There is no need for a level 2 or 3 multiverse. There simply is NO NEED. Anything beyond this universe is absolute pure speculation...not science. Science ends at the initial singularity and ends with the dissolution of matter in the distant future. Time to face it and grow some stones: with the discovery of the initial singularity and the increased expansion cosmology as a field of study has reached it's end. Game over. Time to pack the bags and go home people.
@PeaceAndGloryMB I have no doubt that if these theists and apologists have some more time to follow their superstitions they will one day have the arrogance to do what our best science can´t do yet, to explain the nature of reality. Science is too dumb, anyway. It can´t explain how we are here. Theists, of course, already have all answers: God did it! No research needed, just a deluded brain filled with the need of eternal life.
I wish Dr. Craig could sit in on this conversation. Therer so much wrong with what he says.
WE can throw out the Meta physical postulation called the Multiverse and not throw out God becuase at least we have arguments for the existence of God while we don't have any not one supporting the multiverse.
@KBrimstone [ WE can throw out the Meta physical postulation called the Multiverse and not throw out God becuase at least we have arguments for the existence of God ]
Let´s correct that for you: We can throw out the metaphysical postulation called God because we have no arguments that supports the existence of a brainless mind floating outside time and space and we have reasons to believe that a Multiverse is a coherent hypothesis.
We have reason to believe the multiverse is not coherent, because of the problem of infinite regression. In fact, in the next decade you will see most efforts at the multiverse aimed at proving the possibility of prior infinity. Without that, you end up with God creating the multiverse.
We have two camps, those who look at the facts and postulate a being with mind and power as the most reasonable solution, and those who look at the facts and fight hard to avoid the obvious conclusion.
@Cre8tvMG [because of the problem of infinite regression] If time initiate with the multiverse, there´s no infinite regress problem.
We have two camps, those who think that can produce a deity that will save them from death by bending logic and those who prefer to find answers about the nature of reality instead of inventing magical, never seen minds that can survive and think outside brains and time. I can prove that a fart is the cause of the universe with this sort of ad hoc madness.
@lfzadra First, we already theorize that time is a result of the big bang, and that before the singularity time as a separate dimension is a meaningless concept. This does not negate the ex-nihilo problem for big bang cosmology or multiverse cosmology. Your camp is proposing an eternal nothing beyond time that created the universe. My camp is proposing an eternal Something beyond time that created the universe. I find it hard to see why you feel superior. How did your nothing create something?
@Cre8tvMG [result of the big bang] If time is a result of big bang, then the BB is the uncaused cause of the universe. To ask for a creation moment before time is a contradiction.
[How did your nothing create something?] If the universe begins with time, there´s no time in which the universe is nothing (does not exist). If God created the universe from nothing, then there´s a moment in which the Universe does not exist. If moments are what happens inside time, explain to me how this is possible.
@lfzadra "If the universe begins with time, there´s no time in which the universe is nothing (does not exist)." This is a basic misunderstanding of logic. If the universe contracts back in time to a singularity, and then time itself is formed in the pre-bang phase, what is before that point is either nothing or something. But it is NOT an eternal universe in the bidirectional sense needed for a multiverse.
@Cre8tvMG [This is a basic misunderstanding of logic] Contradiction is not a valid way of doing logic. Quote from your previous post: "we already theorize that time is a result of the big bang". Decide yourself. Time initiate in pre or post BB phase? You can´t have it both ways, especially when is already known that you will shift between both as soon as needed to support the ad hoc assertions that you call "logic".
@lfzadra For example, if you could shoot a ray of light out into space an infinite distance to your right (impossible but humor the analogy) you could not say that ray was bi-directionally infinite, even though it could be infinite in one direction. The fact that the ray has a starting point does NOT mean it continues infinitely to your left: quite the opposite. For TIME to have a beginning does NOT mean the universe has no beginning. There is no logical or scientific connection there.
@Cre8tvMG [bi-directionally infinite] Time does not need to be bi-directional infinite, all it takes is that there´s no T=-1 moment for the Universe. In this case, "the nothing" never existed in reality, in the same sense that there´s no -1 inches in my ruler.
[does NOT mean the universe has no beginning] Please justify your ad hoc jump from "there´s a T=0 moment of reality" from "there´s a T=-1 moment that is the cause of T=0". What exists in T=0 is already the uncaused cause of reality.
@lfzadra You committed one of the classic blunders. The other is only slightly less well known: never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
@lfzadra Secondly, we don't propose God because we need a magical source of eternal life. We propose God because he fits the facts, regardless of how it affects us. I would propose God even if I was sure I or loved ones would spend eternity in hell - clearly I can't be doing it from some selfish motivation. Unlike most atheists, Christians have to be subservient to facts and reason, because we believe in a rational and just God who won't let us settle for crappy reasoning.
@Cre8tvMG [because we believe in a rational and just God] If the belief in a jew born from a virgin that rose from the dead because he is the so of god is rational, you don´t know what rationality is. Show me the abundance of prominent and vocal deists philosophers out there that should exist if the belief in a deity is an acceptable topic in philosophy nowadays. There´s none. All you have are noisy christians bastardizing philosophy in order to raise Jesus from the dead.
You do know Hugh Ross is a theistic evolutionist right? Also he has some other strange (unsupported) theological beliefs as well... I find it very disturbing that some Christians are compromising on the most important book of the Bible, it undermines everything they believe and they don't even know it. Here is an article clearly explaining how evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity (remove the spaces):
h ttp://creation.c om/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution
There is no need for a level 2 or 3 multiverse. There simply is NO NEED. Anything beyond this universe is absolute pure speculation...not science. Science ends at the initial singularity and ends with the dissolution of matter in the distant future. Time to face it and grow some stones: with the discovery of the initial singularity and the increased expansion cosmology as a field of study has reached it's end. Game over. Time to pack the bags and go home people.
supobostarman 1 month ago
@PeaceAndGloryMB I have no doubt that if these theists and apologists have some more time to follow their superstitions they will one day have the arrogance to do what our best science can´t do yet, to explain the nature of reality. Science is too dumb, anyway. It can´t explain how we are here. Theists, of course, already have all answers: God did it! No research needed, just a deluded brain filled with the need of eternal life.
lfzadra 3 months ago
I wish Dr. Craig could sit in on this conversation. Therer so much wrong with what he says.
WE can throw out the Meta physical postulation called the Multiverse and not throw out God becuase at least we have arguments for the existence of God while we don't have any not one supporting the multiverse.
KBrimstone 5 months ago
@KBrimstone [ WE can throw out the Meta physical postulation called the Multiverse and not throw out God becuase at least we have arguments for the existence of God ]
Let´s correct that for you: We can throw out the metaphysical postulation called God because we have no arguments that supports the existence of a brainless mind floating outside time and space and we have reasons to believe that a Multiverse is a coherent hypothesis.
lfzadra 3 months ago
We have reason to believe the multiverse is not coherent, because of the problem of infinite regression. In fact, in the next decade you will see most efforts at the multiverse aimed at proving the possibility of prior infinity. Without that, you end up with God creating the multiverse.
We have two camps, those who look at the facts and postulate a being with mind and power as the most reasonable solution, and those who look at the facts and fight hard to avoid the obvious conclusion.
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
@Cre8tvMG [because of the problem of infinite regression] If time initiate with the multiverse, there´s no infinite regress problem.
We have two camps, those who think that can produce a deity that will save them from death by bending logic and those who prefer to find answers about the nature of reality instead of inventing magical, never seen minds that can survive and think outside brains and time. I can prove that a fart is the cause of the universe with this sort of ad hoc madness.
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra First, we already theorize that time is a result of the big bang, and that before the singularity time as a separate dimension is a meaningless concept. This does not negate the ex-nihilo problem for big bang cosmology or multiverse cosmology. Your camp is proposing an eternal nothing beyond time that created the universe. My camp is proposing an eternal Something beyond time that created the universe. I find it hard to see why you feel superior. How did your nothing create something?
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
@Cre8tvMG [result of the big bang] If time is a result of big bang, then the BB is the uncaused cause of the universe. To ask for a creation moment before time is a contradiction.
[How did your nothing create something?] If the universe begins with time, there´s no time in which the universe is nothing (does not exist). If God created the universe from nothing, then there´s a moment in which the Universe does not exist. If moments are what happens inside time, explain to me how this is possible.
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra "If the universe begins with time, there´s no time in which the universe is nothing (does not exist)." This is a basic misunderstanding of logic. If the universe contracts back in time to a singularity, and then time itself is formed in the pre-bang phase, what is before that point is either nothing or something. But it is NOT an eternal universe in the bidirectional sense needed for a multiverse.
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
@Cre8tvMG [This is a basic misunderstanding of logic] Contradiction is not a valid way of doing logic. Quote from your previous post: "we already theorize that time is a result of the big bang". Decide yourself. Time initiate in pre or post BB phase? You can´t have it both ways, especially when is already known that you will shift between both as soon as needed to support the ad hoc assertions that you call "logic".
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra For example, if you could shoot a ray of light out into space an infinite distance to your right (impossible but humor the analogy) you could not say that ray was bi-directionally infinite, even though it could be infinite in one direction. The fact that the ray has a starting point does NOT mean it continues infinitely to your left: quite the opposite. For TIME to have a beginning does NOT mean the universe has no beginning. There is no logical or scientific connection there.
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Cre8tvMG [bi-directionally infinite] Time does not need to be bi-directional infinite, all it takes is that there´s no T=-1 moment for the Universe. In this case, "the nothing" never existed in reality, in the same sense that there´s no -1 inches in my ruler.
[does NOT mean the universe has no beginning] Please justify your ad hoc jump from "there´s a T=0 moment of reality" from "there´s a T=-1 moment that is the cause of T=0". What exists in T=0 is already the uncaused cause of reality.
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra You committed one of the classic blunders. The other is only slightly less well known: never go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
@lfzadra Secondly, we don't propose God because we need a magical source of eternal life. We propose God because he fits the facts, regardless of how it affects us. I would propose God even if I was sure I or loved ones would spend eternity in hell - clearly I can't be doing it from some selfish motivation. Unlike most atheists, Christians have to be subservient to facts and reason, because we believe in a rational and just God who won't let us settle for crappy reasoning.
Cre8tvMG 4 weeks ago
@Cre8tvMG [because we believe in a rational and just God] If the belief in a jew born from a virgin that rose from the dead because he is the so of god is rational, you don´t know what rationality is. Show me the abundance of prominent and vocal deists philosophers out there that should exist if the belief in a deity is an acceptable topic in philosophy nowadays. There´s none. All you have are noisy christians bastardizing philosophy in order to raise Jesus from the dead.
lfzadra 4 weeks ago
You do know Hugh Ross is a theistic evolutionist right? Also he has some other strange (unsupported) theological beliefs as well... I find it very disturbing that some Christians are compromising on the most important book of the Bible, it undermines everything they believe and they don't even know it. Here is an article clearly explaining how evolution is completely incompatible with Christianity (remove the spaces):
h ttp://creation.c om/10-dangers-of-theistic-evolution
There is more.
Devin82m 5 months ago