of us.
helasmoh 3 months ago in playlist Liked videos
"both" would be best as a multiverse wouldn't be much fun without someone to observe it.
I also suspect a creator/observer that transcends the multiverse wouldn't appreciate the limitations of anthropomorphic adjectives - or to paraphrase Mr. Spock, "what would God want with a beard?" Would the creator/observer also accept the limitations of 10 dimensions? Wouldn't it be fun to be the observer AND the observed?
PS: in case God is watching... thanks for pizza and beer! :)
TheFred156 3 months ago
Comment removed
TheFred156 3 months ago
mm, an infinite amount of gods(max.info). lol, for we are many.
Awhiffofsuspicion 5 months ago
modus tollens
If multiverse theory is false (P), then Christ's Kingdom exists finitely in this kosmos. (Q)
"My kingdom is not of this (Gr.) kosmos" Joh 18:36 (Not Q)
Therefore, mulitverse theory is not false. (Not P)
PrinceWalter 5 months ago
I tend to worship god AS the multiverse. So both.
ElMyr23 5 months ago
And think of it this way, if the multi-verse theory was true then there would be other worlds, but different. Maybe in another world Adam and Eve wouldn't have sinned, or it would've been Jesus Christ who rebelled, but that seems highly illogical. Another thing that proves this wrong is that Jehovah would have to follow the rules of multi-verse, which would make his divinity seem to exist. As a result he would be a normal being, like us.
eLdOnkeYkOnG13 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This is easy.... Jehovah God!!! Oh, and God is a spirit , so he doesn't have a gender. Although, he possesses characteristics of both a mother and father. For example, Psalms 89:26 says, " He himself calls out to me, 'You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.' While Proverbs 8:23-25, it says that he created everything "as with labor pains". Obviously, only mothers experience labor pains.
eLdOnkeYkOnG13 6 months ago
This is easy.... Jehovah God!!! Oh, and God is a spirit , so he doesn't have a gender. Although, he possesses characteristics of both a mother and father. For example, Psalms 89:26 says, " He himself calls out to me, 'You are my Father, My God and the Rock of my salvation.' While Proverbs 8:23-25, it says that he created everything "as with labor pains". Obviously, only mothers expreience labor pains.
eLdOnkeYkOnG13 6 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Neither can you prove the existence of GOD just by relying on that stupid bible dumbass christian
chinocalinawan 1 year ago
Comment removed
FallofDarkness55 1 year ago
@FallofDarkness55 You probably referring about the Orch-Or theory. I'm not sure about this new theory since it's new & way too complicated for me to understand. I have to dig more deeper into it.
:-)
KhinShaider 7 months ago
@KhinShaider ignore that ridiculous 6 month old comment. i can no longer see theism or even Catholicism as a rational idea. Yes i am an atheist.
FallofDarkness55 7 months ago
It seems that a multiverse would make sense to an omnipresent being. If creation by God is true one universe would be kind of retarded. If a multiverse were present it could be looked at as an experiment repeated by a scientist with God-like resources. There is room both.
MrBerenius 1 year ago
Quantum God Episode Two: Properties of the Universal Orch-OR: watch?v=ee2jtmhyO8Q
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
I think both and I tell you why. The multiverse is there with all it's possibilities, but on the other hand, there needs to be a source of all these multiverses as well. Now I do not know an awful lot about cosmology, but I do think that there need to be a certain amount of conditions in order to create a "bang" where all the multiverses came from.
Someone smart, tell me what the "bigger picture" includes. Where did all the multiverses come from?
FearThisChannel 1 year ago
the whole "fine tuning" argument is bunk. i could have a wierd shaped cup and fill it with water but that doesnt mean the cup was finely tuned for the water. the water has to conform to the cup and from the waters perspective the cup is fine tuned. we live in this reality and evolved to fit into our niche, we are fine tuned to nature not the other way around
bbizzy89 1 year ago
@bbizzy89 Are you saying that humans are responsible or in control of their own evolution?
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel the choices we make have an impact on how we adapt and in the long term we evolve that help us survive and reproduce. we fine tune ourselves to fit the habitat
bbizzy89 1 year ago
@bbizzy89 Human evolution is not a process we have any control over or are even consciously aware of. Adaptation is an innate instinct driven by a further innate instinct to survive. Anyone for whom survival is a choice clearly has a psychological imbalance of some kind. Unless I've misunderstood something then I think you have truly taken hard determinacy to a ridiculous extreme with your viewpoint. I suggest rethinking your position.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel im not claiming that we have control over anything except for our choices we make. a choice like, where we choose to live, over millions of years will stear us onto a path where adaptations will have appeared that would help us survive.
bbizzy89 1 year ago
@bbizzy89 Adaptation is a biological process that isn't affected by choice. Simply choosing where to live will not necessarily result in adaptation of any kind. We might simply die out in such an environment due to our lack of adaptive traits enabling us to survive within it or we may continue to survive with our current traits unchanged. Both of these scenarios could occur regardless of choices made or not made.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel i agree with everything you just said. but some species would, most likely, adapt and if those adaptations help the species survive and reproduce. the creature adapts to the surrounding the surroundings dont adapt to the creature.
bbizzy89 1 year ago
@bbizzy89 Now you are simply changing your argument. In any case, you completely misunderstand what 'fine tuning' is. The phrase 'fine tuned universe' refers to the specific INITIAL conditions of the universe. As it relates to the process of adaptation, these initial conditions allow for the process of evolution/adaptation to occur in the first place. Thus it can be said that the universe is 'fine tuned' for evolution/adaptation.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
@ShortytheSquirrel read my original. comment again. i didnt change my argument. and regarless of the time this "fine tuning" took place we my argument is that if we evolved, then the universe would show what appears to be "fine tuning". we have evolved and the universe appears to be fine tuned. but there is no evidence for the fine tuning
bbizzy89 1 year ago
@bbizzy89 On the contrary there is a great deal of evidence for fine tuning. An example would be that our current model of the universe is the only one which supports life as we know it. If we take any of the natural laws that govern the universe and change them even the slightest bit, the projected outcome would be unsuitable for life. This is evidence that the universe is constructed specifically to support life.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
Autotheism...for all we know we are the God of our infinite universes--the atoms and cells...
platano214 2 years ago
If God is the only one and he wanna bee equal with all,because he count out he will have more enjoy then.
If its so ,how will he then do_?
StefanAxelWels 2 years ago
I just love the elegant nature of the Omniverse. For me, it seems so self-explanatory that doesn't need of a supernatural thing (god) to be explained.
jav90xw 2 years ago
haha not as worn out as god
levlobotomy 2 years ago
what if god is in the multiverse?
agnostaxian 2 years ago
saying that god is the multiverse is like saying that nothing is something. God can not and should not replace "we don't know". I can say that God is a mutant hamster and defend it equally as any other religious academic and I mean any god not just a christian god. But of course I don't believe that myself. I believe in the holy flying spaghetti monster.
tattersyuen 2 years ago
tat, have u studied philosophy or metaphysics?
agnostaxian 2 years ago
it makes no difference whether you think god is a flying spaghetti monster or a mutant hamster...they're both the same idea with different labels. discussions about god are about the idea, not the labels, and any arguments for jesus or the mutant hamster are only arguments for the people who claim to know more about that idea than others.
this is a debate about the idea, not about those people.
what you say has no bearing on the validity of the idea (the validity of God).
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
its not an either or...god isnt even a theory and the mutiverse theory is a weak one.
keggerous 2 years ago
What gives you the idea that the multiverse theory is weak? Here's what physicist Raphael Bousso says about it:
"This may seem laughable, but without the multiverse our finest theories predict that empty space should contain about 10^123 times more energy than it actually does. This is known as the cosmological constant or dark energy problem. It has been called the worst prediction in the history of science and the mother of all physics problems.
Rob
10thdim 2 years ago
well my first reason to think its a weak theory is the fact that we havent detected extra dimentions or other universes.....yet at least. just because physicists think it could be a great theory doesnt mean its true either.
keggerous 2 years ago
@10thdim Because it can not be proven yet.
paralaks 3 months ago
It always amazes me how people assume 'God' came first when it really is more Goddess. Whereas the former patriarchal concept has him as distinct from his creation, the latter IS creation itself, her BODY, so it fits better to me than either monotheism or deism
zezt 2 years ago
Does that mean if the question were re-phrased to "Do you believe in Goddess? Or the multiverse?' your answer would be "both"? Makes sense to me.
Rob
10thdim 2 years ago
both/and ;)
zezt 2 years ago
Comment removed
thesystemsfailed 1 year ago
@thesystemsfailed The practice of giving god a gender, particularly a male gender stems from the Judao-Christian culture present in western societies were the Judeo-Christian god was considered male. Its just a historical thing.
ShortytheSquirrel 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dear Folks, God is not a multiverse but our make and Father, who has gone to extraordinary lengths (see the Bible) to get through to us so we can know Him. He sent His son to hike the journey from earth to heaven, who left us His road map and paid our way. He said God wants to live with us, wants to be more than a dot on the horizon and be close, like our partner. He said worldly wisdom does not reveal God but that He would if we ask. He said He wouldnt let us down (from the Gospel of John).
Ginny202 2 years ago
i agree.
And it's so shameful to see criticism from libruls, gheys, and jews/musllims to our beautiful God. Shame on you librul thinking criticizing people!
lamparalaptopiaguita 2 years ago
I haven't watched all of your videos and you most likely answer this question in one of them but...
You said in 31 that our universe is a temporary deviation in symmetry and that the state before and after the universe is folded symmetry.
First, in folded symmetry, what could have sparked such an upheaval that it created our universe?
Second, does time occur in folded symmetry? If not, how could a reaction(i.e. creation of the universe) take place?
B3yondYourSelf 2 years ago
That's a great question. Within enfolded symmetry, every possible state exists as simultaneous potential. It's like imagining a multiverse landscape, as you move through that landscape you're moving from one potential selection pattern to another, from one universe with a set of basic physical laws to another. Looking more closely at one of those positions would reveal a spacetime tree for one particular universe, but that would still all be happening simultaneously. For physical universes...
10thdim 2 years ago
like ours, made out of 3D atoms and molecules, you have to "zoom in" to tiny slices of that multiverse landscape to stop seeing everything as happening at the same time, from the beginning to the end, but that simultaneity remains as the true nature of our reality, even though our limited spacetime view doesn't allow us to directly all those possibilities at the same time.
Here's some videos:
watch?v=YkGZgxeKSCU
watch?v=_MptYznkv14
watch?v=CBPBc4iZtro
watch?v=lBNv8LMbEPA
Thanks for writing!
Rob
10thdim 2 years ago
One last question if I may,
Can the physical laws within another possible universe be different?
Thank you for making these videos I find it truly fascinating and you are doing a great justice by bringing this type of thought to the everyman.
B3yondYourSelf 2 years ago
Yes, that is what physicists like Brian Greene are conveying when they say they finally embrace the idea of a multiverse - that there are other universes where the basic physical laws are different from our own. According to string theory, there are about 10 to the power of 500 possible universes, each with different basic ways of organizing the information that can become a reality.
Isn't that amazing?
Thanks for your kind words,
Rob
10thdim 2 years ago
What Is Infinity ? Is there something outside our mind can be called infinite? The is a different when we say numbers are infinite and when we say that thing is infinite in the reel world . Can we say there is infinite multiverses outside or there infinite possibalities of multiverses in our mind only not the outside wolrd ?
infinity is meaningless in physics unless it's its a possibilty in our mind only or number that is growing or disgrowing without a bound so it's limited after all .
reejaal 2 years ago
i prefer to say God. it makes it easier to love it. its nice to love something so great. nothing better.
DrLight9 2 years ago
I wonder if you have anything up your sleeve for episode 42.
I tried to understand as much as I could there but I wanted to know what you think happens to us when we die?
alexstewartmovies 2 years ago
10thdim 2 years ago
I suppose I will have to live with 42 being about twitter then. I suppose it is the meaning of life for some people.
alexstewartmovies 2 years ago
^Best. Comment. Ever.
dkamm65 2 years ago
I'd say its a distraction unless its used only as a tool to directly influence your particular life, at that point it must connect us.
TheKim004 2 years ago
great melody!
zeusvalentine 2 years ago
well, about God. I don't understand why Christians say they 'feel' God, and why Muslims say they 'feel' Allah, and why Hinduists say they 'feel' Krishna and Shiva, etc... is this a paradox or is it that there's a god who doesn't care in which way we believe in him?
bangNL94 2 years ago
It's that people who believe in something hard enough can create delusions for themselves. Regardless of whether a god exists or not, the "feeling" of Jesus, Allah, whatever, is obviously a personal delusion created by the feeler himself. If I recall, there have actually been studies on this topic, and it's confirmed the brain's power to make someone's ideas very powerful and real. For example, when I was young I could swear I felt the presence of Santa Claus.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
Narrow minded much?
TheKim004 2 years ago
well is it "obvious" that these are personal delusions? no, there are also things that people believe strongly that are true and not delusions. whether or not it is probable is your personal take on the information given.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
i dunno about God and the universe (as in this universe) being interchangeable...but God and the laws of physics in this universe can be interchangeable. but this guy is talking about the mutliverse, not just the universe...
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
Love your work Rob. Thanks is beneficial to ourselves and everyone around us.
If God already knows everything, then what use are we? Maybe we are a very very small part of God and he is growing as we grow, creating as we create.
My God is an Automation Engineer. ;)
Set the wheel (or spiral) in motion and it will create and grow on its own.
P.S. I believe evolution is an intelligent, astounding and elegant method of self-propagating creation.
gadzometer 2 years ago
perfect! nice work Rob :-)
slackologist 2 years ago
If we think of all series of events that created every possible variation of different worlds with different laws and such does that include a world where a god or god-like being was created that maybe created something else such as a multiverse? or does that even make sense?
areojets 2 years ago
wow rock on Dr
jloiterer 2 years ago
Thanks Rob, more great material for the broader and more inclusive debate of "Science vs Spirituality" rather than the usual "anti-theism vs theism". *****
CaptainFrantic 2 years ago
they are two different words that describe the same thing.
leezus83 2 years ago
Does he even have to be a male, I hate how human like we are making god...
NDS525 2 years ago 2
Man created God in his own image.
joshrocks11 2 years ago
well said
Derleiter17 2 years ago
Comment removed
NDS525 2 years ago
That was my insight on how god does not exist, and a reply to yours because you said something along the lines of how come most people think he is a man.
joshrocks11 2 years ago
Oh man, sorry I thought you were trying to tell me off, I'll delete that rude comment I just posted. Again, sorry.
NDS525 2 years ago
Exactly ... Man created God is his own image, just look at different cultures, their Gods always resemble them.
Jahan917 2 years ago
to fit within the parameters of human comprehension its easier for us to assign god human features
trfootball48 2 years ago
True
NDS525 2 years ago
Pantheism much? :P
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
this guy is a fricken genius. i love him
drunknninjalunchbox 2 years ago
Maybe you would be interested in hearing a view by a Mormon. Potentially unorthodox view but also doctrinally consistent.
There is a God (anthropomorphic, theistic) who may exist within this space and time and yet somehow has connection with things past the 3rd dimension. This connection may be an intimate connection with the deist "God" of the 11th Dimension you postulate here.
In all of this, God's role is for us to become like Him in all ways.
ImLDSRU2 2 years ago
The connection may be one where our "3/4D God" is that manifestation of the being in greater dimensions, or it may be (and I believe this would be more likely) that it is a person like us who has learned how to make the connections intimate with higher dimensions.
I am not convinced though that there are 10 or 11 dimensions. Or if there are, that they have any significance.
ImLDSRU2 2 years ago
Like always it comes down to how "God" is defined. If we are not ALL sharing the same definition, it is useless to discuss "God".
We should start by the distincion of "God" or "A god".
It is "custom" to fit (a) God in, whatever we find in science, just to please our believes. In science there should be no place for believe, unless it was a thesis or hypothesis which could be proven - so first we need a consensus on a definition of "A god". Outside of science anyone can believe what (s)he wants.
drdalet 2 years ago
I 'know' there's no god, but I dont know much about multiverses, it sounds kinda awkward to me
bangNL94 2 years ago
both require a "leap" of "faith" neither will ever be seen its kinda silly (but fun) trying to picture something we can never see a picture of..... how do you 'Know ' anything
Cyor77 2 years ago
Trust me man, it was awkward for me at first too, but then I started learning about the implications of a multiverse set in an omniverse, and I began researching more about quantum mechanics and the ideas of string theories, and now I think the notion of a single-universe is almost absurd.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
very interesting and enlightening for a atheist, thank you.
JordoSkate101 2 years ago
very enlightening video for a atheist, thank you.
JordoSkate101 2 years ago
This is a very interesting video.
ShadowconLM14 2 years ago
I think a God and multiverse aspect are redundant. They both perform the same functions, so why do we need both? The same can be said about people who believe in God, AND evolution through natural selection... It just all seems so unnecessary and redundant to think both co-exist.
In light of this idea, I would definitely side with the multiverse rather than God, simply because the multiverse is a natural aspect of the universe (if it exists) and it doesn't violate laws of logic unlike God.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
its just a matter of personal belief on whether or not u feel such forces are conscious or not. and God and evolution are definitely not redundant,God is about origins that are relevant on issues way bigger and go farther back than just life, while evolution is just an explanation of the diversification of life. evolution depends on things that exist before it, so it only possibly addresses the origin of life. it still depends on our laws of physics which may originate with a conscious God.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
Why would natural forces need to be conscious, and how would conscious intelligent forces exist in the first place? If one believes in evolution and also a creator god, then he's have to believe that this all powerful deity decided to create life in the form of extremely simple blobs of organic matter, something that we humans can simulate in the lab. What kind of god uses his power to do something so simple? And the fundamental forces are being addressed by many modern theories like M-Theory.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
its not about whether they need to be or not, its just a logical step for some and illogical for others, its subjective on that level. neither opinion are necessarily more reasonable than the other, of course a consciousness to the forces can't be proven, its just a theoretical next logical step for some.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
There really isn't any logical reason for jumping to the conclusion of "god," aside from being it being a simple answer to difficult questions. It's not based on any logic, it's only based on ignorance. Not ignorance as in "you're dumb if you believe in this" but ignorance as in, there are some things about the universe we don't know yet, and some jump on these gaps of human knowledge and answer them by claiming it was "god."
Thus far, we've yet to find any evidence for anything supernatural.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
-Continued- We've also discovered that everything in the universe (that we have a firm understanding of) operates on natural causes from a simpler, fundamental entity (quarks, strings) Everything in science that used to be a mystery, was solved using natural science. Why should we assume that the few mysteries we haven't solved yet are the ones from the supernatural? Can't we follow the path and reasonably assume that the universe doesn't allow for infinitely complex supernatural beings?
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
In conclusion, claiming that "god did it" is not so much a logical belief, but a simple convenient belief to fill in for a lack of scientific knowledge. Modern physics and biology are very promising for solving the mysteries of the origin of the fundamental forces, and the mysteries of the very first organisms on Earth, as well as other things people attribute to "god." The easy "god did it" answer is available now, but the natural scientific answer is still out there, waiting to be found.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
sorry...i mean if god were real he would be perfectly natural, just not in a nature we can perceive or understand YET...
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
Well, if god was natural, that would mean he would have had to create the universe abiding by all laws of the conservation of energy, all logical laws, many other scientific laws (if they apply, depending on what we think god created) This would make god a somewhat natural explanation. However, I've yet to ever hear a theist claim this, as most-if not all theists claim god somehow "willed" the universe into existence using his own mind. The latter explanation is not natural at all.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
of course it is natural, would you say the concepts this guy is talking about are unnatural? other universes where the very laws we take for granted as constants would be different (like the law of conservation of energy). this is why this question comes up: is it God who originates our laws of physics, or is it that all possible laws exist in one of the many universes? at least that is how i understand it. you are still defining "natural" as in natural to our own universe.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
"YET..." does not apply here unfortunately. Even if god did exist, we could never find out how he did it. So you should reword that last statement as "just not in a nature we can perceive or understand at all."
Either way, the traditional idea of a theistic or deistic god IS supernatural, simply because in order for that being to BE the fundamental creator, he'd have to either create existence using something (natural) or simply will it into existence (supernatural) Continued...
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
The supernatural latter choice is the only choice for a theist, because when one considers the former; that god used already existing entities to create what we see today, then he isn't the first cause, and he isn't the creator of all existence. This means he's not really a god, just more of an alien who somehow created us from his already existing universe. If you want to believe in this natural creator, go right ahead, but that doesn't solve the question "where does his existence come from?"
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
"where does this existence come from?"
so then how do you answer this question without the answer being supernatural? whether it is God or the multiverse, from an ideology or from a physicist or just a thinker like this guy...all possible answers to this question would have to be supernatural by your understanding. this channel and basically the discussions and ideas that are being debated here are all about the supernatural.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
I don't believed I ever said natural was "our laws." In fact, I feel like I've already described the difference between natural and the supernatural, but maybe I'm thinking of a different discussion.
Laws or constants being outside of our universe don't make them "supernatural" per say. They are still natural being that they have a fundamental origin similar to ours, and they abide by the laws of logic, they are just set differently than ours. The ideas of Rob are not supernatural at all. Cont.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
You see, unlike God, Rob's ideas or the ideas of other string theorists ARE natural theories. Though they deal with things outside our universe, they are still natural, and they still abide by the laws of logic. Though the 10th dimension project is all about assuming different universes with different constants, the laws of logic NEVER change, and neither does the law of the conservation of energy. Forces can change, but energy can't be created or destroyed, regardless of the universe.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
God, on the other hand, would not be natural as in the typical theistic view, he creates existence from nothing simply by his own will. That creation idea violates un-changable laws of logic, and breaks the un-changable law of the conservation of energy, among other things. Therefore; God = Supernatural. Multiverse (so long as it abides by logic) = Natural.
As for existence, either a supernatural being exists forever, or a natural omniverse exists forever. The logical, natural latter wins.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
laws of logic? what are the laws of logic? wouldn't logic tell us that the same thing can't exist in two separate spaces at the same time? or that observation causes reality on the scale of quantum mechanics as opposed to reality existing and being observed. the "laws" of logic are always subject to revision and aren't laws in the same sense as the physical laws of this universe.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
if anything, logic as we know it may very well be subjective in that it is always measured by the human perspective, it appears objective when we compare our observations with those of other people because we all have the same perspective, like the perspectives of the flat-landers. but i think things like quantum mechanics has shown us our cognitive handicaps: that our logic and even our understanding probably have limits, are necessarily subject to change and aren't "laws."
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
when i say "constants" and "laws" of our universe, they include the law of conservation of mass and energy. that an infinite number of other universes may exist with utterly different physical laws such that every variation is fulfilled OR,that God exists outside of the closed system of our universe. these laws of conservation only apply within closed systems, which is this universe where these laws are relevant. we are talking about other universes as other types of systems with different laws.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
Hmm, what is your evidence for suggesting that the conservation law is only applied to certain universes? Are you suggesting that in some universes matter and energy can just pop into existence from nowhere? The total energy of all possibilities within the multiverses are contained in the omniverse. This means that the conservation of energy applies to all universes, multiverses, and of course the omniverse. Forces are subject to change, but changing the conservation law is absurd.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
there isn't evidence, it is speculation as is much of what is being discussed here. why nowhere, what about matter popping into existence from a higgs field or god?
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
The Higgs does not break the conservation law, and I'm debating the existence of god, so why would you ask me how god created matter?
Matter = energy. Therefore energy CAN convert into matter and vice versa, but this doesn't create completely new energy or matter. For example, there can be 100% energy, 0% matter, or 50% matter 50% energy, or 10% energy 90% matter, but never can you add or subtract away from that 100% That's just a fundamental law... Continued...
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
Therefore; if you assume god created everything, then you'd either have to assume that he broke this fundamental law; making him supernatural. Or, you'd have to believe that the energy and matter already existed, and god just assembled it for his creation. The latter choice however, does not explain the beginning of everything, and therefore this natural god is no different than a human scientist creating new life in the lab, since this god is NOT the first cause and NOT the most fundamental.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
supernatural is an old word that is used only by people who ignorantly think our imaginations could possibly be more vast than the mysteries of reality. there is no such thing as supernatural until we first know what is contained within nature and reality. all we have now are working definitions.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
I'll try to explain ONE MORE TIME in a very easy to understand way, since you keep ignoring my points.
God = magic. Magic = Supernatural. In order for god to not be magic and thus not be supernatural, he'd have to create the universe using a scientific process. However, in order to create the universe using a scientific process, he'd need matter and energy to already exist so he could use them. If they already exist, he's NOT the first cause, and thus is not the creator of existence.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
ok, well i guess that is what it comes down to. this isnt' about objective intellect that functions on the level of imagination it takes to think about the things Rob's channel is about. its about your beliefs and how you will not compromise in them. God = magic?? lol. says who? your sinless pope, richard dawkins?
by "scientific process" you mean one that only functions in our universe? the omniverse doesn't function in our universe...
omniverse = magic??????
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
before you say anything else, lets keep this organized, i offered soem questions...answer those first so we are clear...
"fundamental laws of existence"...what are they and how are they different from the laws of physics.
"total energy from all universes = conserved in the omniverse."...validate that (aka prove you didn't just make that up.)
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
I'm sick of having to delete my own writings in order for it to be contained within the 500 word limit. I don't care if anyone reads my messages, I'm switching to PMs. I've touched on all your points in my recent PM and I've given sufficient non-limited character length evidence to back them up. So if you're up to reading and replying to my semi-long messages, go for it. I will not continue this conversation here, as the character length is murder for my points and arguments.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
all of our laws of physics (including thermodynamics) ENDS at the idea of the multiverse that contains our universe. again, by your understanding, God and the omniverse are both supernatural or both natural in a reality that exists objectively, whether humans can conceive of it or not.
the omniverse = all possible universes with ALL POSSIBLE LAWS OF PHYSICS (with your "fundamental law" being fundamental to one universe and probably its multiverse).
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
Ugh, you're just going around in circles. I've explained the difference between the natural and supernatural so many times, it's not even worth it to do it again. God can NOT be the first cause and a natural being at the same time. I've explained that in great detail many times.
ALL POSSIBLE LAWS does not mean violating the fundamental law of existence. A universe existing without the law of conservation is not possible. Total energy from all universes = conserved in the omniverse.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
going around in circles? what?? so it doesn't matter if you were wrong or right, just that you have said something on the issue already? is that your way of avoiding a challenge to your ideas?
ok, lets simplify this then, what are the "fundamental laws of existence" and how are they different from the laws of physics? because the omniverse is defined as containing all possible laws of physics.
"total energy from all universes = conserved in the omniverse" validate that.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
I'm sick of using comments with their restraints. It's PM time.
DaDaWgLLS 2 years ago
lets keep it here, i dont' have the time/patience to read long messages and i want ppl to see this anyways.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
and anyway, if God is real...he would be natural. meaning the word supernatural suggests something that exists outside of all nature, but propositoins like the one this guy is making about god suggests he would be perfectly natural, just not in a nature we can understand/perceive. basically God is not meant to be a "magical" idea, for the people that believe in it, it is a natural truth to the universe.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
well i agree that god is not a scientific answer to those questions, it is an easy answer with no proposed mechanism of action and is not meant to be a scientific proposition. but that doesn't mean it is a conclusion based on ignorance.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
the idea of god as most of us talk about it (from the monotheistic religions) was never an answer to fill the gaps of knowledge or an explanation of the universe, it was only tied to an answer to the question of what code of conduct most benefits society. maybe older religions focused on an explanation of natural phenomenon, but not the ones that are basically the source of the idea of god we debate about now.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
being rooted in behavioral ideology rather than explanation of phenomenon requires only plausibility to "conclude" or believe. since this god is still plausible, it is still a potential conclusion for some. but the idea of god separate from the ideologies that gave birth to it can only be an explanation of phenomenon. and as an explanation, i agree, it is only an easy answer.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
if someone believes in evolution and a "creator god," then they believe in a lawmaker behind the physical laws that allow evolution to work and diversify ur blob. and this "all powerful deity," through these laws created MUCH more than just life. but even compare the blobs that we create versus the ones that we come from. if life were so simple, we should know the point where an inanimate blob develops the will to survive that evolution depends on.all we've done is push around inanimate objects.
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
and theories like M-theory may very well be the better scientific answer. who knows for sure? its a matter of what you choose to believe. and whether your belief is irrational or not, belief in a "creater God" or forces with a consciousness are not necessarily irrational. or the idea that we are all the same consciousness, etc...
justforwatchingcraps 2 years ago
i say both 2
faszika 2 years ago
As far as a God existing in a higher Dimension, If there is one, there is likely to be Billions of them. So Religion is stil Evil. A Multiverse does not need Religion does it?
SpacedTime 2 years ago
To say religion is evil is a gross oversimplification. God might exist completely seperate from any religion, and humans would still be creating religion as well as other social and cultural barriers that create the circumstance for "evil." The multiverse as presented here can only be judged by humans in our less than objective positions as evil or good. We have very little certainty of the reasons for the organization of the universe, but we know that it is here and we are somewhere in it.
cavemancyborg 2 years ago 5
i feel the same way and that is the BEST way someone has ever EXPRESSED this point of view! Thank u for that :)
Jagdeepkaler 2 years ago
Rob, I just screamed at the screen in total frustration. Why do people think that the world has been tuned to fit us? It hasn't. This world is not all that habitable, Blistering Dry desert where we have to bring our own water, and frozen wilds of Polar regions where nothing will grow?
We are the ones who have adapted to the world, not the world changing to fit us.
The Universe is not made for us, it is not a friendly place.
SpacedTime 2 years ago 3
If anything, this universe is tuned for the creation of black holes... humans (and all life) are just byproducts of stardust.
infinity730 2 years ago
Right! Have you read 'Time' By Stephen Baxter? In his book a character travels through time in such enormous leaps that he sees the end of our solar system and all life which has expanding and finding resources on other planets and been harvesting the suns powers and all has burned out until they end up Mining Black Holes for their energy.
It's a cool concept, but even that can only last for so long.
I thought you were going to say Black Holes are Gods little pockets or something. lol
SpacedTime 2 years ago
oh wow a song. have it as a separate download? what about the notation? =P
Mistainu 2 years ago
This song is going to be stuck in my head all day.
guitardude1230 2 years ago
I picked a bad time to watch this. I'm like really tired. I didn't really catch any of it.
dkamm65 2 years ago
Rob, I find your videos amazing, especially how you can take a step back and present a heated topic such as God or the Multiverse in an impartial light. It is a shame that enlightened individuals that realize that science an religion are not more common amongst us. The concept of God and the Multiverse opens many posibilities in addition to them being the same. Namely: Is God a 10th dimensional being OR is God one of the variables in one of our lower dimensions which exits in some universes?
Dreznin 2 years ago
yay first! and btw. rob. u're the best!!
itskelvinkkc 2 years ago