Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Does multiverse theory eliminate the need for a God/Creator?

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by planetearth)
    The Universe itself is needed for those quantum particles to come into existence.

    Without a dimensional reality for them to exist in, they cannot exist.

    Therefore, they are caused by the very existence of the Universe, which theists argue was created by God.
    How can god, an immaterial entity, have any effect on the material world, though? I'm yet to hear a logically consistent answer to this problem.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    http://quran.com/19/35
    When He decrees an affair, He only says to it, "Be," and it is.
    Supernatural causes do not need physical mechanisms by definition.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    People are so dumb.

    If you can say "but why?" to the statement, which you can do for EVERYTHING, then it has not refuted the idea of God.

    God is how some people explain the step before ENTER-ANY-****ING-STEP-HERE.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ricky116)
    People are so dumb.

    If you can say "but why?" to the statement, which you can do for EVERYTHING, then it has not refuted the idea of God.

    God is how some people explain the step before ENTER-ANY-****ING-STEP-HERE.
    It is impossible to refute the idea of God directly & empirically as you are trapped in this universe bubble, and God is outside it. You can only use the effects of God ; God's causing of certain events to happen eg the big bang, the creation of life, miracles, prophecies, scripture etc
    "But how" is probably a better question than "but why" for a creation discussion. Effects have causes. If science cannot find a physical cause for a phenomenon, the cause is supernatural (I know I've said this several times now). Claiming something to be uncaused is just a getaway from believing in God, and if you dont want to come to terms with a belief you dont find comfortable then that's entirely your problem. Anyhow, to claim that effects do not necessarily have causes would throw out a central axiom to science as a whole. As Richard Dickerson said "Science, fundamentally, is a game. It is a game with one overriding and defining rule. Rule No. 1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural."

    ... but shouldnt this go in the "Does God exist" thread?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    It is impossible to refute the idea of God directly & empirically as you are trapped in this universe bubble, and God is outside it. You can only use the effects of God ; God's causing of certain events to happen eg the big bang, the creation of life, miracles, prophecies, scripture etc
    It's a shame that there doesn't seem to be any particular reason for God to have been behind those things. That is, the ones that happened at all.

    "But how" is probably a better question than "but why" for a creation discussion. Effects have causes.
    The 'effects have causes' thing comes up a lot. I haven't ever seen it justified.

    If science cannot find a physical cause for a phenomenon, the cause is supernatural (I know I've said this several times now).
    A curious statement. Fortunately, I suppose, there hasn't ever been anything that's turned out to be supernatural, and there is no reason to think there ever will be.

    In any case, your statement is plain wrong. Consider a group of humans placed in a massive self-sustaining biodome. It has completely black walls (miles in the sky, nowhere nearby), but with artificial lights high above where they can reach and some kind of inhospitable terrain to keep them from reaching the edges. The lights circle the top to somewhat mimic the behaviour of our own sun and the stars.

    These people live together and have children, but tell their children nothing but some very basic scientific ideas. After a few generations, there is no knowledge save these basic concepts, and they may go from there themselves.

    This society can never gain any information about the outside world. There is no reason for them to even think there is one. For lack of resources, it cannot study the lights in the sky, and it cannot get to the edges of the world because of the terrain problems. They conclude that their world was created by a God many years ago, that it is flat, and that it floats through a void with nothing outside it.

    But they're wrong, there is no supernatural agent at work. They cannot access any information about the outside world with which to correct their theories, but does not mean there isn't more out there, and it certainly doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is the only way to explain their situation.

    Claiming something to be uncaused is just a getaway from believing in God, and if you dont want to come to terms with a belief you dont find comfortable then that's entirely your problem.
    Again, the 'I can only think of effects that have causes therefore all effects have causes therefore there is an effect that had no cause therefore God' argument is somewhat overused. It doesn't even make sense. Even if all effects do have causes, the 'therefore God' part is intellectually stunted.

    Anyhow, to claim that effects do not necessarily have causes would throw out a central axiom to science as a whole.
    I suppose there is some truth in this, though not to the extent that you seem to believe. Are you aware that elements of quantum mechanics show, as far as we can tell, true random behaviour? We may extrapolate to almost deterministic effects on the macroscale, but events on the quantum scale really do not follow that rule.

    It also doesn't take account of (for instance) a Universe that is infinite (or circular) in time, in which case all events could have causes but there would be no first cause.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    In any case, your statement is plain wrong. Consider a group of humans placed in a massive self-sustaining biodome.
    They would be right to assume that somebody or something had placed them in the biodome. They did not just appear in the biodome which also appeared of its own accord. I'm imagining this is going to be an experiment performed by humans on humans, so if they look around they might see clues that the biodome had been constructed by beings like themselves.. a greasy fingerprint perhaps. True, relying on such evidence is not going to help them reach any conclusion as to why they were created & by who exactly but it is still obvious that they were created.

    (Original post by dring)
    This society can never gain any information about the outside world. There is no reason for them to even think there is one. For lack of resources, it cannot study the lights in the sky, and it cannot get to the edges of the world because of the terrain problems. They conclude that their world was created by a God many years ago, that it is flat, and that it floats through a void with nothing outside it.
    But there are agents outside the biodome. If the agents did not interfere in any way or make themselves known to the inhabitants, then your point about their not having to believe in anything outside it is 100% fair enough. But suppose if one of the agents outside the biodome (they made it so they know how to get in), sent a message via (OK i guess you probably dont believe in the angel Gabriel so I will have to think of another example) a laser projector to one of the humans inside the biodome. The message explains to the human that the biodome was created and that their job is to tell all the other inhabitants to obey the creator(s). The message includes prophecies that are fulfilled in due time, knowledge about the biodome that will be discovered in due time and the human messenger is given an iphone to show the other humans that the power and knowledge of the creator is far above theirs. (Assume materials for making an iphone were not available in the biodome) Would they then need to doubt that their biodome was created? No, they have all the positive evidence, and do not need to find evidence to falsify all the other imaginary stories that they had come up with.

    (Original post by dring)
    But they're wrong, there is no supernatural agent at work. They cannot access any information about the outside world with which to correct their theories, but does not mean there isn't more out there, and it certainly doesn't mean that a supernatural explanation is the only way to explain their situation.
    There is an agent outside the dome. True, it is not a supernatural one but it does not require a massive stretch of the imagination to see that a situation with a different kind of creator could well exist. Yes, there are many ways to explain the situation but only one is true and that is that the biodome was created.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    Again, the 'I can only think of effects that have causes therefore all effects have causes therefore there is an effect that had no cause therefore God' argument is somewhat overused. It doesn't even make sense. Even if all effects do have causes, the 'therefore God' part is intellectually stunted.
    The cause/effect thing is an axiom. It is an imaginary idea used to justify more complex statements in science & maths. You cannot rationally find an absolute proof for a statement without reducing it to the axiom e.g. 1+1=2 is an imaginary statement that most mathematical proofs will trace back to. To change an axiom, you will have to reconstruct the whole philosophical system with which you reason. That includes the scientific methods used to establish the existence of the phenomenon in question.

    Therefore the need for a God/Creator has not been made obsolete by multiverse theory.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    They would be right to assume that somebody or something had placed them in the biodome. They did not just appear in the biodome which also appeared of its own accord. I'm imagining this is going to be an experiment performed by humans on humans, so if they look around they might see clues that the biodome had been constructed by beings like themselves.. a greasy fingerprint perhaps. True, relying on such evidence is not going to help them reach any conclusion as to why they were created & by who exactly but it is still obvious that they were created.
    I don't see why they would assume someone had placed them there. There's also a central idea that there's nothing obviously man-made for them to find.




    But there are agents outside the biodome. If the agents did not interfere in any way or make themselves known to the inhabitants, then your point about their not having to believe in anything outside it is 100% fair enough. But suppose if one of the agents outside the biodome (they made it so they know how to get in), sent a message via (OK i guess you probably dont believe in the angel Gabriel so I will have to think of another example) a laser projector to one of the humans inside the biodome. The message explains to the human that the biodome was created and that their job is to tell all the other inhabitants to obey the creator(s). The message includes prophecies that are fulfilled in due time, knowledge about the biodome that will be discovered in due time and the human messenger is given an iphone to show the other humans that the power and knowledge of the creator is far above theirs. (Assume materials for making an iphone were not available in the biodome) Would they then need to doubt that their biodome was created? No, they have all the positive evidence, and do not need to find evidence to falsify all the other imaginary stories that they had come up with.
    Sure, if there was evidence that the biodome was created by some outside force, it would be reasonable to believe that. Just like our real world, there is no such evidence




    There is an agent outside the dome. True, it is not a supernatural one but it does not require a massive stretch of the imagination to see that a situation with a different kind of creator could well exist. Yes, there are many ways to explain the situation but only one is true and that is that the biodome was created.
    I'm not sure what your point is here. It's irrelevant that the biodome was created, this isn't a thought experiment addressing that scenario. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no particular reason that there must be a creator for our universe, so these parts of the analogy do not match up.

    The point is that your assumption that 'if we can't work it out, it must be supernatural' is incorrect.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chucklefiend)
    Creationists used to claim that life was too complex to have come into existence by pure chance alone, and that consequently, it must have been intelligently designed by an omniscient creator. In fact, bewilderingly, some still do. However, given the sheer body of evidence in support of the theory of evolution by natural selection, the more learned and liberal theist has moved on.

    Rather than focusing on the complexity of life itself, they highlight the astronomical odds of the laws of physics being finely tuned to allow the existence of such complex, self-replicating, life. Now if there is just one finite universe, ours, they have a point. If we were to take one atom to represent our universe, there would not be enough atoms left in the whole of the rest of our universe to represent the other possible universes in which life would not be possible. It really is incomprehensibly improbable for a universe capable of sustaining life to exist, yet here we are. It is for this reason that, in my opinion, if one is going to be an atheist they must also postulate the existence of a multiverse.

    This quote from an article published by MIT sums up my sentiments quite concisely:

    “In the multiverse nature gets a lot of tries — the universe is an experiment that’s repeated over and over again, each time with slightly different physical laws, or even vastly different physical laws”

    http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/m...universes.html

    In a infinite multiverse, life ceases to be a miracle and becomes an inivitability. Thus, in my view God becomes obsolete.

    What do you think?
    It's not the developing of something into life that I have a problem with (although its quite improbable )

    It's the beggining, where did matter/energy come from?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    The cause/effect thing is an axiom. It is an imaginary idea used to justify more complex statements in science & maths. You cannot rationally find an absolute proof for a statement without reducing it to the axiom e.g. 1+1=2 is an imaginary statement that most mathematical proofs will trace back to. To change an axiom, you will have to reconstruct the whole philosophical system with which you reason. That includes the scientific methods used to establish the existence of the phenomenon in question.

    Therefore the need for a God/Creator has not been made obsolete by multiverse theory.
    Are you living, say, about 150 years ago? You really need to get with the times, cause and effect is so last century

    Do you know anything about quantum mechanics?

    I think your assumptions about axioms are a little misguided, regardless. Mathematical and physical axioms are not really the same. A mathematical axiom is used to construct a system of mathematical logic. We don't really do the same with physics. Certainly, your axiom of 'effects have causes' is not obviously true, and hasn't been considered such for years.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destroyviruses)
    It's not the developing of something into life that I have a problem with (although its quite improbable )

    It's the beggining, where did matter/energy come from?
    Well, for a start, you can question your assumptions. Most simply, why must there be a beginning? It's perhaps counterintuitive, but there's no obvious reason that there must be one. Two suitable situations would be a circular universe (where time eventually repeats) and an infinite universe (for instance, a series of oscillating 'big bang' events going back forever).

    Interestingly, matter/energy can actually come from nowhere, as evidenced by many quantum mechanical phenomena. There are interesting theories which suggest that certain quantum phenomena, under the right conditions, could bloom into the macroscale.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    I'm not sure what your point is here. It's irrelevant that the biodome was created, this isn't a thought experiment addressing that scenario. As I mentioned in my previous post, there is no particular reason that there must be a creator for our universe, so these parts of the analogy do not match up.
    The point is that the biodome was created. It would be impossible for it to have created itself without there being "something outside" ie they live in a multiverse where their creators lived in a bigger biodome/universe.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    Interestingly, matter/energy can actually come from nowhere, as evidenced by many quantum mechanical phenomena. There are interesting theories which suggest that certain quantum phenomena, under the right conditions, could bloom into the macroscale.
    Does a vacuum space count as nowhere? Because apparently space didnt exist before the big bang.
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dring)
    Well, for a start, you can question your assumptions. Most simply, why must there be a beginning? It's perhaps counterintuitive, but there's no obvious reason that there must be one. Two suitable situations would be a circular universe (where time eventually repeats) and an infinite universe (for instance, a series of oscillating 'big bang' events going back forever).

    Interestingly, matter/energy can actually come from nowhere, as evidenced by many quantum mechanical phenomena. There are interesting theories which suggest that certain quantum phenomena, under the right conditions, could bloom into the macroscale.
    What kind of conditions? More details about the phenomena please I'm interested or references to a book, si vous plais?

    Because things dont just pop up from nowhere!

    Big bangs require mass!
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    The cause/effect thing is an axiom. It is an imaginary idea used to justify more complex statements in science & maths. You cannot rationally find an absolute proof for a statement without reducing it to the axiom e.g. 1+1=2 is an imaginary statement that most mathematical proofs will trace back to. To change an axiom, you will have to reconstruct the whole philosophical system with which you reason. That includes the scientific methods used to establish the existence of the phenomenon in question.

    Therefore the need for a God/Creator has not been made obsolete by multiverse theory.
    They won't trace back to 1+1=2. Maths can be constructed from the axioms of set theory. But these axioms can be changed and the resulting system studied. And that's exactly what mathematicians do! In other cases, a pattern is spotted and that pattern is abstracted by taking as axioms the fundamentals of that pattern. Those axioms are free to change and out of it you get variants on the original pattern (eg, groups, rings, fields).

    But that's maths. Physics is different. For a long time, cause and effect were taken as fundamental (as well as other things like space and time being absolute). But clever people did clever experiments and thought about clever things and realised that these intuition based ideas weren't as clear cut as they seemed. You say "you will have to reconstruct the whole philosophical system with which you reason". Well that's exactly what happened. These were HUGE changes to the way science was done. Doing it the old way is only an approximation.

    Anyway. Question time. Does your intuition tell you that an electron must have an exact position (even if we can't measure it) ? Does your intution tell you that it is impossible for an observation in one place to instantly have an effect on something that's on the other side of the universe? What about an observation having an effect on something that happened millions of years ago?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destroyviruses)
    Big bangs require mass!
    Hmm. In the earliest moments of the universe, nothing had mass. Which is weird. Because it means that everything travelled at the speed of light and that nothing felt the passage of time.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    The cause/effect thing is an axiom. It is an imaginary idea used to justify more complex statements in science & maths. You cannot rationally find an absolute proof for a statement without reducing it to the axiom e.g. 1+1=2 is an imaginary statement that most mathematical proofs will trace back to. To change an axiom, you will have to reconstruct the whole philosophical system with which you reason. That includes the scientific methods used to establish the existence of the phenomenon in question.

    Therefore the need for a God/Creator has not been made obsolete by multiverse theory.
    What need is there for god?
    • 21 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SsEe)
    Hmm. In the earliest moments of the universe, nothing had mass. Which is weird. Because it means that everything travelled at the speed of light and that nothing felt the passage of time.
    What's the singularity then, I thought it was concentrated mass.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tfaska)
    The point is that the biodome was created. It would be impossible for it to have created itself without there being "something outside" ie they live in a multiverse where their creators lived in a bigger biodome/universe.
    Okay, so you've seized upon completely the wrong point because it supports your existing beliefs. Never mind, I suppose.

    I've already pointed out how you're plain wrong (as have others), as evidenced by quantum mechanics. Also plain unnecessary, as would be the case in non-finite or looped universe models.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Destroyviruses)
    What kind of conditions? More details about the phenomena please I'm interested or references to a book, si vous plais?

    Because things dont just pop up from nowhere!

    Big bangs require mass!
    I think I actually read about that in a popular science book, maybe something like 'in search of Scrodinger's cat'.

    However, your next statement is 'because things don't just pop up from nowhere', so it looks awfully like you'll be off to look for this in an effort to draw up some conceited rebuttal to it. If this is your goal, you might be interested in learning about the many ways in which things do pop up from nowhere. Quantum mechanics is basically all about this kind of thing, though it becomes tremendously complex if you look at the detail. You can read all about it on wikipedia - 'quantum foam' is probably basically what you're looking for, but you'll need to read the surrounding articles to understand the principles.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: March 28, 2011
New on TSR

Find out what year 11 is like

Going into year 11? Students who did it last year share what to expect.

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.