The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[shunyadragon]

Right yet Ellis believes the universe or multiverse was Created by God (http://www.counterbalance.org/ctns-vo/ellis4-body.html). And Vilenkin went over the three major theories - multiverse/inflation, cyclical or expansion from a past static universe. How none of them are possible. http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

And Shuny, you too are serving a religious agenda, because of the teaching of your faith you need to keep the door open for matter and energy being past eternal.

Again, again and again . . .

George Ellis's science is the issue, NOT his religious belies. This is the second time you have misrepresented him, and by and large he agrees with me.

George Ellis believes that it is an open question as to whether the physical existence is eternal or not, and it CAN possibly be either based on the present knowledge of science.

Therefore Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok conclusion of an eternal cyclic universe, or Vilenkin Guth, Krauss, and Hawking's view if the multiverse, and possible universes with a beginning could possibly be true. He does not consider either view in conflict with his beliefs.

[oxmixmudd]

I asked that earlier in the thread, why couldn't the multiverse be "heaven" in which God created this universe? the perceived math and science would be the same from our point of view.

I've asked that before myself of those that look at the multiverse as some sort of challenge to Christian faith. I seems to me the Bible describes at least 3 distinct areas that would fit the modern definition of a universe: Heaven, Hell, and our universe. Paul describes layers to heaven, saying in a vision he was taken to the seventh heaven. If we assume that these statements reflect some aspect of reality described from the vantage point of an ancient worldview and culture, I see no reason they could not be part of what we currently are calling the multi-verse. It would be moving some of that out of the 'supernatural' into something closer to what we would call 'natural', and that may be upsetting to both sides, nevertheless, it seems to me a possibility.

Jim

[Sparko]

I've asked that before myself of those that look at the multiverse as some sort of challenge to Christian faith. I seems to me the Bible describes at least 3 distinct areas that would fit the modern definition of a universe: Heaven, Hell, and our universe. Paul describes layers to heaven, saying in a vision he was taken to the seventh heaven. If we assume that these statements reflect some aspect of reality described from the vantage point of an ancient worldview and culture, I see no reason they could not be part of what we currently are calling the multi-verse. It would be moving some of that out of the 'supernatural' into something closer to what we would call 'natural', and that may be upsetting to both sides, nevertheless, it seems to me a possibility.

Jim

also if there is an infinite multiverse then like I said before all possibilities will eventually become reality, right? So if God is possible then he would exist in the multiverse. And as God, he would create universe(s) and if there were a possible universe created by God in this multiverse then it too would be a reality. And here we are.

[Sparko]

also if there is an infinite multiverse then like I said before all possibilities will eventually become reality, right? So if God is possible then he would exist in the multiverse. And as God, he would create universe(s) and if there were a possible universe created by God in this multiverse then it too would be a reality. And here we are.

On that note:

Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One

ABERDEEN, SD—Gabe Hemsworth, a vocal atheist from Aberdeen, South Dakota, stated in a recent Facebook debate that he completely accepts the multiverse theory that an infinite number of possible universes exist parallel to our own as long as they don’t include the one described in the Bible.

Hemsworth stated that in the past he had used the argument of the “Flying Spaghetti Monster” in debates with Christians to point out the absurdity of their beliefs—but once he discovered the multiverse theory he realized that he, too, believes in a universe that is ruled, governed and possibly even redeemed by a flying monster made of sentient spaghetti. “I have to accept that every possible universe might exist without exception—except, of course, the one described in the Bible—even if that means I accept the Flying Spaghetti Monster as my lord and savior,” Hemsworth said.

The ardent Multiverse proponent went on to state that he readily accepts that a universe governed by Mr. T riding a cyborg ostrich is possible. Also, one with floating, flaming bears instead of stars, one that contains planets full of hairy toasters made out of grape-flavored pudding, a universe that is just one humongous chicken in a bikini, and a universe that is literally a zit wearing a chef’s hat with the “@” symbol tattooed on its face.

“I like to think there is a universe where Richard Dawkins has 20 heads, waffles rain from the sky covered in ice cream, the only plant that grows is pot and weiner dogs are the most socially progressive and advanced animal there is,” Hemsworth said with a cheerful glimmer in his eye. “Also there are only ponies, no horses.”

When asked if this means that the universe outlined in the Bible might be one of these infinite possibilities, Hemsworth scoffed and said, “I am a scientist. I don’t have the luxury of engaging in that kind of wishful thinking.”


http://babylonbee.com/news/atheist-a...-biblical-one/

[oxmixmudd]

Again, again and again . . .

George Ellis's science is the issue, NOT his religious belies. This is the second time you have misrepresented him, and by and large he agrees with me.

George Ellis believes that it is an open question as to whether the physical existence is eternal or not, and it CAN possibly be either based on the present knowledge of science.

Therefore Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok conclusion of an eternal cyclic universe, or Vilenkin Guth, Krauss, and Hawking's view if the multiverse, and possible universes with a beginning could possibly be true. He does not consider either view in conflict with his beliefs.

The point is shuny this is still just speculation. The implications are derived from theory and are mathematical in nature, but they have not been and are unlikely in the foreseeable future to be verified by experiment. Secondarily, I'm not sure how robust the derivations themselves are. Not something for me to decide of course, but they are definitely more than a few layers removed from experimental physics and more out on the fringe of theoretical physics. Interesting ideas worth knowing about, but far from proven.

As I see it, Sparko's point is that you find them appealing for religious reasons and are advocating them more because they support your religious position than because of the robustness of the science, and perhaps also that you are not willing to subject the concepts to the same skepticism you would say my sense that the opening verses of Genesis 1 are consistent with the Big Bang.

Jim

[oxmixmudd]

also if there is an infinite multiverse then like I said before all possibilities will eventually become reality, right? So if God is possible then he would exist in the multiverse. And as God, he would create universe(s) and if there were a possible universe created by God in this multiverse then it too would be a reality. And here we are.

True. I tend to accept the 'new heavens and new earth' described in revelation as possibly just that. A different universe with a very different set of properties and rules that render physical existence paradisical rather than a mixture of good and evil like our current one.

Jim

[shunyadragon]

The point is shuny this is still just speculation. The implications are derived from theory and are mathematical in nature, but they have not been and are unlikely in the foreseeable future to be verified by experiment. Secondarily, I'm not sure how robust the derivations themselves are. Not something for me to decide of course, but they are definitely more than a few layers removed from experimental physics and more out on the fringe of theoretical physics. Interesting ideas worth knowing about, but far from proven.

I disagree that it is 'just speculation,' and I do not believe George Ellis approaches it this casually. There are legitimate scientific hypothesis for the existence of the multiverse based on Quantum Mechanics and math models. I fully understand that the existence of multiverse(s) is are far from falsified that is why I always approach this in terms of a 'possible' multiverse. As I previously indicated I share George Ellis's view that a present lack of a clear hypothesis for Quantum Gravity. I also agree with George Ellis that the question of whether our physical existence is eternal or not remains unanswered.

I strongly object to seer's approach to selective citations of scientists to justify his agenda, and reject off hand the conclusions of Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. I consider the work o the contemporary physicists and cosmologists legitimate science, and yes they at present do not agree. This is indeed science in progress.

As I see it, Sparko's point is that you find them appealing for religious reasons and are advocating them more because they support your religious position than because of the robustness of the science, and perhaps also that you are not willing to subject the concepts to the same skepticism you would say my sense that the opening verses of Genesis 1 are consistent with the Big Bang.

Sparko is making blanket pontifications against the science of physics and cosmology, and scientists without any qualifications. Appealing to religious reasons?!?!?! This is definitely the agenda of seer and Sparko! On the other hand this is bad science. Even though most physicists and cosmologists are atheist/agnostic there is a wide range of beliefs in this field including traditional theists like George Ellis. This is a hookus bogus argument. Science as a matter of fact is robust regardless of the different religious beliefs of scientists. There is no basis for claiming that the science of physics and cosmology of contemporary scientists have a religious agenda.

[Sparko]

I disagree that it is 'just speculation,' and I do not believe George Ellis approaches it this casually. There are legitimate scientific hypothesis for the existence of the multiverse based on Quantum Mechanics and math models. I fully understand that the existence of multiverse(s) is are far from falsified that is why I always approach this in terms of a 'possible' multiverse. As I previously indicated I share George Ellis's view that a present lack of a clear hypothesis for Quantum Gravity. I also agree with George Ellis that the question of whether our physical existence is eternal or not remains unanswered.

I strongly object to seer's approach to selective citations of scientists to justify his agenda, and reject off hand the conclusions of Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. I consider the work o the contemporary physicists and cosmologists legitimate science, and yes they at present do not agree. This is indeed science in progress.



Sparko is making blanket pontifications against the science of physics and cosmology, and scientists without any qualifications. Appealing to religious reasons?!?!?! This is definitely the agenda of seer and Sparko! On the other hand this is bad science. Even though most physicists and cosmologists are atheist/agnostic there is a wide range of beliefs in this field including traditional theists like George Ellis. This is a hookus bogus argument. Science as a matter of fact is robust regardless of the different religious beliefs of scientists. There is no basis for claiming that the science of physics and cosmology of contemporary scientists have a religious agenda.

I haven't argued religion Shunya. Just what Oxmix said: that what you are claiming is mere guesswork and cannot be proven.

[oxmixmudd]

I disagree that it is 'just speculation,' and I do not believe George Ellis approaches it this casually. There are legitimate scientific hypothesis for the existence of the multiverse based on Quantum Mechanics and math models. I fully understand that the existence of multiverse(s) is are far from falsified that is why I always approach this in terms of a 'possible' multiverse. As I previously indicated I share George Ellis's view that a present lack of a clear hypothesis for Quantum Gravity. I also agree with George Ellis that the question of whether our physical existence is eternal or not remains unanswered.

I strongly object to seer's approach to selective citations of scientists to justify his agenda, and reject off hand the conclusions of Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking. I consider the work o the contemporary physicists and cosmologists legitimate science, and yes they at present do not agree. This is indeed science in progress.



Sparko is making blanket pontifications against the science of physics and cosmology, and scientists without any qualifications. Appealing to religious reasons?!?!?! This is definitely the agenda of seer and Sparko! On the other hand this is bad science. Even though most physicists and cosmologists are atheist/agnostic there is a wide range of beliefs in this field including traditional theists like George Ellis. This is a hookus bogus argument. Science as a matter of fact is robust regardless of the different religious beliefs of scientists. There is no basis for claiming that the science of physics and cosmology of contemporary scientists have a religious agenda.

Scientific speculation based on current theory is not 'science' per se. It is the formulation of a hypothesis based on some theory and in some cases other hypothesis. It is the first step of science, but can't be treated with the same gravitas as hypothesis and theory that have undergone some or extensive testing.

And your response indicates you aren't quite grasping the difference between the scientists developing the hypothesis being motivated by religious reasons and a person finding another scientists hypothesis appealing for religious reasons. The point I made is not that the hypothesis is somehow not legitimate, but rather that your focus on this specific hypothesis importance stems from your own religious belief. That this hypothesis is more apealing to you than other hypothesis that do not lend themselves to an infinitely old universe because your own religious beliefs claim the universe is itself without beginning and end.

Further I don't fault you for that. We all gravitate to ideas that confirm what we believe. But it is important to understand one's own potential lack of objectivity in instances like this.

Does that help clarify my point?


Jim

[shunyadragon]

Scientific speculation based on current theory is not 'science' per se. It is the formulation of a hypothesis based on some theory and in some cases other hypothesis. It is the first step of science, but can't be treated with the same gravitas as hypothesis and theory that have undergone some or extensive testing.

And your response indicates you aren't quite grasping the difference between the scientists developing the hypothesis being motivated by religious reasons and a person finding another scientists hypothesis appealing for religious reasons. The point I made is not that the hypothesis is somehow not legitimate, but rather that your focus on this specific hypothesis importance stems from your own religious belief. That this hypothesis is more apealing to you than other hypothesis that do not lend themselves to an infinitely old universe because your own religious beliefs claim the universe is itself without beginning and end.

Further I don't fault you for that. We all gravitate to ideas that confirm what we believe. But it is important to understand one's own potential lack of objectivity in instances like this.

Does that help clarify my point?


Jim

Actually no, but I may respond more specifically. I have no particular religious agenda in this thread nor any other concerning the physics and cosmology of the origins o our universe nor possible other universes, nor the possible multiverse. I simply am arguing from the perspective of the different theories and hypothesis of the scientist. From what I have read over the years, the scientist cited in this thread do not base their theories and hypothesis on a religious agenda. It is obvious that God could exist in any of these scientific scenarios of origins, and possible universes, or possible multiverse(s). The scientists involved including George Ellis do not cite their religion as a motive in their science.

If you believe I have a religious agenda in this, please cite where my posts indicate this.

[seer]

If you believe I have a religious agenda in this, please cite where my posts indicate this.

You don't have to say it. It is obvious, your religion needs eternal matter and energy, that is one of the core teachings. You just pretend that you are above it all.

[shunyadragon]

I haven't argued religion Shunya. Just what Oxmix said: that what you are claiming is mere guesswork and cannot be proven.

It is not guess work nor proven. Science does not prove anything. Your ignorance of science leering its ugly head again. Oxmix did not say that, please quote him directly and accurately.

You at minimum argue bad science, and bad use of terminology without any competence nor educational background in the science of physics and cosmology.

[shunyadragon]

You don't have to say it. It is obvious, your religion needs eternal matter and energy, that is one of the core teachings. You just pretend that you are above it all.

I am dealing with only science in this thread, and not religion. As I pointed out I agree with George Ellis in that the question of whether our physical existence is eternal or not has not been answered, and I believe it likely cannot be answered.

Your the on that asserts that our physical existence cannot be eternal based on a selective dishonest citing of Vilenkin.I have made no claim that the escientiic evidence confirms my religious beliefs.

If you believe I have a religious agenda in this, please cite where my posts indicate this.

[seer]

Your the on that asserts that our physical existence cannot be eternal based on a selective dishonest citing of Vilenkin.I have made no claim that the escientiic evidence confirms my religious beliefs.-

Show me exactly where I dishonestly quoted Vilenkin - or admit that you are once again lying.

If you believe I have a religious agenda in this, please cite where my posts indicate this.

You are not fooling anyone. You know your religion needs matter and energy to be co-eternal with your god...

[shunyadragon]

Show me exactly where I dishonestly quoted Vilenkin - or admit that you are once again lying.

I said dishonestly selectively citing Vilenkin, and yes you justify your belief that our physical existence cannot be eternal based ONLY on a selective citing of Vilenkin, and then you reject Vilenkin's belief that the evidence supports the beginning of our universe out of Quantum nothing, and the existence of multiverses. In your selective citing you off hand reject the possibility of alternatives proposed by other scientists that the universe may be cyclic and eternal just because you claim Vilenkin says so.

You are not fooling anyone. You know your religion needs matter and energy to be co-eternal with your god...

I have never claimed that science supports my religious belief. I have repeatedly supported the belief that science has not and likely cannot ever answer the question as George Ellis proposes.

If you believe I have a religious agenda in this that I propose that science supports my belief in Baha'i cosmology, please cite where my posts indicate this.

It is pretty much impossible for science to falsify that our physical existence is a co-eternal Creation of God.