should all good athiest sceintist should believe in......

[Stu Pidasso]

multiple universes?

The Anthropic Principle basically says that everything about the universe, including unrelated physical laws and constaints, are geared toward making life possible.

This link (http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/rossuk/c-anthro.htm) gives the following examples

" Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life.

The very nature of water--so vital to life--is something of a mystery (a point noticed by one of the forerunners of anthropic reasoning in the nineteenth century, Harvard biologist Lawrence Henderson). Unique amongst the molecules, water is lighter in its solid than liquid form: Ice floats. If it did not, the oceans would freeze from the bottom up and earth would now be covered with solid ice. This property in turn is traceable to the unique properties of the hydrogen atom.

The synthesis of carbon--the vital core of all organic molecules--on a significant scale involves what scientists view as an astonishing coincidence in the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism. This ratio makes it possible for carbon-12 to reach an excited state of exactly 7.65 MeV at the temperature typical of the centre of stars, which creates a resonance involving helium-4, beryllium-8, and carbon-12--allowing the necessary binding to take place during a tiny window of opportunity 10-17 seconds long."

There is a lot of circular reasoning in the Anthropic Principle nevertheless it still appears our universe isn't the result of random chance - unless of course, there are multiple universes. If enough universes are created, then its a lock that at least one of them would end up "just right" like ours is.

In this light a multiple universe model seems to be a simpler explanation than a single universe model.

Stu

[vhawk01]

I've never, ever understood why people find the anthropic principle to be any sort of convincing argument whatsoever. I must be missing something. There are BILLIONS of events that must have gone EXACTLY correct for me to be here typing this sentence. This impresses only me and maybe my future kids. Certainly not my parents.

[yukoncpa]

In the beginning, there was nothing - except the uncertainty principle - which says basically that everything is uncertain. So nothing became unstable and bubbled and frothed and formed many ten dimensional bubbles. In our particular universe, six collapsed and four remained. The big bang, and consequently our universe ensued. Now, before you begin to wonder about the conservation of matter and energy, no worries. We are merely components of nothing. Just like 1 plus negative 1 equals nothing, and just like one and negative one are components of nothing, so are we.

If you take all the energy and mass and call it positive, then take all the gravity and call it negative, then it all exactly cancels out and we have nothing. We are merely components, illusory or not, of nothing

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
In the beginning, there was nothing - except the uncertainty principle - which says basically that everything is uncertain. So nothing became unstable and bubbled and frothed and formed many ten dimensional bubbles. In our particular universe, six collapsed and four remained. The big bang, and consequently our universe ensued. Now, before you begin to wonder about the conservation of matter and energy, no worries. We are merely components of nothing. Just like 1 plus negative 1 equals nothing, and just like one and negative one are components of nothing, so are we.

If you take all the energy and mass and call it positive, then take all the gravity and call it negative, then it all exactly cancels out and we have nothing. We are merely components, illusory or not, of nothing

[/ QUOTE ]

But why is our nothing more something-like than nothing-nothing?

[David Sklansky]

" Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life."

Wait a second. There is a problem here. And it is NOT the points made by the silly atheists. Rather it is this: GOD doesn't have to worry about these constraints. Do you think he needs to make the weak force 1028 times the force of gravity to have water or humans?

If your argument has merit (a ticklish question that I have not yet answered for myself) it would only be an argument for that six year old from the fifth dimension playing with his chemistry set. Or for the god of Einstein and my father. A god who is constrained by laws more powerful than he is. Not the one who will decide on your afterlife.

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
But why is our nothing more something-like than nothing-nothing?



[/ QUOTE ] I'm not a philosopher, so I don't know. The number one is something. The number negative-one is somthing, they add up to nothing.

[furyshade]

it is a common missconceptions that neutral=nothing, all this adds up to neutral force, NOT to nothing; and even that is flawed since space and time dont add up to nothing, they are simply the same thing viewed from differnet reference frames, they are definitely something

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
it is a common missconceptions that neutral=nothing, all this adds up to neutral force, NOT to nothing; and even that is flawed since space and time dont add up to nothing, they are simply the same thing viewed from differnet reference frames, they are definitely something


[/ QUOTE ] Fine. All I pointed out was that there was no violation of the law of conservation of matter and energy. I was only being cute otherwise - not really trying to make any inference.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait a second. There is a problem here. And it is NOT the points made by the silly atheists. Rather it is this: GOD doesn't have to worry about these constraints. Do you think he needs to make the weak force 1028 times the force of gravity to have water or humans?


[/ QUOTE ]

Hi David,

I guess what I am asking is if we assume God doesn't exist then doesn't it make the most sense to put our faith in a multi-universe model?

Stu

[yukoncpa]

[ QUOTE ]
Hi David,

I guess what I am asking is if we assume God doesn't exist then doesn't it make the most sense to put our faith in a multi-universe model?

Stu


[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I hate to stick my neck out for fear of being called a moron from David, but I'll say that the multi-universe model is the only one I’m aware of for a natural ( non - intelligent ) creation of the universe, of course, I’m not an expert and could be wrong but it doesn’t matter much unless someone can show the following wrong by providing additional evidence:

There is a 50/50 chance that the universe was intelligently created( even if perhaps by some dipwad that didn’t even realize he was creating it) or non-intelligently created ( meaning that the whole thing resulted from some natural phenomena that was non- sentient). Of course, I'm open to suggestions one way or the other that would change my line. It seems to me like a brain comes after nature, so my line would shift more towards nature. . . but wait, what comes first here, the chicken or the egg?

edit - I like to bounce around ideas on these forums, whether my ideas are good or not, but David stifles the sharing of ideas among all but the super geniuses, by calling people morons. I understand his position that you shouldn't express an opinion unless you know what you are talking about, but often I don't know what I am talking about and just want a friendly discussion of my opinions without being called a name. Frequently I just post something, knowing that I may be wrong, but wanting to learn something new.

[FortunaMaximus]

Neither. But linearly the chicken comes first, obviously.

I mean, infinity is a provable concept in mathematics, and there are numerous examples.

I tend to think this universe is just an expression of an very complicated mathematical equation. All those things about "coincidences" are illusory because since it's happened, it's a fundamental expression of a certain set of mathematics.

Chickens keep laying eggs and those eggs turn into chickens. And the process keeps going.

An omega intelligence or God would still be limited by perpetual infinite growth and that there are still unexpressed equations and sets.

Yeah, a multiverse model is viable, but much like quantum mechanics and theory, we're just beginning to get the inklings of how such a concept could be expressed.

What's unique is that mathematics can exist independently of life and you can create anything you want with it. Which doesn't necessarily lean one towards intelligent creation, but allows the possibility to approach 1.

[kurto]

FYI - you have no basis for saying this: "There is a 50/50 chance that the universe was intelligently created"

that implies both answers are equally probable. That would imply that the evidence and arguments for both sides are equal. Most of the arguments for a designer come from the religious who are basing their arguments mostly on Faith.

It would be correct to say it is one or the other. But not correct to say each is just as probable.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
I guess what I am asking is if we assume God doesn't exist then doesn't it make the most sense to put our faith in a multi-universe model?


[/ QUOTE ]

The answer is no. A multi-universe model might make the most sense, but that is not implied by a "no God" assumption. Rather it can only be justified according to the best or most likely extrapolations from theoretical physics and cosmology.

Your proposition is a non sequitur. The non-existence of God (or unicorns, or gremlins, etc) is a default position in the absence of coherent definitions and/or evidence. Thus it can imply nothing at all about what does exist.

[madnak]

Since nobody has said it yet...

"Amazing," said the puddle, "this hole I'm in fits me perfectly!"

[hitch1978]

Would a multi-universe model, if proved correct tommorow, have the theists saying, 'well it seems much more likely we are just a fluke.'? I think not, and the arguement works equally well in reverse.

I have no interest in trying to prove a point athiest vs thiest. Just a side of the arguement that is often forgotten in these discusions.

[FortunaMaximus]

No, they'd just still attribute it as a bigger mystery of God. If anything, theists are implacable on that sticking point.

Lack of imagination, I think. The standard answer to anything is "Oh, but it's God's plan.", no matter what is discovered. Makes it easy for theists to stick to faith instead of being put upon for burden of proof.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
No, they'd just still attribute it as a bigger mystery of God. If anything, theists are implacable on that sticking point.

Lack of imagination, I think. The standard answer to anything is "Oh, but it's God's plan.", no matter what is discovered. Makes it easy for theists to stick to faith instead of being put upon for burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire mon frere (forgive the lack of an accent mark on my first "e" in frere). We might have more imagination. What if the whole universe and the earth is a work in progress. Why does God have to be a creator like a scientist or an engineer when he created Earth. What if he's more like an artistic creator. If that is so then doesn't he have a right to all kinds of artistic expression and poetic license. So you either fit into his picture on his terms or you're out. Sort of like a painter blotting out a part of a picture he doesn't like where the colors just aren't right. Of course, God is quite the artist since his is a living eternal work of art. Think he's trying to make us his masterpiece?

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, they'd just still attribute it as a bigger mystery of God. If anything, theists are implacable on that sticking point.

Lack of imagination, I think. The standard answer to anything is "Oh, but it's God's plan.", no matter what is discovered. Makes it easy for theists to stick to faith instead of being put upon for burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire mon frere (forgive the lack of an accent mark on my first "e" in frere). We might have more imagination. What if the whole universe and the earth is a work in progress. Why does God have to be a creator like a scientist or an engineer when he created Earth. What if he's more like an artistic creator. If that is so then doesn't he have a right to all kinds of artistic expression and poetic license. So you either fit into his picture on his terms or you're out. Sort of like a painter blotting out a part of a picture he doesn't like where the colors just aren't right. Of course, God is quite the artist since his is a living eternal work of art. Think he's trying to make us his masterpiece?

[/ QUOTE ]

More that the masterpiece is developing itself. I have to concede that at least some Christians have imagination, but I'm thinking mostly of those who believe blindly and don't question and quest for more knowledge and understanding.

This planet and this universe could have been created, but there's an awful lot of randomness and quantum weirdness not to attribute at least some sway and things not known yet in his plan.

It may not be fit or fold, but everything's there for a reason and there is a logical progression.

I don't think such a being would fully know his art, but be quite proficient at it and still have learning to do. That seems to be the most just of all possibilities. If it's a creation, it is truly a gorgeous one. It's the moral diversity that makes me wonder sometimes.

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, they'd just still attribute it as a bigger mystery of God. If anything, theists are implacable on that sticking point.

Lack of imagination, I think. The standard answer to anything is "Oh, but it's God's plan.", no matter what is discovered. Makes it easy for theists to stick to faith instead of being put upon for burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire mon frere (forgive the lack of an accent mark on my first "e" in frere). We might have more imagination. What if the whole universe and the earth is a work in progress. Why does God have to be a creator like a scientist or an engineer when he created Earth. What if he's more like an artistic creator. If that is so then doesn't he have a right to all kinds of artistic expression and poetic license. So you either fit into his picture on his terms or you're out. Sort of like a painter blotting out a part of a picture he doesn't like where the colors just aren't right. Of course, God is quite the artist since his is a living eternal work of art. Think he's trying to make us his masterpiece?

[/ QUOTE ]

More that the masterpiece is developing itself. I have to concede that at least some Christians have imagination, but I'm thinking mostly of those who believe blindly and don't question and quest for more knowledge and understanding.

This planet and this universe could have been created, but there's an awful lot of randomness and quantum weirdness not to attribute at least some sway and things not known yet in his plan.

It may not be fit or fold, but everything's there for a reason and there is a logical progression.

I don't think such a being would fully know his art, but be quite proficient at it and still have learning to do. That seems to be the most just of all possibilities. If it's a creation, it is truly a gorgeous one. It's the moral diversity that makes me wonder sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's something that won't fit or fold, but its interesting though not totally relevant to this thread unless it could be considered another universe. I was poking around in the library today and came across a book called "Where God Lives" by Melvin Morse M.D. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet but I just pulled out an interesting quote he makes under the subchapter Universal Communication: "Now I know that many memories are embedded in the universal energy pattern and that we access them through our right temporal lobe. One of the children I studied summed it up nicely. When I asked him where he went during his NDE, he said, "I went out there where everything is. I could see everything and talk to everything because it's all around us all the time, we just can't see it most of the time.
When I think of what he said, it becomes easy to understand ghosts and angels."

[hitch1978]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, they'd just still attribute it as a bigger mystery of God. If anything, theists are implacable on that sticking point.

Lack of imagination, I think. The standard answer to anything is "Oh, but it's God's plan.", no matter what is discovered. Makes it easy for theists to stick to faith instead of being put upon for burden of proof.

[/ QUOTE ]

Au contraire mon frere (forgive the lack of an accent mark on my first "e" in frere). We might have more imagination. What if the whole universe and the earth is a work in progress. Why does God have to be a creator like a scientist or an engineer when he created Earth. What if he's more like an artistic creator. If that is so then doesn't he have a right to all kinds of artistic expression and poetic license. So you either fit into his picture on his terms or you're out. Sort of like a painter blotting out a part of a picture he doesn't like where the colors just aren't right. Of course, God is quite the artist since his is a living eternal work of art. Think he's trying to make us his masterpiece?

[/ QUOTE ]

More that the masterpiece is developing itself. I have to concede that at least some Christians have imagination, but I'm thinking mostly of those who believe blindly and don't question and quest for more knowledge and understanding.

This planet and this universe could have been created, but there's an awful lot of randomness and quantum weirdness not to attribute at least some sway and things not known yet in his plan.

It may not be fit or fold, but everything's there for a reason and there is a logical progression.

I don't think such a being would fully know his art, but be quite proficient at it and still have learning to do. That seems to be the most just of all possibilities. If it's a creation, it is truly a gorgeous one. It's the moral diversity that makes me wonder sometimes.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well here's something that won't fit or fold, but its interesting though not totally relevant to this thread unless it could be considered another universe. I was poking around in the library today and came across a book called "Where God Lives" by Melvin Morse M.D. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet but I just pulled out an interesting quote he makes under the subchapter Universal Communication: "Now I know that many memories are embedded in the universal energy pattern and that we access them through our right temporal lobe. One of the children I studied summed it up nicely. When I asked him where he went during his NDE, he said, "I went out there where everything is. I could see everything and talk to everything because it's all around us all the time, we just can't see it most of the time.
When I think of what he said, it becomes easy to understand ghosts and angels."

[/ QUOTE ]

In no particular order -

OMG

LOL

WTF

[FortunaMaximus]

[ QUOTE ]
"I went out there where everything is. I could see everything and talk to everything because it's all around us all the time, we just can't see it most of the time.
When I think of what he said, it becomes easy to understand ghosts and angels."

[/ QUOTE ]

This I do get. Seeing that in an infinite set that anything's possible, he may have understood that his death instinctively doesn't end who he is, but that he may have the capability to exist and grow beyond that.

A reality with quantum laws would render cause and effect useless, but they would be paired with potentiality to reverse in such a worldview. Making ghosts and angels plausible. That's a nice way to look at the world, knowing that comfort, isn't it?

[Splendour]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"I went out there where everything is. I could see everything and talk to everything because it's all around us all the time, we just can't see it most of the time.
When I think of what he said, it becomes easy to understand ghosts and angels."

[/ QUOTE ]

This I do get. Seeing that in an infinite set that anything's possible, he may have understood that his death instinctively doesn't end who he is, but that he may have the capability to exist and grow beyond that.

A reality with quantum laws would render cause and effect useless, but they would be paired with potentiality to reverse in such a worldview. Making ghosts and angels plausible. That's a nice way to look at the world, knowing that comfort, isn't it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I've managed to read the first chapter or so of his book. It seems he's a pediatrician who has written 2 other bestsellers and he's been studying children's NDEs for a while. He says people have a "God Spot" in their right temporal lobe. He also claims from an experience he had that the body is a part of the soul instead of the soul being contained in the body. I'm not passing any opinions or judgments on this, but its an interesting perspective. He says because he has an independent source of income from his own medical practice that he's not as subject to the scientific bias that academia and the scientific community put on people that try to research in this area.

[FortunaMaximus]

What about personal bias? He may, as an individual, be trying to find something bigger than his own mortality, which is something fairly common in human nature. Financial motivation isn't enough to discount the possibility he has a bias. Scientific bias is unique in that it demands very high standards of proof and faith isn't enough.

In science, the distinction between mind and body is an issue that's been debated for the ages. To date, there's been no solution, only speculation and conjecture. And I tend to think the answer will come through science, whether it finds its own solution or confirms what faith and religion hopes for.

And it's the early 21st century and medical science and neurology has only become more developed in the past half century or so.

I'm dubious, but enjoy the read. Perhaps there'll be a confirmed solution to this riddle in decades or centuries, but certainly it doesn't sound as if he's found the answer.

[Splendour]

Well what if we're designed to have the bias and he's just going with the flow ..hehe /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Splendour]

Hey look what I found:http://www.melvinmorse.com/e-tlp.htm

Hopefully the medical community will treat him more gently than they did Semmelweis whose "observations went against the current scientific opinion of the time, which blamed diseases (among other quite odd causes) on an imbalance of the basic "four humours" in the body, a theory known as dyscrasia" -(an excerpt from Wikipedia on Semmelweis.)

[teampursuit]

[ QUOTE ]
" Gravity is roughly 1039 times weaker than electromagnetism. If gravity had been 1033 times weaker than electromagnetism, "stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster."

The nuclear weak force is 1028 times the strength of gravity. Had the weak force been slightly weaker, all the hydrogen in the universe would have been turned to helium (making water impossible, for example).

A stronger nuclear strong force (by as little as 2 percent) would have prevented the formation of protons--yielding a universe without atoms. Decreasing it by 5 percent would have given us a universe without stars.

If the difference in mass between a proton and a neutron were not exactly as it is--roughly twice the mass of an electron--then all neutrons would have become protons or vice versa. Say good-bye to chemistry as we know it--and to life."

Wait a second. There is a problem here. And it is NOT the points made by the silly atheists. Rather it is this: GOD doesn't have to worry about these constraints. Do you think he needs to make the weak force 1028 times the force of gravity to have water or humans?

If your argument has merit (a ticklish question that I have not yet answered for myself) it would only be an argument for that six year old from the fifth dimension playing with his chemistry set. Or for the god of Einstein and my father. A god who is constrained by laws more powerful than he is. Not the one who will decide on your afterlife.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hawking gave a talk (at the Vatican, of all places, around 1986) called something like "How much choice did God have in creating the Universe?". David, you're exactly right, I think, when you say "none".

We are the way we are because things were the way they were.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
The answer is no. A multi-universe model might make the most sense, but that is not implied by a "no God" assumption. Rather it can only be justified according to the best or most likely extrapolations from theoretical physics and cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong Bluebassman,

This isn't a question about physics or cosmology. Although it touches greatly on those things, the realm of this question is philosphy....at least until physics can test for the exsistence alternate universes.

Stu

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The answer is no. A multi-universe model might make the most sense, but that is not implied by a "no God" assumption. Rather it can only be justified according to the best or most likely extrapolations from theoretical physics and cosmology.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you are wrong Bluebassman,

This isn't a question about physics or cosmology. Although it touches greatly on those things, the realm of this question is philosphy....at least until physics can test for the exsistence alternate universes.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Fine. Once we start speculating about a multi-universe, the boundary between physics and philosophy becomes fuzzy. No reason to quibble over that.

Your original proposition is indeed a question of philosophy, and the answer is still no.

[MaxWeiss]

I don't know much about the multiverse theory, but I can tell it it is INFINITELY more likely than god. Multiverses are theorized because they are one explanation that fits the data. God is theorized because he can fit anything and is comforting.

[dragonystic]

you dont necessarily need more than 1 universe. whos to say that this is the first iteration of this universe? it could have flared into existence, with no life flourishing, collapsed on itself, and repeat. until there is life as we know it.

as to your specific question, my answer is no! a good scientist bases his beliefs on the relevant data. just like god, or an afterlife...there is no possible way to determine if there are more universes outside of our own. to believe, atleast with our current knowledge, would be purely faith.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
God is theorized because he can fit anything and is comforting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats exactly how I feel about alternate-universes/ multi-universe models. You can concieve of an alternate universe and imagine it anyway way you want to fit any problem you want. No one can say you're wrong because no one can test for or disprove the existence it.

I'm I wrong to think that way?

I ask the good atheist in this forum. Where is your faith? In the single universe model or the multi-universe model.

Stu

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm I wrong to think that way?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

The many worlds interpretation of quantum events is relevant because it explains certain observations. To put it another way, it suggests that there are other universes connected to our own universe. It's speculation but we may be able to test it eventually. The scientific fact is that we have no idea how many universes there are.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
To put it another way, it suggests that there are other universes connected to our own universe. It's speculation but we may be able to test it eventually. The scientific fact is that we have no idea how many universes there are.

[/ QUOTE ]

You say I'm wrong but in the very next breath agree the multi-universe model is just speculation. Sounds like you're promoting a double standard. Its wrong to take comfort in the speculative existence of a creator, but ok to take comfort in the speculative existence of many worlds, alternate universes, etc.

Madnak, what does your gut tell you is correct. One universe or many?

Stu

[madnak]

My "gut" isn't a valid approach to this question. I'm not indulging you.

Nobody has said it's wrong to take comfort in the speculative existence of a creator, nor has anyone said it's okay to take comfort in the speculative existence of many worlds. Personally? I think it's fine to take comfort in any speculation. Just recognize that it's only speculation and that others may see it differently.

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]

I ask the good atheist in this forum. Where is your faith? In the single universe model or the multi-universe model.

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
You say I'm wrong but in the very next breath agree the multi-universe model is just speculation. Sounds like you're promoting a double standard. Its wrong to take comfort in the speculative existence of a creator, but ok to take comfort in the speculative existence of many worlds, alternate universes, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think that's where the objection to God comes in. I dont think many athiests object to speculation - it's asserting the speculation as a known fact (and then proceeding to make various other deductions and resultant actions) that they object to.

I'm sure most atheists here would object to someone asserting that they know with certainty that the multi-universe model is correct - especially if they then went on to make a whole bunch of moral pronouncements based on that speculation.

[MaxWeiss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
God is theorized because he can fit anything and is comforting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thats exactly how I feel about alternate-universes/ multi-universe models. You can concieve of an alternate universe and imagine it anyway way you want to fit any problem you want. No one can say you're wrong because no one can test for or disprove the existence it.

I'm I wrong to think that way?

I ask the good atheist in this forum. Where is your faith? In the single universe model or the multi-universe model.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

Well again, a multiverse was derived from quantum data. When we derived the physical implications of that the results from the equations mean, multiple universes were one possibility. And it IS testable. Specific quantum effects can be theorized and tested for.

I don't know much about the theory, but I will happily say that if you are right in that it cannot be tested, then you are absolutely right in that it is faith-based to believe it and unscientific. As for "believing" in one or many universes, I have no specific belief. I believe only what can be inferred from the data.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the theory, but I will happily say that if you are right in that it cannot be tested, then you are absolutely right in that it is faith-based to believe it and unscientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something I have been thinking about for the past couple of months is that science will never be able to explain it all. There will always be some point when all we can do is speculate. After a while technology may allow us to move beyond speculation and into hard science. However, eventually we will get to a speculation point that the physical laws of our universe prevent us from passing. Science will never be able to give us a complete world veiw. To have that, we have to have faith in some ideal, some belief or some creator. Thats as true for the atheist as much as it is for the theist.

Stu

[Sephus]

[ QUOTE ]
Science will never be able to give us a complete world veiw. To have that, we have to have faith in some ideal, some belief or some creator.

[/ QUOTE ]
http://img151.imageshack.us/img151/272/image1cc7.jpg




http://img149.imageshack.us/img149/5959/image2bc1.jpg

[Justin A]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't know much about the theory, but I will happily say that if you are right in that it cannot be tested, then you are absolutely right in that it is faith-based to believe it and unscientific.

[/ QUOTE ]

Something I have been thinking about for the past couple of months is that science will never be able to explain it all. There will always be some point when all we can do is speculate. After a while technology may allow us to move beyond speculation and into hard science. However, eventually we will get to a speculation point that the physical laws of our universe prevent us from passing. Science will never be able to give us a complete world veiw. To have that, we have to have faith in some ideal, some belief or some creator. Thats as true for the atheist as much as it is for the theist.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

How you go from science not having all the answers to needing to believe in a creator is beyond me. If it helps you sleep better, by all means make guesses about stuff we can't observe. Also, LOL at saying an imaginary being that you have faith in gives you a complete world view.

[MidGe]

Stu,

[ QUOTE ]
Something I have been thinking about for the past couple of months is that science will never be able to explain it all. There will always be some point when all we can do is speculate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about science not be able to explain it all, religion will never explain any!

[dragonystic]

[ QUOTE ]
Stu,

[ QUOTE ]
Something I have been thinking about for the past couple of months is that science will never be able to explain it all. There will always be some point when all we can do is speculate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry about science not be able to explain it all, religion will never explain any!

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.sxc.hu/pic/m/m/mj/mjw/36128_hammerandnail.jpg