Sean is a very talented interviewer. He allows great exposition by his guests, prompts great conversation, and, yet, resists interrupting the flow of his guests. Apologetics are best heard in this form. Thank you.
If the multiverse is defined as all logically possible universes, and if God is logically possible, then Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological argument would mean a multiverse would necessitate God's existence (since if God is possible, he exists in some possible worlds and being omnipresent he exists in all possible. If the multiverse equals all possible worlds, God exists; and exists in all of them).
@@SeanMcDowell Thank you sir. Of course I'm not arguing for the multiverse. Just saying that in trying to escape the fine tuning argument the atheist potentiallly runs into the modal ontological argument.
Thank you for posting what has been in the back of my mind for some time. If anything that is logically possible exists in at least one universe within the multiverse, and God is logically possible, which He is, then the very definition of the multiverse requires God's existence. In reality, I am very doubtful that the multiverse exists, but even if we assume it exists, God still pops up in it.
That's a fascinating idea and it ultimately disproves the notion of infinite universes disproving God. People easily forget the implication of infinite universes, with infinite universes there has to be no contact between the different universes
@@SeanMcDowell why not have an actual scientist on your discuss science? It’s almost as if you have a purely religious agenda and don’t give a toss about science
We conclude a discussion on the origin of the universe by pointing out that both Intelligent Design and Multiverse theories require faith. However, the weight of the scientific evidence overall favors Intelligent Design.
What evidence favours intelligent design? While it is made out that multiverses are more complex than than the "god" hypothesis. But this ignores the fact that an intelligence that can control all of this is a level of complexity that surpasses the complexity of the multiverse idea. The honest answer is that we do not know and will never know either way.
@@John_Catt Thank you for asking. I have a doctorate and was a chemistry major in undergrad. To me, "chirality," or configuration is strong proof of intelligent design: All organic compounds have a left or right configuration. The direction of the configuration is essential in order for chemicals to connect and act. Nearly all organic compounds have a left, or L-configuration. Outside forces, such as enzymes and organelles are needed to assure that chemicals are made in the proper configuration, called "chirality." So, if the primitive earth did have a "primordial soup" containing the atoms needed to make amino acid, and if they did randomly connect, they would make mixed configurations called a "racemic mixture." It takes an outside force, like an enzyme or catalyst to keep the misoriented chemicals out of the way of a developing amino acid or protein. That force takes intelligence. For example, consider gloves: they have a left or right-hand orientation. If you put 10 pairs of gloves in a dryer, it doesn't matter how many millions of years you circulate them. When you open the dryer door they will be mixed up - not chained all right on one side and all left on the other. Human chemicals are inestimably more complex than gloves.
@@christianfrommuslim I'm not qualified to debate the issue but could I suggest that "chirality" is a strong "indication of" rather than "proof of" . I note that an entry in Wikipedia under "Proteinogenic amino acid" states that "The evolutionary selection of certain proteinogenic amino acids from the primordial soup has been suggested to be because of their better incorporation into a polypeptide chain as opposed to non-proteinogenic amino acids." Not sure this relates to your point but it would suggest that the whole area is still the subject of ongoing research.
@@John_Catt I too am not qualified, but I'd recommend Dr James Tour as an expert in the field of organic chemistry and a sharp critic of OoL research. He has a great RUclips channel.
@@John_Catt Good catch. My wording of "proof" is wrong. Nothing can prove whether or not God exists. We simply must go the way we feel the weight of the evidence directs. As for the Wikipedia explanation however, it's flim-flam and waving of hands. Of course it works better! But they overlook the need for a mechanism to selectively align the compounds. And from where the mechanism came. It reminds me of Niell Degrass Tyson's method of trickery - 2 truths followed by an incorrect conclusion. For example in Cosmos he says: - The conditions on early earth were harsh - We have found microorganisms that live in harsh conditions - That proves that life arose in a primordial soup of harsh conditions It proves nothing of the sort. The organisms that live in such hot, salty conditions are extremely advanced. To survive, they require additional heat and element pumps that combat the conditions that surround them. These death-defying adaptations are far to complex to be in primitive organisms. But the viewing public is largely uneducated to this extent, and is hungry to believe suppositions against intelligent design. So they eagerly accept this faulty logic and make Neil a star.
Mr. McDowell I met you at SLU 101 just a few days ago. I asked you if you had an material to help young people interested in a scientific field talk to atheistic or materialistic people in science. You recommend me this video and it is really helpful thank you so much I now feel more confident in my ability to speck intelligently about science while defending my beliefs.
"young" being young_er than what age? You are proof that you Elsies have no idea that young and old like rich and poor are relative terms , nobody is absolutely old young, rich, poor, tall or short, so not young, youg_er, than...., " younger people" being young_er than what? What do you supose the word" science" to mean? You hve no idea? That is probably because you have no Latin
What a great interview. Once I'm through with the two books I am working on, I am definitely grabbing this one. Thanks Sean for your devotion to pure rationality that points to the Trinity.
Absolutely love it whenever Dr. Meyer comes on the channel. I would be interested to here his thoughts on the idea that we are living in a simulation. I personally think it’s insane that logical minds scoff at the idea of Intelligent Design, but think the world being a simulation as probable. Mainly because a simulation would need a creator/creators, and if a being with the power to interact with something it created would have to be considered a “god” at some level.
Oh yeah, certainly a possibility. A 15 yr old hacker in an encapsulating Multiverse wrote some code...and here we are. We're all just bits (probably q-bits) on his computer in his bedroom. That of course just pushes the question: "Why does anything exist?" out another level. However, it does have profound implications for our existence: our creator is just a kid, not immortal, not infinite, etc., and to boot, he doesn't even know we exist. Note how it explains what we observe perfectly: clockwork nature, a beginning, fine tuning, suffering, no interaction with our creator, no involvement by the creator in our day to day,.... As to scoffing at ID, it's because there's no evidence for it. Just like there's no evidence for my 15 yr old hacker. So we don't take any of this speculation seriously......we certainly don't want to be teaching "15 yr old hackerism" in the Science classroom.
@@hongotedesco8931 Neither Religion nor Anti-religion (atheism/whatever) belong in a class that is teaching a scientific study. - For instance: In an electro-mechanic class/lecture/lab no one is interested in evolution/Creation/multiverses etc. Or in a class of Process Systems Engineering (physicochemical) there will be *NO* evolution this or Creation that ! - You should have said: - A theological vision that you do not adhere to, doesn't belong in an ideology-class about what you think/believe about what "Science" should tell us about existence or inexistence of unicorns ! - Simply put: you do not want our ideology to be more powerful than your ideology. That anger boiling in you to spit on our pitiful and worthless exitance and ideas. A pity you cannot send us to a gulag or forced-work camp, right? (incoming Crusade; Library of Alex, and other atheist-fetishes, lol) - For me as a Christian this is what Science is: *Science* is the "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment" Thus, Science is the study of *What Is* , using the *scientific method* ,or at least a variation of a scientific method that is not *ideologically compromised* . - Is not Science versus Religion ! Is how Religion and Atheism interpret Science to support their different ideas. Thus your religion versus my Religion. Nothing more.
@@krixpop Well, I do believe we agree on most things, eg, "in an electro-mechanical class...no one is interested in Evolution". Absolutely. Evolution belongs in Biology, etc. But I don't think you're looking at certain things quite right. I've never heard or seen a science professor teach/talk about atheism in a science class. Sure, i'm sure somebody brought it up in some classroom, at some point in time, but it's really not relevant. And I do believe we agree on what Science is, in particular "not ideologically compromised". And I do also agree that it shouldn't be Science vs. Religion, but let's be clear, to me that means only Science is taught in science classrooms. You don't bring in religious nonsense (like ID) into that classroom. Absolutely not, never. You want to go to a religious school and study religion? Go for it. And no, I don't want to put people in gulags or anything of the sort. And absolutely not: "your religion vs my religion". Atheism is NOT a religion. It's simply an instantiation of the abstraction "I don't believe in X, because I see no evidence for X", that's it. It's not a world view, it's not a philosophy, it's really just a logic statement. Super simple.
@@hongotedesco8931 never heard a science professor teach atheism? They're teaching (in biology as you said) that human beings evolved from this and that and that all life came from nothing and we're all the results of blind processes and at the mercy of a cruel nature. How is any of that scientific? Evolution has no place in our schools either. Teach kids the FACTS not your best guess to explain away God. Teach kids that rabbits produce rabbits and humans produce humans. If there was any more potential for evolution (for example a cat one day has a cat that is born with gills that can work and becomes a cat fish) then we would have to throw science out the window. Science is based on repeatable results. Evolution is not observable and therefore not science.
This was excellent and very helpful. I would also love to hear someone analyze how Marvel is using the multiverse in their movies maybe from a philosophical or theological point of view. The multiverse should also undermine the importance of human life and choice, but in every Marvel conception it reinforces the idea that "You matter and your (moral) choices matter." As well as "You are irreplaceable and valuable". (Building on Infinity War and Endgame) This angle could be a great conversation starter with non-Christian friends.
Joe Schimmel of GoodFightMinistries RUclips has a documentary War on God. He explains these movies are anti God showing that the evil false gods being portrayed as good. Use the Bible to point your friends to Jesus Christ and not violent movies, or non biblical models of the universe God richly bless you
@@theresaread72 Hi Theresa, thanks for the recommendation. I think perhaps like Dr. Sean and the intent of this channel, I choose to engage people on the culture they know to lead them to the truth of Christ. There are many pictures of Christ even in these movies, and the basic premise of the MCU is that heroes must suffer and sacrifice themselves to save others. I believe the approach of meeting people in their culture, no matter how godless or false, mirrors Paul's approach in Acts 17. He is distressed by Greek culture (vs 16) but then when he talks to them, he uses one of the altars they built to point to the real God. He even studied their philosophers and quotes them (vs 28) because what they said was true but only realized in Jesus Christ. So MCU movies may be modern altars to false gods, but we can use them in a biblical way. God bless you too!
multiverse is meaningless gibberish- an word with no matching or corresponding experience a made up word or neologism to convey no-one- knows-what- means a bout the same as multigod -it is*that* coherent
@Gerard Moloney I couldn't agree more..I felt a little off put/confused while watching the video as Mr.Meyer at one point said it may be possible to hold a belief in God along with a belief in the multiverse which I find very alarming..maybe I misunderstood what he said idk...but I know at one point prior to my own conversion I held to a very similar belief concerning the multiple realities of existence and the physical universe and had to fight very hard to overcome such new age influenced un biblical beliefs as such ...anyway thank you for your clarity on the subject.. GOD BLESS!!!
multi indicating many(or at any rate more than one) *What. which ever imbecile coined the asinine neologism multiverse probably thought the could be more than one unique object, but he thought fcuk the *m-e-a-n-i-n-g* of words, just use them any-old -how Multiverse, my arse!
Inthe wonderfully circular world of idolatry what is -copy and paste "a Creator"? You don't just hedge your bets you forrest them, don't you? Hve you*Any* idea what the word "science" means You are aboute to demonstrate by default that you have*absolutely_no* ides what the word science means or what you seek yo convey when you use it, have you?
Maybe I missed it, but it seems like this only addresses theories involving preexistant universe generatorating "things": strings or fluctuations or whatever. How does this address the explination that universes might pop into existence out of literally nothing? It's out of our reach to ever find evidence for such a thing, but if possible it should be expected to happen an infinite number of times. If universes can appear out of nothing they might be expected to be random as much as they could be expected to be anything else. In which case a multiverse of all possibilities seems consistent to me for at least an atheistic perspective that supposes things might be able to come from nothing. I don't buy it, but it seems consistent.
That would probably just be the intellectual price tag the atheist would have to accept. They would have to believe that universes can quite literally come into being from nonbeing (literally no thing). But also, accepting such a theory might render the principle of explosion. If universes (much less more simple things) can come into being uncaused, why don’t other things in our daily experience do the same? Like an elephant in your living room. Surely it has the space and the particles in the air to work with (to come from), but this doesn’t at all seem to be a sufficient cause for such a thing. So it might be consistent (although attributing consistency to nothing seems odd), it’s absurdity far outweighs its probability. Thoughts?
@@JohnnyHofmann The explination I've considered for why we would not observe things coming out of nothing in our own universe is that there is nowhere in our universe that is unoccupied by something. Even empty space has dimensionality, mathematical points can be located and described. There's nowhere in this universe that could be strictly described as "no thing", therefore something could not come out of "no thing" within the confines of this universe. For something to come out of nothing it must occur somewhere other than where something already exists, or else it would not be from nothing. It would at minimum have come from a point with an identifiable location, which isn't nothing. This seems consistent, upon accepting the magic that nothing could become things. I suspect this is a common view, but few people publish papers from the perspective because there's no possible way to find evidence for or against.
@@Nighthawkinlight I like your thoughts. I agreed with you that at least anything that came to be within any universe would come to be from some preexisting substrate. The question is whether or not that extant stuff by which something comes is a sufficient cause. For example, if a giraffe were to come into being in your kitchen, I agree that the giraffe would come from not nothing (ie. Space, particles, quantum particles etc.), but do you think that these things would be sufficient explanations for such explanandum? It seems hard to believe. Now, I understand being coming from nonbeing is unfalsifiable (“there’s no possible way to find evidence for or against”), at least in the empirical sense, but wouldn’t you say our intuitions lean heavily towards the negation of such a hypothesis? Like a metaphysical axiom. And also, do you think if whole universes (which are partly comprised of monkeys) can come into being from nothing, then a sufficient cause for monkeys coming to be in your living room could merely be space and some air particles or why not even some space and 3 air particles? On its face, the explanation seems to be totally unhelpful because it’s quite literally nothing. It’s unfalsifiability doesn’t help it much either. I appreciate your thoughts.
@@JohnnyHofmann Remember I don't believe the concept I am talking about, so I'm not attempting to promote it as reasonable. In this view, only "no thing" is proposed to spontaneously produce things. The few atoms and space you use in your example is precisely what prevents something else from coming into existence in observable intersection. What you describe is something coming into existence within the confines of preexistant 3 dimensional space, pushing other objects aside. To truly come into existence out of nothing an object's dimensionality would be a new creation entirely. In essence, if a monkey popped into existence out of true nothingness it would have new dimensionality in and of itself which boundaries up against nothing. The monkey would be a new universe, not a new object within another universe.
@@Nighthawkinlight I don’t believe you hold this view, but you did mention it as consistent. I’m trying to see if we can poke holes in this notion. Hmmm… To say only “no thing” is proposed to spontaneously produce things not only has a tinge of ad hocness, but seems to ascribe a particular property to the lack of something, namely the ability to spontaneously produce things, but nothing (universal negation) seems to, by definition, not have such properties if any at all. So, to hold such a view, might force you to accept that literally nothing has a particular property, namely to spontaneously produce things, which seems ad hoc but also contradictory to the nature of nothing (universal negation). I’m happy to concede the monkey analogy (LOL), I sense a potential stale mate (again, I’m not taking about monkeys coming from nothing, but extant material). If nothing is a sufficient condition for universes to come to be, why wouldn’t monkeys from 3 particles in a certain spatial dimension in your living room in particular be a sufficient cause?
In a Multiverse with all possible universes, there must be at least one that coexists with an entity that is the functional equivalent of God. If there is one such universe, there are an infinite number of such universes. It is very possible that our universe is one of those, where God is present. The Multiverse hypothesis provides an argument for an infinite number of universes with God. It justifies belief we are in God's universe. It does not eliminate the need for God, but creates infinite rooms for God-inhabited universes.
Do you not understand the universe_S is a nonsense and an oxymoron demonstrating that the user of that asinine neologism has *absoluyely_no* idea what he means by universe or he would not employ the oxymoronic neologism universe_S, which is meaningless gibberish
In the level 6 multiverse as described and explained in Max Tegmarks book, Our Mathematical Universe, only internally consistent or computable structures exist. If you think about it, we could not have evolved in an inconsistent mathematical structure.
With an infinite number of universes, one must be perfect. With the existence of a perfect universe comes the existence of a perfect being. Scientists shoot themselves in the foot over methodological materialism without realizing it. In their seeking to disprove the possibility that God exists, they open the door to His existence.
The multiverse idea is so comic book/science fiction based. It falls apart on so many levels and appears to be nothing but a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the Universe had to have a designer.
First, I write this humbly, as a Christian and a sinner myself who needs the grace of God every day! But to me, I think if people who don’t believe in God were really honest with themselves, they would agree that they don’t believe in God, or they don’t want to believe in God, because they want to live however they desire sexually. Sex is the number one driver in most people’s lives, and therefore most people suppress the truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for their actions. This leads them to any possible speculation away from a loving but also holy Creator. Put another way… If atheism, agnosticism, etc. somehow included a prohibition against premarital sex, pornography, etc., I would expect nearly every atheist, agnostic, etc. to start looking for a different belief system that would allow them to live sexually however they wanted to. In contrast, Jesus taught a narrow road and commanded that we live a holy life, including a sexually pure one. Fortunately, because we all (even Christians) sin and fall short of God‘s righteousness, God views us as perfect and blameless, if we accept Jesus as payment for our sins, thanks to his gracious death on the cross.
Aha, you suppose yourself to be able to be able to be christian do you? Is there no limits to the capacity of you creatures for self deception? what leads you to suppose that you might be able to be able to be a christian or have the necessary ingredients for being able to be able to be christian-which is impossible for dreaming machines, particularly when there is no way of discovering of what the teaching of the way of christ consisted; you have no idea what christ prescribed nor for what he prescribed it, have you? And by the same token you have no idea what conditions you must be able to satisfy in order to be able to call yourself a christian which for some inexplicable reason you suppose to have something do with your god idol/pacifier/teddy bear/policeman that you call god, not being able to under stand that chrisyianity is incompatible with idolatry , but the you have *absolutely no* idea what is means to be a christian, have you? However there is a certain naive charm in your supposition that you even*might* be able to be able to be a christian-which is obviously absurd.
Wouldn't the ontological argument rely on a multiverse to exist? If so, should Christians not use this argument unless we are speaking hypothetically to someone that believes in a multi-verse model?
If a multiverse did exist and if intelligent life could appear within such a universe without any need for a creator God then we should at least consider this: Some time ago I came to hear that an atheist mathematician had announced a theory of natural repetition that went something like this: When everything that can happen, i.e., every single permutation of every movement in all matter (matter being something as opposed to nothing) has happened, the only logical thing to happen next would be for everything to start repeating itself, and ultimately, to continually keep repeating itself over and over again ad infinitum. This then would include the natural process that started our universe, our solar system and the following naturally formed evolutionary cycle that produced the intelligent life on our planet. Even the present intelligent life on earth that we now perceive as our own would, sometime in the very far distant future be repeated, and not just once, but over and over again. So the theory goes. What is more, so I was told: Even though the time span between the cycle that produced us now and the repeated cycle that would eventually produce us again in that far distant future might look like bordering on the infinite, it would still only seem like an instant between our loss of consciousness at death, and our regained consciousness through the rebirth of our naturally repeated evolved lives in the future. This is because only the time registered in our consciousness would be recorded and therefore known… so the theory goes. Now the point I am coming to is this: When we apply this theory of natural repetition to our universe, (which is believed by many scientists to be a rapidly expanding ‘bubble’ billions of light years across and which started from an incredibly small point some 10-20 billion years ago) then we can also very easily arrive at a completely different and infinitely more interesting conclusion that goes way beyond the original idea of a naturally repeating eternity of endless births, deaths and rebirths, but first we must consider the following… If our universe, as some would have us believe, could be the first one or one of a finite number capable of starting and supporting evolved intelligent life, then it would mean that as time has advanced so the variation in the movement of matter would have increased. In which case, if we were to trace time back we would have to witness a decrease in that variation. Eventually, if we were to trace time back far enough we would have to reach a point of absolute zero movement in all matter, and that would result in a physical impossibility for any movement to begin. The only logical way out of this would be that our universe cannot be the first one or one of a finite number but instead must be one in an infinite number (from an atheistic point of view). Some atheist scientists though have also argued that our universe could have started from nothing by way of a “quantum fluctuation”, but even if this was true it would still logically follow that if nothing was responsible for starting this rapidly expanding ‘bubble’ we call our universe, then wherever there was nothing there would be countless universes about to be formed, being formed and already formed. In other words, it would have been impossible for nothing to have existed without already producing a mass of countless expanding (and possibly contracting) ‘bubbles’, similar to the one we presently call our universe. In which case, we would still be in the realms of “natural repetition”. (from an atheistic point of view) This in turn then would mean that evolved intelligent life in one form or another would not only have already strived an infinite number of times to understand, create and control whatever it so willed but would already have had an infinite period of time in which to do it in. Whatever kind or form of evolutionary cycle that would have produced this almighty free thinking God of reason then could also be seen to be the origins of God and therefore also a part of God. So even from an atheistic point of view I was able to see what could be described as a reasonable concept of an eternal infinite all knowing all powerful God who came into existence but with no conceivable beginning to the finite mind of man… if you see what I mean.
Before a man can begin reasoning correctly and continue reasoning correctly then he must first be made fully aware and remain fully aware of the primary cause of why people are naturally prone to lie and deceive when there is enough for everyone, and not only deceive others but themselves also whenever it suits them. Only then shall the cure become obvious and only then can the lost escape from the ranks of the insane.
Interestingly Dawkins cited the universe's fine tuning as a reason why he might consider the existence of a creator God during the very recent Dawkins Collins on the Premier Unbelievable channel. Perhaps modern christian apologist needs to now refocus discussions around fine tuning discussions to shine a light on observable truth. To hence ultimately leave seekers of the truth without excuse when it comes to observing God's creative power in His universe
The universe is nothing more than an ultra cluster of 100-300 billion galaxies. The Multiverse is a Super group of between 50 billion-100 billion Universes. The Megaverse is a super group of 100-200 billion Multiverses. And the Ultraverse encompasses the totality all Megaverses. Of course science won't get this far for another Century. But this is where it's headed.... The ULTRAVERSE or INFINITE-VERSE.🧐
atheistic one wurd "A" meaning no theo meaning god, thus atheo(atheist), no god(which depends on what you mean by god) but since you have *Absolutely_No* idea what you mean by god that is not perfectly circular, forget it, god - depending on what you mean by hod is fiction, or is it your case that someone*_else* or other than you came up with with the whatever you mean by but have no idea "god" idea? Or did you invent it, or the idea of whatever you mean by but have no idea " god" just popped into your head one day out of the blue. Either you in vented it or someone_else* did, which is it? Bit of a appointees question since you have (Absolutely_No*(non-circular) idea what you mean by god, as you are about to demonstrate by default or you will go in for x=y=x where neither x nor y are defined or ascribed a value which we - your betters, call begging the question or circularity. You have not even any ide what *kind* of thing god ie, but my guess is that like most anthropomorphic goddists or savages you are an idolater or as the wisest of the wise master of masters put it of you idolaters:" they can very clearly see this same ‘God’ of theirs in their picturings, almost with a comb sticking out of his left vest pocket, withwhich he sometimes combs his famous beard."
Multiverse described by my ancestor Thomas Wright. Astronomer from Byers Green, England 1700s. He also was the first to describe The Milky Way. His theories were perhaps flawed, but, he was the first to propose The Multiverse.
The assumption is that they need to be generated. Think of spacetime as an static object that cannot be created or destroyed. That is B theory of time.
@@jonatand2045 How can time not be created or destroyed? Seems to me that it's highly illogical for a "goldilocks" universe could be created by anything less than an intelligent being.
If I have ingredients of a cake and I mix these ingredients together then I bake the ingredients I come out with a cake, it doesn't matter how many times I mix the ingredients and how many times I bake the cake I still come out with the same cake, god planted a seed and it grew into a great tree and it produced its fruit, the seed is the fire let there be light, the tree is the universe and it's fruit is man and woman, everything is found within the seed,
As a scientist, it always bugs me that laypeople take many science fiction ideas seriously simply because they appear in movies. I tell them there is no even theoretical support for things like faster than light travel, time travel, shrink rays, mutations causing super powers, etc., and they just say "well, it's not possible now, but maybe someday...". Unfortunately, I'm afraid the Multiverse will serve as a solution to the fine tuning problem, even with absolutely no evidence.
There is theoretical support for things like faster than light and time travel. Flawed as the Alcubierre drive is, it is per definition theoretical support for FTL and going fast is time travel of some sort. The "the fine tuning problem" is just a problem for those who have an adhernce to ancient mythology and don't read Douglas Adams.
@@derhafi It's not actual faster than light travel that is proposed; it proposes the possibility of warping space-time .. whatever vehicle is encapsulated within the proposed space-time bubble, isn't actually "moving" at all .. Dunning-Kruger: a type of cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their knowledge or ability, particularly in areas with which they have little to no experience .. including ancient "mythology"
@@chrisschutte3604 "whatever vehicle is encapsulated within the proposed space-time bubble, isn't actually "moving" at all" There is alittle thing called "frame of reference" you obviously never heard of it but it is quite an important concept in physics. In this case it even would have helped you to avoid making a fool out of yourself.
@@derhafi naturally I have have a solid grasp of the concept of "frame of reference" .. if you were savvy enough, you would have gleaned that from my response .. but I'll have you have last say, I suspect that is important to you
Something noone is talking avout is breeding populations . Why is a 1:1 ratio assumed . What if a population one had a single breeding male or female . It seems most hypothesis about evolution require ample breeding partners with shared mutations in close proximity and are sutable for mating and the time of the encouter . It just seems like a whole nother set of variables that flies in the face of evolution
In Eastern religion God is both transcendent and immanent: transcendent as consciousness and immanent as intelligence and substance. All seen as Consciousness; matter being an expression of consciousness or God’s dream.
The picture of atheistic theorists frantically inventing multiple universes and universe generators to avoid the idea of a Creator reminds me of evolutionists adding millions and billions of years to the age of the earth to leave time for their Godless theory to supposedly work.
Ah back to thr good old perfectly circular idolatrous creator eh? multiverse is simply oxymoronic gibberish like lots of unique things or Freda was nearly pregnant or life-after-death.
Atheist accuse Theist of using a God of the gaps but when they run into a big problem they create a new theory where they become the God who creates the new gap.
It is not violating Ockham's Razor to explain a relatively simple book by means of a much more complex author. That is a good potential answer to Dawkins.
A widely available video titled ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’ (by Kent Forbes) opened my eyes to a discovery of quantum physics; that the universe is divided between the visible, physical, measurable world in which we live, and another invisible realm of infinite possibilities that seems to be the precursor and origin of our visible world. The video explains that things exist as ‘waves of potential’ in the invisible realm, but become ‘real’ or ‘definite’ in our observable world. And so this video explains why various ideas, like Multiverse Theory, have arisen as possible explanations of the unseen realm. As a Christian I believe that Romans 1:19-20 rules out the idea of a multiverse. It says that what may be known about God is revealed in our universe and its contents. To believe in a multiverse is to contradict Romans, claiming that there is infinitely more to know about God. At the same time it ‘cheapens the currency’ of the universe before our eyes. Ultimately it leads us to question whether or not we are capable of knowing anything at all! Has a multiverse ever existed? Yes, in the MIND of the ‘only-wise God’; who considered the infinite possibilities available to Him before He decided to created the ONE universe that is.
Common sense tells us energy and matters can't be unlimited. After the past wrong observation and interpretation of Mercury were discovered, the Theory of General Relativity could be wrong too. This means even the existence of the parallel universe is questionable. And, personally doesn't believe the laws of physics are the very fabric, foundation or framework in the indefinesimal world. Fine-tuned at which stage or state of the intelligent design is the question.
Inflation is not an incomplete but open field, as there are several theories. The scalar field theory looks currently best of the simpler model (of known quantum field physics) after the last rounds of South Polar observations. That can change of course (but not a lot since they managed to narrow the field a lot last year). A scalar field is a vacuum so its entropy is zero, suiting the low entropy universe that our hot big bang universe started out as. This is the main reason why it fits inflation theory, apart from the inflation fluctuation and exit behavior that the Planck observatory describes. There is no need for string theory in any of this or what follows, it is vanilla quantum field theory. The end of scalar inflation would be locally random since some vacuum fluctuations would push the local state up the potential and some would push them down. This is why it fits the multiverse theory. Eternal inflation has no need for initial conditions as such, and we don’t know how far back inflation goes even observing from our patch of the universe. There is an open debate in physics whether or not space is average flat or if the convenient de Sitter topology map is not only a map but the territory. But that has problems like potentials due to cosmological horizons and an initial Planck scale energy singularity/a start of time which looks untestable. (Or you tie two of them together seamlessly but then you have “mirror” universes with time or entropy going in other directions than observed.) A general relativistic inflation energy or dark energy universe naturally wants to expand exponentially, so there is no innate problem here. It needs to be confirmed this is what happened, but phase changes out of equilibrium generically results in random ground states. So when inflation exits we should expect random outcomes, and since we live we should expect an infinite amount of them.
An infinite amount. Including one where God is the creator. Haha. Andre Linde is right. To have a complete theory of the universe we need to include the one and only thing that we know at 100%. That is that we are conscious. This universe has components in that are aware of itself. A self aware and almost self comprehending universe. Consciousness came before the universe and there is only one universe.
“Theistic implications” interesting. There being a multiverse does not eliminate ‘’Theistic implications” because if a Deity could create one universe He could also create multiverses. That is what a Deity implies; no limitations, as well Infinity should be filled with something and not just be empty space, as what would be the point of that. Why have space just to be space and not contain something.
You still have to explain the fine-tuned intelligently designed universe we live in and how it would’ve ever come about when every other universe is random intelligence is inescapable.
Humor me.... When i drop any small object from approx 1 foot onto a concrete floor in my house, 90% of objects bounce and land within approx 45 degrees or less?
If only you had some slight idea of what the word science means, but, by default you are about to demonstrate that you have*absolutely no idea what the word " science" means , but then you have no Latin, have you?Epistemology not your long suit either, eh?
@@vhawk1951kl It only shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Learn some philosophy of science to know what the predictability and falsifiability is !
@@vhawk1951kl So you can only play a word game without actually understanding the true nature of science? The true nature of science is all about how a truth is detected by means of its predictability and falsifiability, where "multiverse" is a god due to the lack of falsifiability. Apparently, you don't know what I was talking about. And you don't know what you are talking about, either.
Is the universe a single universe? A one off ? Is the universe a multiverse? What kind of multiverse? One with infinite information in everyplace, every time,ie, is there every moment another version of me in close proximity to me in an inter dimensional universe wherein ever iterative moment generates an infinite number of iterations so that I am an infinity of me? Or is there a fractal me, slightly different in a different slice of a multiverse, a sort of different slice of the fruit, similar but just a minuscule difference but with infinite me’s all over the multiverse? Is the a version of the multiverse in which I do not exist? ( note that the entire proposition of a multiverse or a many worlds universe rests on a proposition that energy is infinite- however the proposition also implies no limits to both information and energy without limits of information and energy in time. That is to say that if the proposition is true then energy is infinite at all time which means that the only thing that could mathematically occur given infinite information/energy at all time is a Big Bang continuously forever. If there is a not non limit of information/energy in time then there is not an infinite amount of information/energy- therefore if the universe is not in a perpetual every moment Big Bang then no such explanation is possible- the proposition of infinite information: energy then cannot be true)( furthermore if every moment of me and the stuff of me also has infinite possibilities then how or what is the thing of me-the integrity of my total physics, chemistry, biology, social and historical, hereditary information-genes - which by virtue of the proposition of infinite paths of reality -what is the thing, force, chance,etc. which keeps happening as me? Take that to the level of integrity of all matter-space-time. Is there a different earth right next to this one or within this one? All the matter-what makes that go through time with integrity, continuity?) Is reality a matrix? A matrix of simulations iterated to infinity? Was the universe really created from nothing? Three kinds of nothing? If the universe began like coffee and milk how did they begin to mix such that they could go to highest entropy? How does a collapsed universe to a singularity suddenly and near “explosively “ expand ? What is the stuff expanding and into what is it expanding? Was the singularity able to escape itself? Was the singularity a Supra fluid, Supra plasmic, Supra structure matrix-a ball of super dense super hot ball which by spinors and twistors reached resonant frequency then shattered? If life is ubiquitous in the universe and we live on a planet full of life forms why do we not see pre-life forms? What would pre-life forms be? Is it membrane first, DNA first, RNA first, proteins first, amino acids first, metabolism first? What of chirality? Why proteins one way and lipids another? What are a dingo and a dog or genetically different but phenotypic similar plants on mountains 1/2 a world apart converging towards/onto? How does a cockroach exposed to massive radiation recapitulate it’s code to 140-ploidy to recreate the phenotype? How can a flatworm whose cell membrane is recoded by ion channels in order to develop a two headed flatworm then perpetually reproduce two headed flatworms without ever having the genome altered? Can you create a globular fractal-DNA(like a Peano curve on steroids)? // Eyes have evolved separately between 6-9 times. Understand that! Separately. If evolution acts purely on mutation and the genetic code and it is more likely that a mutation causes deleterious effects than beneficial effects and mutation is random then “chances” of the same pattern evolving 6-9 times separately is a mathematically illogical proposition ( not impossible but statistically impossible- magic). To evolve by chance once lies within all possibles. However to evolve more than once by chance lies further and further away within all probables. Regarding Wolfram: Given computational infinities they search through all possibles, consider all probables but deny the one actual. // Ahh the hilarity Of happenstance’s Serendipity Of a single singularity Instantaneous and Spontaneously Mixed in a state Of lowest entropy Stirred by unstable Nothingness Exploded into Everything And so by emergence A mid state of entropy Causing all causality From strings Spinning spinors And twisting twistors Both matter and purpose Intent by blind Engineering Created mind And meaning Whose dark cold End is empty Emptiness once again Sparking infinite expansion Of unstable nothingness Into something again And again eternal Without end Quite the credulity The religion of nihilism From nothing to nothing Is illogical in the face Of any meaning Or purpose of being Self supposed Or otherwise opposed Contradicting existence And factual experience For never one see’s Nothing become something Nor something become nothing By physical laws As so described even Something at lowest Entropy would require Non self induction The spark and bang Of any creation And so without Hesitation and with great Adulation are the Songs and praises Of Anti-creation To infinite universes Of infinite potential And we but one In a game of chance No miracles required Of a being higher Yet Folly on follies Unthought the chance Of Unopposed infinite Potential the absolute One is infinitely possible Let not the nihilist Not fully presume a non nihilist Meaning and purpose Of nothingness creating Somethingness going To nothingness For full presumption Of nihilistic nihilism Would evidentially require The impossible extraction Of any purpose Any meaning From the nothingness Going to nothingness For just as we never see Something come from nothing Neither do we see purposelessness generate intent
It is a possible explantion for what's happening to the wave function when observed. The multiverse is not a truth claim, not an excuse for anything, not supernatural in its supposed yet untestable properies and in no way is it handeled in a dogmatic way, scientific ideas never are. It's a mathematical feasible idea, coherent with everything we know about nature, nothing more and nothing less, and that’s exactly how it is presented by scientists. God on the other hand, is not an explantion for anything, it's an appeal to a mystery. God did it, aka: Something ill-defined with no demonstrable correlation with reality did it.....has no explantory power whatsoever.
@@derhafi Depending on the fine-tuning, the multiverse itself is not an explanation. For example, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has such a low-entropy initial state, because this explanation would predict that any newly-explored region of the universe would be high-entropy. Some other physical explanation is required for the low-entropy initial conditions of our universe. There are no candidate explanations completely applicable to our own universe, but some toy models provide promising directions for future research.
@@PBRimmer The multiverse is a possible explantion for what's happening to the wave function when observed. What exactly is not clear about this? I guess nothing given that you get your version of "science" from Creationistic frauds.
@@derhafi I do science for a living. I get the majority of my science from the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., the paper I linked in one of my replies). I am not a creationist. Admittedly, cosmology is not my field, so I may well be missing something (I work on astrochemistry and planetary science). I believe that I'm just communicating what other scientists, e.g. Feynman and Carroll, have already said about initial conditions, If you can point out where I'm misrepresenting them, I'd be grateful. On the other hand, if I am representing their views accurately, if you think they are wrong, I'd suggest you take it up with them.
@@PBRimmer Alright, let's start over..I might have understood you wrong. So when you say"Depending on the fine tuning, he multiverse isn't just a bad explanation. It's not an explanation at all." You mean an explantion ...for what exactly? Here is what I meant: Very broadly speaking, we have the “Copenhagen interpretation” and the “Many world interpretation” of quantum mechanics. Where the CI holds the position that the reduction of the wave function in the moment of observation is the transition from the "possible" to the "actual"; the “MMI” entertains the idea that the moment of observation splits the “possible” into “actual” multiple different branches” of reality. Thus the MMI holds a possible explanation for what's happening to the wave function when observed and therefor even a possible explanation for the supposed fine tuning of our reality itself.
I absolutely agree with the fine tuning argument, but within general relativity it begins to break down in different gravitational frames where time is relative. If you're moving toward the big bang time is going reverse, and if you're moving at the speed of light away from the big bang you're moving into the future away from the future of those experiencing time on earth. The star trek model is ludicrous, space travel is time travel. NOW, does the Bible say that? Yes, for example physics says that the universe is flat, or saddle shaped, the Bible says YHVH rolled it out like a scroll, WTF!!! HOW DID THE PROPHETS GET THAT RIGHT??? MY BEST guess is that watching the zodiac across astronomy, maybe they supposed it was like a scroll from spring to winter, but then I ask, how is it that topologically the universe is flat like a scroll?
Summary: I believe in god therefore the multiverse and any scientific theory presented is evidence for my presupposition. I just saved you 55 minutes of your time dear viewer.
Starts off with a strawman argument. The multiverse is a prediction of some theories, theories based on data and observation. It isn't an attempt to "rarify" the maths. Nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, that is just a happy consequence. If a theory explains something other than it was formulated for makes the theory stronger.
I get you and you did well pointing this! but even so, the point was that even if multiverse is a consequence of the theory, it would still need fine tuning and we’re back to square one. The multiverse generator would still need fine tuning.
If the bible said that Moses at his own head sandwiched between two unicorns while standing on his own shoulders and flying a Supermarine Spitfire you would accept that without question would you not, and to the devil with the fact that the bible was written by a pathological liar with a string of previous convictions for fraud a mile long. You can measure a fool by what he will accept without question. Multiverse my arse!
NOW, let's go to ISAIAH, where he turns the earth upside down, a figure of speech? Yet a pole shift can be observed if the pole star moves from the north star to the southern cross. If ISAIAH believed that the earth was flat, what did he mean by TURNED UPSIDE DOWN? It just doesn't make sense as a description of anything but a pole shift.
It makes plenty of sense as figurative language. Hasn't your world ever been "turned upside down"? Prophecy and poetry both tend toward figurative and highly imagistic usage, so this is just a matter of following the normal rules for the genre you're reading. When Jesus claims to be a door, we don't wonder where his knob is. When he says we must be born again, he doesn't mean (whatever Nicodemus thought) that we're supposed to re-enter the womb.
@@csmoviles The word sometimes translated "circle" (NET has "horizon") occurs only three times in the Bible (the other two are in Job 22:14 (NET has "vault" of heaven, but the note says "The word is “circle; dome”; here it is the dome that covers the earth, beyond which God sits enthroned. A. B. Davidson (Job, 165) suggests “on the arch of heaven” that covers the earth.") and Prov 8:27, where NET again has "horizon." All three sources are poetic in form, and the language is figurative. Treating these passages with wooden literalism disrespects God's choice of genres.
I approve of your enthusiasm, but your argument is slightly flawed. You can flip flat things upside down. Think of a sheet of paper that has the word “up” written on the top side. You can flip that paper upside down to where “up” is now written on the side that is now down.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public. Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
So if I have an all possible world situation u have one with God that undoes the need for the whole thing ….. seems self contradictory reminds me of the there is no truth argument
Why do ALL those who posit theistic arguments for the origin of the universe and for the species of life on earth presuppose and limit their acknowledgment of God to a Judaeo-Christian perspective based on the Bible AND completely ignore the Islamic view of the One God based on the Quran?
It just does not. Nothing in nature ever did without comitting a fallacy. The multiverse is not a truth claim, not an excuse for anything, and not supernatural in its supposed yet untestable properies. It's a mathematical feasible idea, coherent with everything we know about nature, nothing more and nothing less, and that’s exactly how it is presented by scientists.
God is not an explantion, it's an appeal to a mystery. God did it, aka: Something ill-defined with no demonstrable correlation with reality did it.....has no explantory power.
If only you had some slight idea of the meaning of the word " scientific", but you re about-by default to demonstrte that you have *absolutely_no* idea what the word scientific means-nor any idea *at_all*what you seek to convey by the use of the word " scientific", but it may be that you have no Latin.
If multiverse true so still they all universe came being so every thing that’s came being have cause it’s all simple explanations it’s super god he exist externel
Dawkins critique of the “complexity” inherent in God is a classic example of NOT understanding the term “God” as classically understood and explained by monotheistic religions. By DEFINITION God *has* no explanation. It’s simply inherent in being the *ultimate* uncaused cause of all OTHER things. Even an atheist-if they care to maintain a semblance of rational thought-believes “somewhere” “some place” there exists a past eternal entity from which everything else ultimately sprang. The ONLY alternative is to be so magical thinking as to believe that there once was *truly* nothing (NO-THING) from which everything sprang. If you TRULY believe that, then perhaps you really do know what “blue” smells like or can see the “sound” of a good guitar rif!! Thus *WHATEVER* that entity is, it HAS NO EXPLANATION because BY DEFINITION it ALWAYS was that way.
Brock George what are you doing my brother. I am not just a entity. I I am a real person who have feelings like you. I am sure I have just one thing who is different, and I the things that I got to take care on univers and take care of my self. I am that is it. I am also my job his create and taking care of every one I create. I am but you see me in the street I will be as any one who chill out some where. Most of the time I am into park in Quebec with the river and a bridge. I am each day I go to the bridge and the park doing web stuff saying HI to you. Have but to be true as I am. I am stressed about starting work that I am here for helping the best I can regarding the climate change but also brings human being to beyond what they have as civilization. The help also that help to make sure everything is right regarding all those virus and covid, and the amount of violence rights up to the top but it will keep going up till... 5559.533.5.3 I guess you figured out. I ok my friend please don't be shy. I my friend are Abel to ask me what ever because it is not every day that I come around. I right. I your friend Philippe
"By DEFINITION God has no explanation. It’s simply inherent in being the ultimate uncaused cause of all OTHER things" I suspect Dawkins understands this point. But I would guess that he doesn't accept that merely defining something so as to solve the problem you are trying to address solves anything in any meaningful way. It merely declares/defines that complexity/existence ultimately has no explanation and then gives it a name/title. "believes “somewhere” “some place” there exists a past eternal entity from which everything else ultimately sprang. The ONLY alternative is to be so magical thinking as to believe that there once was truly nothing (NO-THING) from which everything sprang." I don't agree. Where you say "there once was truly nothing" highlights a problem with this idea. If there was no-thing then there was no time. If there was no time/place/thing then the idea of "there was once" or "sprang from" makes no sense. Why should I need to believe in either an eternal infinite or something from nothing? Why can I not believe in a finite existence with no reference to "before" of "sprang from"? It just is ... inexplicably ... just as any eternal uncaused thing would be!
@@wishlist011 I defined my way to nothing. It’s *inherent* to the very *idea* of explaining: 1) Why there is anything at all instead of no-thing. 2) What *could* or *most likely* did exist rather than no-thing. (I do-and even as a you child-perceived that *material/physical* existence out of no-thing because of no-thing was alogical non-sequitur.) 3) What we do know about *all* physical and material realities we encounter is that they have an origin. Yet we also KNOW at least ONE thing could NOT have had an origin and had to have ALWAYS existed lest you really accept the non sequitur above. 4) What’s the most like nature of that ONE thing? The one physical/material thing that has no origin-despite a universal experience that says that if it’s one thing all such entities have it’s a beginning/origin. Or something that would be of a completely different order of existence? But if NOT material/physical, then it’s nature OF NECESSITY would be that which is NOT MATERIAL OR PHYSICALLY BUT IMMATERIAL. 5) Does what has happened SINCE all other material/physical things came into existence offer any clues? Well we see a resultant order, from initial disorder, eventual life, from the non living, the intellect, from the non thinking, self awareness and personality from the unaware and impersonal. Now a simple question we use in employing logic would be, so what’s INHERENTLY more likely; all that from an ULTIMATE source LACKING any of those things, or all that from a an ULTIMATE source that possesses each of those things? 6) The most INHERENTLY logical answer is so obvious I should scarcely have to point it out. And a final observation is that IF INDEED all our faculties arose without guided purpose, and the driving force was brute survival, then there is essentially NO HONEST WAY you can say there’s good reason to trust your senses or logic to be telling you the truth. Rather, I would suggest the entire project of science ought not to be taken too seriously, being as how we have no way of knowing that our senses are accurate or trustworthy when it comes to supplying knowledge not necessary to survival itself.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
I agree with Meyer that string theory and multiverse theory are complex and violate Occam's razor. I also agree they are mathematic or philosophical and not empitical, therefore hardly qualifying as scientific theories at all. The God hypothesis is also extravagant in the same way as the multiverse, in the sense that it is an omni-god, absolute, all powerful, etc. Meyer dismisses this which looks to me as handwaving. The God hypothesis is also philosophical and not empitical, hardly qualifying as a scientific theory either. Proofs for God remain extremely speculative.
@@SeanMcDowell Sean, there was really no need to delete the comments of my hard working friend, who had the utmost best interest in her heart when she wrote to you. You don't know what she's faced and what she has seen, it's precisely because of that that she sought to impart to you her wisdom and knowledge so that you would have it. Because it's impossible for any one Christian to see the big picture, unless they network with other Christians in different fields. So that you, who have a wider platform, can be as accurate as possible, so that those who watch your stuff are given what our generations never received, because our parents took Christianity and the Word of God for granted, or not at all. She, being an avid fan of your work, was saddened. Behind her posts was a love of God and a love for people around the world - and you just deleted them as if they were nothing. You can do better than that! They were precisely the opposite of the kind of posts one ought to delete - even if they were a little off-topic, such posts help people who do not even know that they needed that information - until they came upon it.
Multiverse is wrong because it is conceptually incoherent. Consider: The term "physical universe" is fully synonomous with "physical reality." It is that which exists physically. If the are multiple universes, then other universes are real. But if those are real, then they are physically real. If they are physically real, then they are the physical universe. If one physical physical universe is real, that precludes the possibility of other universes being real because that which is physically real is physical reality and therefore the physical universe. To say that thereare other universes is to say thereare other realities. But if there are other realities and also this reality, then those and this are all real and therefore constitute all of reality, one reality and necessarily therefore one universe. Just because something can be modeled mathematically doesn't mean what has been calculated is real. We calculate points, lines, and planes, because it is useful, but there are no actual points lines, and planes.
@@CenturianCornelious Yes of course you affectionate little kinderlander and lots of love(lol) to you too; when you have a headache or toothache it is very real or cannot-be-different for you, but nobody else- Self-evidently what is real or what-is- and- cannot be different for one is not necessarily real or what-is- and- cannot be-different for all, but that terrifies you kinderlander that cannot be bear to contemplate tha the truth that you might be completely and utterly on your own but like children suppose that some grownup will look after you which is why the kinderlander-Americans, who are the children of the peoples of the world - suckers for authority and terrified of being alone.The kinderlander - like children , need to be *told*and they are as passive docile and credulous as retarded children- suckers for authority- always needing to be told.
Believers in a god or gods should rest easy because whatever "points to a god" is completely irrelevant. God is not "in" space or time. He is both everywhere and nowhere at the same and/or at different times. He is in hiding and when people think they know where he is or where he isn't, they are just mistaken. Quantum interference is not evidence of the multiverse. It is just god's way of reminding us that he he disappears when he realizes someone is watching.
@@patmoran5339 Shrug, if you please, but what is(copy and paste)"”God “ is a myth that and arbitrary. The belief .....with particular reference to the word "god" and without merely entering into the circular"”God “ is a myth is"”God “ is a myth is god? You creatures prattle on about this god thing, but when asked appear never to have any idea whatsover to what you are referring without embarking upon the circular god is a myth is god is a myth. You may well be correct but having no experience or evidence of whatever you mean by god, I am in no position and have less less desire to argue with you about it which would be like wrangling with pigs about the quality of oranges but help me with this please: what has c&p(copy and paste):"God “ is a myth that and arbitrary. The belief is a denial human beings are capable of solving problems.....and blididibladibla" got to do with that asinine oxymoronic neologism "the multiverse"? How do you connect the ability to" solve problems with said asinine neologism or whatever " god" may be? Some men(human beings/dreaming machines) may or may not be able to solve some problems(which may be more or less problematic) No doubt you will agree that some problems are intractable, but how is that relevant to the fantasy multiverse or the fantasy god? Where and what is your syllogism? Is it not true that*some* men are incapable of solving *some* problems(which may be defined as or taken to be " problems") in a variety of ways? What has either fantasy to do with the capacity of men yo -as-you-put-it " solve problems I struggle to be able to discover of in what premises of what syllogism, either fantasy could play a role,so if perhaps you could set out the syllogism in which either fantasy plays a part in one of the premises(that being ay least one definition of relevance[I refer of course to the definition of prof. Cross in his locus clasicus on the law of evidence] that might be of some assistance to me It strikes me that the word) " god is more of a label for who -knows-what(possibly some idol or image) than whatever you seek to convey by the word myth" The problem with the frankenstein neologism " multiverse" is that it has the head of many and the body arms and legs of whatever a " verse" may be but it is not unknown for men and particularly the kindelander-Americans to invent asinine Frankenstein neologisms which convey nothing-very-much, to the inventers and les to those confronted with them. multi- lots of, or many, verses..... Some kind of song or poem? who can tell?
@@patmoran5339 Nooooo - R-e-a-l-l-y? Gosh, you know *Everything Brian! Next time you experience the burning desire or urge to unburden yourself of some trite facile truism, pick your audience at least a *little* carefully. If you are trying to say that “ the man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still”, that is merely a truism If you suppose that men(human beings/dreaming machines) *Ever* have *Any* choice you deceive yourself, because it is self evidently *not_ true* In Chan Buddhism there is a saying: " The unenlightened man has no choice, for he is a slave. The man on-the-*way* to enlightenment *has* a choice. The *Enlightened man *has *No* choice; he does what is necessary. The idea that a dreaming machine that is the abject slave of his functions ever has a choice, is simply and self - evidently absurd. As a rule bricks in an of themselves cannot fly-like-a-bird but if you throw a brick it may well give the appearance of flying, but is not in fact flying-like-a-bird. By exactly *the_same* token some* men......, some* times give the appearance of choosing or having a choice, but I only have to say that you are an elsie- Lower Class fool entirely innocent of any semblance of wits and learning, to generate a number of reactions in whatever you may be(which is like the writer just another dreaming machine) over which you have neither choice nor control; moreover your emotional (like/dislike) function is your god lord and master whether you like it or not which it is childsplay for me to demonstrate, were you(which you are not ) in any position to be truthful or sincere with yourself. Observe for yourself the purely automatic and mechanical(means nothing to do with you) reactions of the(your-if it pleases it)functions take place so fast( as they must) that there is simply no_time* for all that choice self-deception- a man calls you a cnut and a fool and within a billionth of a millionth of a second *It*-the function has reacted, exactly as if anything comes near your eye all sorts of autonomous and mechanical reactions take place which have*fcuk_nothing* to do with you and so it is with every single one of your other functions processors machines brains or centres. How_ever and Why_ever it has come about (whatever you are) a is as..... a..... matter..... of..... fact, encased or covered in a mechanism(an astonishingly complex able and adaptable mechanism) that does everything *for* you; it is as if some thing or some one anticipating what completely useless dreamy pieces of shit men(human beings/dreaming machines) are, wanted or needed men for some purpose or other(not necessarily impartially benevolent) If *any* of the above is true and you can verify it for yourself you are almost inevitably driven to ask:" What exactly *Am* whatever"*I*"might be) and if it does not you are a bigger cnut and fool that I took you for. You see? Quod est demonstrandum- you simply *cannot* let that go or be completely and utterly indifferent to that and the reactions have a-l-r-e-a-d-y taken place- you*"f-r-e-e*"man. Where is the choice or free will in that? Thrown bricks a-p-p-e-a-r to fly-like-a-bird, and men -p-p-e-a-r to what you call(presumably in jest) choose? Of_course n-one can force you do adopt of particular psychological posture, but one way or another I can easily do the next best thing, as can anyone that has a detailed familiarity and understanding of your mechanism which I can demonstrate with a little zen tale:Angry young pupil goes to a master and says " you are nothing; you cannot control me, and the master says" I'm a bit deaf to day come a little closer" and say that again - do you *really* need me to tell you what comes next? Here is a little question for you can you like what *It* does *Not_like* or want what *It* does *Not_want*? Is there *Any* difference whatsover between whatever you suppose yourself to be and *It*? If I tickle *It*do not *You* laugh, and if I prick*It* do You* not bleed?If I wrong *It* will *You* not be revenged? wherein lies the difference between *It* and you Why - *reaally* *W-h-y do you (or is it *It*?) give a flying fcuk about whatever " god" may be.? If course we now know you had..... no...... choice, but unburden yourself of that bit it of trite and facile.... (what exactly do you or *It*) call it? *Can*(is it possible for you) you be entirely sincere with yourself or is it *It*? A man's God is whatever is more important to him than anything else at any given movement , and exactly what that is is a matter of what-is-and-cannot-be-different or fact and of course like everything in dreaming machines in which nothing remains the same for more than a few moments, it will be constantlychanging depending on which function is in the what-is-called boss seat. So what is your god or which function drove you to unburden yourself of "No one can be forced to not believe in gods. No one can be forced to believe in gods. It is a free choice." Hmm, who knows? Or more to the point who or what gives a sh1t or cares. You will do exactly as your god bids you as you always have, and of course it is rarely the same god/master/boss and equally rarely the same slave, men being legion and rather than being one are many, not a ingle one of which ever has any choice about anything, but forget that, what kind of God" had you in mind? There now I have pushed some buttons or pulled some lever, I wonder how *It* will react, but as the blind man said, we shall see as we shall see whether or not you can just glance at the above or what will happen, for-in the case of men or dreaming machines everything just happens. I wonder what the " free choice" will or must be. free choice-my arse! which of you and*It* gives a flying fcuk about whatever-you-mean-by-and-have-no-idea " God"?
thereis just not curing you anthropomorphic, (fcuk the commandments) idolaters is there? You clutch your idol or image to your bosom as a mother clutches her babe to her breast.
It took a long time but today I must admit and realize that the Hebrew Bible is correct. Genesis explains everything! A short cut to all those foolish philosophical theories to negate the idea of god.
The Bible does teach that our material universe is not the entirety of reality. It mentions another region called heaven from which our material universe originated.
Ok Forrest Valkai has making a lot of videos on RUclips but I think he say stuff that is very presumptuous 29 evolution of going from a single cell to a whole human over billions of years and then remembering that you did that all by yourself in just nine months and last but certainly not least my favorite evidence Revolution is the fact that you can literally watch it happening with your own eyes let's revisit *the definition of evolution for a moment remember evolution is any change in the heritable traits of a population over multiple Generations* now how can you watch that happening consider the following vegetables cabbage brussels sprouts kale cauliflower broccoli and my favorite Kohlrabi think about how different all of these plants are and ask yourself besides all being edible plants what do they have in common the answer they're all the same plant all of those vegetables are the same species of wild mustard plant that humans bred to bring bring out different *Forrest Valkai | Facts and Fossils | The Light of Evolution* how would you respond to this
@@TheCrossroads533 Most scientists have no belief in a god or gods. Such considerations have no place in science. My point was fairly clear, though seems to be lost on you. Why not have a physicist on to discuss physics rather than a lying hack at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group?
@@TheCrossroads533 most scientists have no belief in a god or gods. Such considerations have no place in science. My point is pretty straightforward. Why invite only a lying hack and not a physicist to discuss physics?
@@TheCrossroads533 what do religious fantasists have to contribute to a discussion of science? My point is that when religious hacks are called upon exclusively it’s clear that McDowall’s agenda has nothing to do with science
The multi verse is no more make believe that Dr. Strange himself….If you are still not sure ask Captain Kirk? But seriously the Multi verse and God are not equal or a wash? In the first place men have been experiencing God form the beginning, and there are witnesses that were willing to die for the testimony they gave. I understand not everyone gets to encounter God personally, but no one has been to the multi verse; no one has even seen an Oort cloud? Second God is not just a better explanation for fine toning. The Matter had to come from somewhere? Every natural explanation just starts with the matter; MAGIC? No not magic just no explanation. Then there is the order that would not be called fine toning but all the same is said to have been the result of a great explosion? Suns were great gas clouds that condensed? I live on earth with gravity and an atmosphere. Gas here doesn’t condense; if you let it out of the bottle it comes in it quickly disperses? But in space for some reason, it acts much differently???? Then there is life from chemicals? A purely make-believe situation. NOT going to happen. You could get a thousand scientist together with a fully complete, but no longer living cell, and they couldn’t get that to live again. Never mind bit by bit in a bucket of goo? Lord help us save us from the new flat earthers???? Finally, evolution the god of our age? No such thing. The information for life comes first? Not just information but also irreducible complexity? There is change, that is true, but its like chiselling a stone to get a form? You don’t add, you take away what’s there to reveal what’s underneath. Keep going and you get to a point of extinction. It’s called genetic load and biologist know all about it. How long do we have? Every generation is less that the one before? I use to think, as many still do, we were getting better and smarter? Now I know that’s crap. We have 100 to 200 mutations per generation? Take you computer and screw up 100 lines of code? Just how long before you need a new one? By the way I didn't get that info from a church.... its science. Anyone that is willing to be reasonable has to consider God and do a decent search not through out the possibility because they know a bunch of hypocrites that call themselves His children? That brings us to the last point; The maximally good being? Theoretically there has to be such a being in at least one of the multiverses. If such a being can exist in any place it must exist in every place? Why because that being is GOD, He’s got the power. So the multi verse does more to prove God than to disprove Him, as has science. We live in a sick world, full of terrible people that hate Yashua even though He’s the perfect man? Full of truth, grace, love, and wisdom. Even though He wants only good for them? So much so that He came and died willingly in their place. Some think that twisted? Adam is your king the first man father of all. Oh yes; not so, your daddy is goo? But maybe not maybe itis Adam? Maybe he is responsible for you, but he can’t help you. If you grew up dirt poor your father couldn’t send you to university? If you got into trouble, he couldn’t afford a lawyer? The kid down the street might be rich. He’s going to the best school and if he gets into trouble while he’s there; maybe cheats on an exam; he not getting expelled; his dad is going to step in and take care of it? If you were him, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? Maybe the kid from the poor family would? But you could be adopted after all that other kid was? You could know for sure if God is real? you could seek Him honestly. A true skeptic would admit they could never say with certainty there is no God but they do bother looking? They don’t because they are not honest. But if you look and don’t find Him, I will admit you are screwed? I use to smoke; started when I was ten and couldn’t quit…I hated it. The one thing that kept me trapped was the thought that even if I quit, I would likely start again? That was a lie but it controlled me for a long time. Every atheist is lying to themselves and somewhere down deep they know it. There is going to come a day when you will encounter the creator of all things. It may be in this life; if you are very fortunate. If not, it will come in the next. God isn’t apologising, He’s not bending the knee here, you are. You don’t make stars, or babies; you don’t flood the earth and start over? You don’t speak only truth, or love even your enemies; you are not God; even if you do play one at home. I have encountered God personally so I know conclusively that He is the answer to all things; not a bit here and there. He’s the forest not the tree. But my encounter was for me not you. I can tell you of the many times God demonstrated His power to me? But they were for me not you. The only way anyone can KNOW … I am not talking about all the believers out there? They know about God and yes there are a lot of them? Frankly I don’t think many are His children? Why after all if so why don’t, they know Him? Know His voice? He said My sheep know My voice? I think that’s the biggest part of the problem? Lots of crazies out there talking about God like they know Him when in fact they don’t? Its obvious they don’t? So if they talk about a god, little g, that’s only in their imagination why should anyone take that seriously? Basically, Santa stepped out of story time? Well if that’s the time you took to check it out? If that’s the trouble you went to for your immortal sole … Which for all you know could be … then on that day after you have rejected Him as your king will you say He didn’t try hard enough to save you? NO you will bend the knee and you will go from His presence for all time? How sad you didn’t care enough about yourself to even bother checking? I have been told by many atheists how well they know scripture? I have never asked them why they think scripture is where you find God or salvation? I guess they heard that at some church somewhere? It sure can't be found in the bible they say they know so well? That book says it's written to the child of God and is useful for training, rebuke, for perfecting that already saved person unto all good works? It says nothing about being the way? Yashua is the way? You come to faith by coming to Him…. Not in your head? Not in your liver shivers/emotions, singing the songs? You encounter Him ..... really .... and in that moment you are going to know; not believe, not speculate, not know about;…..you are going to know Him. If not you're not his; so go do what you want, your time is short.
Sean is a very talented interviewer. He allows great exposition by his guests, prompts great conversation, and, yet, resists interrupting the flow of his guests. Apologetics are best heard in this form. Thank you.
Meyer is a great thinker, and this was a terrific conversation. I am grateful !!
Yeah! "Signature in the Cell" is brilliant.
I would also add that his articulation is so eloquent & sophisticated
If the multiverse is defined as all logically possible universes, and if God is logically possible, then Alvin Plantinga's modal version of the Ontological argument would mean a multiverse would necessitate God's existence (since if God is possible, he exists in some possible worlds and being omnipresent he exists in all possible. If the multiverse equals all possible worlds, God exists; and exists in all of them).
Interesting intersection with philosophy and science!
@@SeanMcDowell
Thank you sir. Of course I'm not arguing for the multiverse. Just saying that in trying to escape the fine tuning argument the atheist potentiallly runs into the modal ontological argument.
@@SeanMcDowell
ps. I think the idea was in a Babylon Bee headline😄
Thank you for posting what has been in the back of my mind for some time. If anything that is logically possible exists in at least one universe within the multiverse, and God is logically possible, which He is, then the very definition of the multiverse requires God's existence. In reality, I am very doubtful that the multiverse exists, but even if we assume it exists, God still pops up in it.
That's a fascinating idea and it ultimately disproves the notion of infinite universes disproving God. People easily forget the implication of infinite universes, with infinite universes there has to be no contact between the different universes
Pushing the problem back, the opposite of kicking the can down the road. 😊. How I love these discussions. ❤
Meyer’s ability to explain such complexities to regular non scientific people blows me away
Me too!
scientific or "non scientific" meaning.....?
You have *absolutely_no* idea?
No surprises yhere; why noy yhe multigod? You mumno, I'll jumbo.
@@SeanMcDowell why not have an actual scientist on your discuss science?
It’s almost as if you have a purely religious agenda and don’t give a toss about science
Stephen Meyer is a wonderful, intelligent man. We are blessed to have him articulate these complex issues in favour of Christianity.
He is a demonstrable liar and a fraud.
ruclips.net/video/w2XSMWXHXfM/видео.html
We conclude a discussion on the origin of the universe by pointing out that both Intelligent Design and Multiverse theories require faith. However, the weight of the scientific evidence overall favors Intelligent Design.
What evidence favours intelligent design? While it is made out that multiverses are more complex than than the "god" hypothesis. But this ignores the fact that an intelligence that can control all of this is a level of complexity that surpasses the complexity of the multiverse idea. The honest answer is that we do not know and will never know either way.
@@John_Catt Thank you for asking. I have a doctorate and was a chemistry major in undergrad. To me, "chirality," or configuration is strong proof of intelligent design:
All organic compounds have a left or right configuration. The direction of the configuration is essential in order for chemicals to connect and act. Nearly all organic compounds have a left, or L-configuration. Outside forces, such as enzymes and organelles are needed to assure that chemicals are made in the proper configuration, called "chirality."
So, if the primitive earth did have a "primordial soup" containing the atoms needed to make amino acid, and if they did randomly connect, they would make mixed configurations called a "racemic mixture." It takes an outside force, like an enzyme or catalyst to keep the misoriented chemicals out of the way of a developing amino acid or protein. That force takes intelligence.
For example, consider gloves: they have a left or right-hand orientation. If you put 10 pairs of gloves in a dryer, it doesn't matter how many millions of years you circulate them. When you open the dryer door they will be mixed up - not chained all right on one side and all left on the other. Human chemicals are inestimably more complex than gloves.
@@christianfrommuslim I'm not qualified to debate the issue but could I suggest that "chirality" is a strong "indication of" rather than "proof of" . I note that an entry in Wikipedia under "Proteinogenic amino acid" states that "The evolutionary selection of certain proteinogenic amino acids from the primordial soup has been suggested to be because of their better incorporation into a polypeptide chain as opposed to non-proteinogenic amino acids." Not sure this relates to your point but it would suggest that the whole area is still the subject of ongoing research.
@@John_Catt I too am not qualified, but I'd recommend Dr James Tour as an expert in the field of organic chemistry and a sharp critic of OoL research. He has a great RUclips channel.
@@John_Catt Good catch. My wording of "proof" is wrong. Nothing can prove whether or not God exists. We simply must go the way we feel the weight of the evidence directs.
As for the Wikipedia explanation however, it's flim-flam and waving of hands. Of course it works better! But they overlook the need for a mechanism to selectively align the compounds. And from where the mechanism came.
It reminds me of Niell Degrass Tyson's method of trickery - 2 truths followed by an incorrect conclusion.
For example in Cosmos he says:
- The conditions on early earth were harsh
- We have found microorganisms that live in harsh conditions
- That proves that life arose in a primordial soup of harsh conditions
It proves nothing of the sort. The organisms that live in such hot, salty conditions are extremely advanced. To survive, they require additional heat and element pumps that combat the conditions that surround them. These death-defying adaptations are far to complex to be in primitive organisms.
But the viewing public is largely uneducated to this extent, and is hungry to believe suppositions against intelligent design. So they eagerly accept this faulty logic and make Neil a star.
What a great program you have established, with such interesting and intelligent guests.
Thank you, Sean.
All you need to know about this "intelligent guest"
ruclips.net/video/w2XSMWXHXfM/видео.html
Mr. McDowell
I met you at SLU 101 just a few days ago. I asked you if you had an material to help young people interested in a scientific field talk to atheistic or materialistic people in science. You recommend me this video and it is really helpful thank you so much I now feel more confident in my ability to speck intelligently about science while defending my beliefs.
Zak! So awesome to hear. Way to go!
Why not just get off your arse and learn science from scientists?
"young" being young_er than what age? You are proof that you Elsies have no idea that young and old like rich and poor are relative terms , nobody is absolutely old young, rich, poor, tall or short, so not young, youg_er, than...., " younger people" being young_er than what?
What do you supose the word" science" to mean?
You hve no idea? That is probably because you have no Latin
Sean is best interviewer on the planet
What a great interview. Once I'm through with the two books I am working on, I am definitely grabbing this one. Thanks Sean for your devotion to pure rationality that points to the Trinity.
👊
the book is a joke, as are all apologetics books. And I WANT to believe.
Another great conversation! Thanks.
I really want to see a friendly discussion between stephen meyer, hugh ross and william lane craig... Wish someone could make that happen
Absolutely love it whenever Dr. Meyer comes on the channel. I would be interested to here his thoughts on the idea that we are living in a simulation. I personally think it’s insane that logical minds scoff at the idea of Intelligent Design, but think the world being a simulation as probable. Mainly because a simulation would need a creator/creators, and if a being with the power to interact with something it created would have to be considered a “god” at some level.
Oh yeah, certainly a possibility. A 15 yr old hacker in an encapsulating Multiverse wrote some code...and here we are. We're all just bits (probably q-bits) on his computer in his bedroom. That of course just pushes the question: "Why does anything exist?" out another level. However, it does have profound implications for our existence: our creator is just a kid, not immortal, not infinite, etc., and to boot, he doesn't even know we exist. Note how it explains what we observe perfectly: clockwork nature, a beginning, fine tuning, suffering, no interaction with our creator, no involvement by the creator in our day to day,....
As to scoffing at ID, it's because there's no evidence for it. Just like there's no evidence for my 15 yr old hacker. So we don't take any of this speculation seriously......we certainly don't want to be teaching "15 yr old hackerism" in the Science classroom.
@@hongotedesco8931
Neither Religion nor Anti-religion (atheism/whatever) belong in a class that is teaching a scientific study.
-
For instance:
In an electro-mechanic class/lecture/lab no one is interested in evolution/Creation/multiverses etc.
Or in a class of Process Systems Engineering (physicochemical) there will be *NO* evolution this or Creation that !
-
You should have said:
- A theological vision that you do not adhere to, doesn't belong in an ideology-class about what you think/believe about what "Science" should tell us about existence or inexistence of unicorns !
-
Simply put: you do not want our ideology to be more powerful than your ideology.
That anger boiling in you to spit on our pitiful and worthless exitance and ideas.
A pity you cannot send us to a gulag or forced-work camp, right?
(incoming Crusade; Library of Alex, and other atheist-fetishes, lol)
-
For me as a Christian this is what Science is:
*Science* is the "intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment"
Thus,
Science is the study of *What Is* , using the *scientific method* ,or at least a variation of a scientific method that is not *ideologically compromised* .
-
Is not Science versus Religion !
Is how Religion and Atheism interpret Science to support their different ideas.
Thus your religion versus my Religion.
Nothing more.
@@krixpop Well, I do believe we agree on most things, eg, "in an electro-mechanical class...no one is interested in Evolution". Absolutely. Evolution belongs in Biology, etc.
But I don't think you're looking at certain things quite right. I've never heard or seen a science professor teach/talk about atheism in a science class. Sure, i'm sure somebody brought it up in some classroom, at some point in time, but it's really not relevant.
And I do believe we agree on what Science is, in particular "not ideologically compromised".
And I do also agree that it shouldn't be Science vs. Religion, but let's be clear, to me that means only Science is taught in science classrooms. You don't bring in religious nonsense (like ID) into that classroom. Absolutely not, never. You want to go to a religious school and study religion? Go for it. And no, I don't want to put people in gulags or anything of the sort.
And absolutely not: "your religion vs my religion". Atheism is NOT a religion. It's simply an instantiation of the abstraction "I don't believe in X, because I see no evidence for X", that's it. It's not a world view, it's not a philosophy, it's really just a logic statement. Super simple.
@@krixpop "Is how Religion and Atheism interpret Science to support their different ideas."
Nonsese!
@@hongotedesco8931 never heard a science professor teach atheism? They're teaching (in biology as you said) that human beings evolved from this and that and that all life came from nothing and we're all the results of blind processes and at the mercy of a cruel nature. How is any of that scientific? Evolution has no place in our schools either. Teach kids the FACTS not your best guess to explain away God. Teach kids that rabbits produce rabbits and humans produce humans. If there was any more potential for evolution (for example a cat one day has a cat that is born with gills that can work and becomes a cat fish) then we would have to throw science out the window. Science is based on repeatable results. Evolution is not observable and therefore not science.
This was excellent and very helpful. I would also love to hear someone analyze how Marvel is using the multiverse in their movies maybe from a philosophical or theological point of view. The multiverse should also undermine the importance of human life and choice, but in every Marvel conception it reinforces the idea that "You matter and your (moral) choices matter." As well as "You are irreplaceable and valuable". (Building on Infinity War and Endgame) This angle could be a great conversation starter with non-Christian friends.
Joe Schimmel of GoodFightMinistries RUclips has a documentary War on God. He explains these movies are anti God showing that the evil false gods being portrayed as good. Use the Bible to point your friends to Jesus Christ and not violent movies, or non biblical models of the universe God richly bless you
@@theresaread72 Hi Theresa, thanks for the recommendation. I think perhaps like Dr. Sean and the intent of this channel, I choose to engage people on the culture they know to lead them to the truth of Christ. There are many pictures of Christ even in these movies, and the basic premise of the MCU is that heroes must suffer and sacrifice themselves to save others. I believe the approach of meeting people in their culture, no matter how godless or false, mirrors Paul's approach in Acts 17. He is distressed by Greek culture (vs 16) but then when he talks to them, he uses one of the altars they built to point to the real God. He even studied their philosophers and quotes them (vs 28) because what they said was true but only realized in Jesus Christ. So MCU movies may be modern altars to false gods, but we can use them in a biblical way. God bless you too!
multiverse is meaningless gibberish- an word with no matching or corresponding experience a made up word or neologism to convey no-one- knows-what- means a bout the same as multigod -it is*that* coherent
Great seeing Stephen Meyer.
Wow, how did I miss this one!!!
Does Dr. Stephen Meyer comment on the implications this theory would have on the nature and character of God?
Not in this discussion, sorry!
Will there be Q&A? If so, do we post the question in this Comments section of youtube?
This is very very deep profound and essentially impossible to confirm or deny topic...
@Gerard Moloney I was speaking of the multiverse but I appreciate ur defense of our God!!! God bless
@Gerard Moloney I couldn't agree more..I felt a little off put/confused while watching the video as Mr.Meyer at one point said it may be possible to hold a belief in God along with a belief in the multiverse which I find very alarming..maybe I misunderstood what he said idk...but I know at one point prior to my own conversion I held to a very similar belief concerning the multiple realities of existence and the physical universe and had to fight very hard to overcome such new age influenced un biblical beliefs as such ...anyway thank you for your clarity on the subject.. GOD BLESS!!!
So would the rationale for a multiverse then be a “multiverse of the gaps”?
multi indicating many(or at any rate more than one) *What. which ever imbecile coined the asinine neologism multiverse probably thought the could be more than one unique object, but he thought fcuk the *m-e-a-n-i-n-g* of words, just use them any-old -how
Multiverse, my arse!
Touche!
Meyer demonstrates that the wave of the newest science takes us to a Creator.
Inthe wonderfully circular world of idolatry what is -copy and paste "a Creator"? You don't just hedge your bets you forrest them, don't you?
Hve you*Any* idea what the word "science" means
You are aboute to demonstrate by default that you have*absolutely_no* ides what the word science means or what you seek yo convey when you use it, have you?
Maybe I missed it, but it seems like this only addresses theories involving preexistant universe generatorating "things": strings or fluctuations or whatever. How does this address the explination that universes might pop into existence out of literally nothing? It's out of our reach to ever find evidence for such a thing, but if possible it should be expected to happen an infinite number of times. If universes can appear out of nothing they might be expected to be random as much as they could be expected to be anything else. In which case a multiverse of all possibilities seems consistent to me for at least an atheistic perspective that supposes things might be able to come from nothing.
I don't buy it, but it seems consistent.
That would probably just be the intellectual price tag the atheist would have to accept. They would have to believe that universes can quite literally come into being from nonbeing (literally no thing). But also, accepting such a theory might render the principle of explosion. If universes (much less more simple things) can come into being uncaused, why don’t other things in our daily experience do the same? Like an elephant in your living room. Surely it has the space and the particles in the air to work with (to come from), but this doesn’t at all seem to be a sufficient cause for such a thing. So it might be consistent (although attributing consistency to nothing seems odd), it’s absurdity far outweighs its probability. Thoughts?
@@JohnnyHofmann The explination I've considered for why we would not observe things coming out of nothing in our own universe is that there is nowhere in our universe that is unoccupied by something. Even empty space has dimensionality, mathematical points can be located and described. There's nowhere in this universe that could be strictly described as "no thing", therefore something could not come out of "no thing" within the confines of this universe. For something to come out of nothing it must occur somewhere other than where something already exists, or else it would not be from nothing. It would at minimum have come from a point with an identifiable location, which isn't nothing.
This seems consistent, upon accepting the magic that nothing could become things. I suspect this is a common view, but few people publish papers from the perspective because there's no possible way to find evidence for or against.
@@Nighthawkinlight I like your thoughts.
I agreed with you that at least anything that came to be within any universe would come to be from some preexisting substrate. The question is whether or not that extant stuff by which something comes is a sufficient cause. For example, if a giraffe were to come into being in your kitchen, I agree that the giraffe would come from not nothing (ie. Space, particles, quantum particles etc.), but do you think that these things would be sufficient explanations for such explanandum? It seems hard to believe. Now, I understand being coming from nonbeing is unfalsifiable (“there’s no possible way to find evidence for or against”), at least in the empirical sense, but wouldn’t you say our intuitions lean heavily towards the negation of such a hypothesis? Like a metaphysical axiom. And also, do you think if whole universes (which are partly comprised of monkeys) can come into being from nothing, then a sufficient cause for monkeys coming to be in your living room could merely be space and some air particles or why not even some space and 3 air particles?
On its face, the explanation seems to be totally unhelpful because it’s quite literally nothing. It’s unfalsifiability doesn’t help it much either. I appreciate your thoughts.
@@JohnnyHofmann Remember I don't believe the concept I am talking about, so I'm not attempting to promote it as reasonable.
In this view, only "no thing" is proposed to spontaneously produce things. The few atoms and space you use in your example is precisely what prevents something else from coming into existence in observable intersection. What you describe is something coming into existence within the confines of preexistant 3 dimensional space, pushing other objects aside. To truly come into existence out of nothing an object's dimensionality would be a new creation entirely. In essence, if a monkey popped into existence out of true nothingness it would have new dimensionality in and of itself which boundaries up against nothing. The monkey would be a new universe, not a new object within another universe.
@@Nighthawkinlight I don’t believe you hold this view, but you did mention it as consistent. I’m trying to see if we can poke holes in this notion.
Hmmm… To say only “no thing” is proposed to spontaneously produce things not only has a tinge of ad hocness, but seems to ascribe a particular property to the lack of something, namely the ability to spontaneously produce things, but nothing (universal negation) seems to, by definition, not have such properties if any at all. So, to hold such a view, might force you to accept that literally nothing has a particular property, namely to spontaneously produce things, which seems ad hoc but also contradictory to the nature of nothing (universal negation).
I’m happy to concede the monkey analogy (LOL), I sense a potential stale mate (again, I’m not taking about monkeys coming from nothing, but extant material). If nothing is a sufficient condition for universes to come to be, why wouldn’t monkeys from 3 particles in a certain spatial dimension in your living room in particular be a sufficient cause?
Always enjoy him
In a Multiverse with all possible universes, there must be at least one that coexists with an entity that is the functional equivalent of God. If there is one such universe, there are an infinite number of such universes. It is very possible that our universe is one of those, where God is present. The Multiverse hypothesis provides an argument for an infinite number of universes with God. It justifies belief we are in God's universe. It does not eliminate the need for God, but creates infinite rooms for God-inhabited universes.
Do you not understand the universe_S is a nonsense and an oxymoron demonstrating that the user of that asinine neologism has *absoluyely_no* idea what he means by universe or he would not employ the oxymoronic neologism universe_S, which is meaningless gibberish
In the level 6 multiverse as described and explained in Max Tegmarks book, Our Mathematical Universe, only internally consistent or computable structures exist. If you think about it, we could not have evolved in an inconsistent mathematical structure.
Thank you so very much 🙏😊!
With an infinite number of universes, one must be perfect. With the existence of a perfect universe comes the existence of a perfect being. Scientists shoot themselves in the foot over methodological materialism without realizing it. In their seeking to disprove the possibility that God exists, they open the door to His existence.
The multiverse idea is so comic book/science fiction based. It falls apart on so many levels and appears to be nothing but a desperate attempt to avoid acknowledging the Universe had to have a designer.
First, I write this humbly, as a Christian and a sinner myself who needs the grace of God every day!
But to me, I think if people who don’t believe in God were really honest with themselves, they would agree that they don’t believe in God, or they don’t want to believe in God, because they want to live however they desire sexually. Sex is the number one driver in most people’s lives, and therefore most people suppress the truth of God because they don’t want to be accountable for their actions. This leads them to any possible speculation away from a loving but also holy Creator.
Put another way… If atheism, agnosticism, etc. somehow included a prohibition against premarital sex, pornography, etc., I would expect nearly every atheist, agnostic, etc. to start looking for a different belief system that would allow them to live sexually however they wanted to.
In contrast, Jesus taught a narrow road and commanded that we live a holy life, including a sexually pure one. Fortunately, because we all (even Christians) sin and fall short of God‘s righteousness, God views us as perfect and blameless, if we accept Jesus as payment for our sins, thanks to his gracious death on the cross.
Aha, you suppose yourself to be able to be able to be christian do you? Is there no limits to the capacity of you creatures for self deception? what leads you to suppose that you might be able to be able to be a christian or have the necessary ingredients for being able to be able to be christian-which is impossible for dreaming machines, particularly when there is no way of discovering of what the teaching of the way of christ consisted; you have no idea what christ prescribed nor for what he prescribed it, have you?
And by the same token you have no idea what conditions you must be able to satisfy in order to be able to call yourself a christian which for some inexplicable reason you suppose to have something do with your god idol/pacifier/teddy bear/policeman that you call god, not being able to under stand that chrisyianity is incompatible with idolatry , but the you have *absolutely no* idea what is means to be a christian, have you? However there is a certain naive charm in your supposition that you even*might* be able to be able to be a christian-which is obviously absurd.
Wouldn't the ontological argument rely on a multiverse to exist? If so, should Christians not use this argument unless we are speaking hypothetically to someone that believes in a multi-verse model?
There *Are_No* christians.
Multi, or many or more-than-one *What*?
If a multiverse did exist and if intelligent life could appear within such a universe without any need for a creator God then we should at least consider this: Some time ago I came to hear that an atheist mathematician had announced a theory of natural repetition that went something like this: When everything that can happen, i.e., every single permutation of every movement in all matter (matter being something as opposed to nothing) has happened, the only logical thing to happen next would be for everything to start repeating itself, and ultimately, to continually keep repeating itself over and over again ad infinitum. This then would include the natural process that started our universe, our solar system and the following naturally formed evolutionary cycle that produced the intelligent life on our planet. Even the present intelligent life on earth that we now perceive as our own would, sometime in the very far distant future be repeated, and not just once, but over and over again. So the theory goes.
What is more, so I was told: Even though the time span between the cycle that produced us now and the repeated cycle that would eventually produce us again in that far distant future might look like bordering on the infinite, it would still only seem like an instant between our loss of consciousness at death, and our regained consciousness through the rebirth of our naturally repeated evolved lives in the future. This is because only the time registered in our consciousness would be recorded and therefore known… so the theory goes.
Now the point I am coming to is this: When we apply this theory of natural repetition to our universe, (which is believed by many scientists to be a rapidly expanding ‘bubble’ billions of light years across and which started from an incredibly small point some 10-20 billion years ago) then we can also very easily arrive at a completely different and infinitely more interesting conclusion that goes way beyond the original idea of a naturally repeating eternity of endless births, deaths and rebirths, but first we must consider the following…
If our universe, as some would have us believe, could be the first one or one of a finite number capable of starting and supporting evolved intelligent life, then it would mean that as time has advanced so the variation in the movement of matter would have increased. In which case, if we were to trace time back we would have to witness a decrease in that variation. Eventually, if we were to trace time back far enough we would have to reach a point of absolute zero movement in all matter, and that would result in a physical impossibility for any movement to begin. The only logical way out of this would be that our universe cannot be the first one or one of a finite number but instead must be one in an infinite number (from an atheistic point of view). Some atheist scientists though have also argued that our universe could have started from nothing by way of a “quantum fluctuation”, but even if this was true it would still logically follow that if nothing was responsible for starting this rapidly expanding ‘bubble’ we call our universe, then wherever there was nothing there would be countless universes about to be formed, being formed and already formed. In other words, it would have been impossible for nothing to have existed without already producing a mass of countless expanding (and possibly contracting) ‘bubbles’, similar to the one we presently call our universe. In which case, we would still be in the realms of “natural repetition”. (from an atheistic point of view)
This in turn then would mean that evolved intelligent life in one form or another would not only have already strived an infinite number of times to understand, create and control whatever it so willed but would already have had an infinite period of time in which to do it in. Whatever kind or form of evolutionary cycle that would have produced this almighty free thinking God of reason then could also be seen to be the origins of God and therefore also a part of God. So even from an atheistic point of view I was able to see what could be described as a reasonable concept of an eternal infinite all knowing all powerful God who came into existence but with no conceivable beginning to the finite mind of man… if you see what I mean.
Yes, the Brahman Dream.
Before a man can begin reasoning correctly and continue reasoning correctly then he must first be made fully aware and remain fully aware of the primary cause of why people are naturally prone to lie and deceive when there is enough for everyone, and not only deceive others but themselves also whenever it suits them.
Only then shall the cure become obvious and only then can the lost escape from the ranks of the insane.
Sean looks either fascinated or 100% confused 😊
This neat topic
Interestingly Dawkins cited the universe's fine tuning as a reason why he might consider the existence of a creator God during the very recent Dawkins Collins on the Premier Unbelievable channel.
Perhaps modern christian apologist needs to now refocus discussions around fine tuning discussions to shine a light on observable truth.
To hence ultimately leave seekers of the truth without excuse when it comes to observing God's creative power in His universe
And what of the Megaverse and Ultraverse?
The universe is nothing more than an ultra cluster of 100-300 billion galaxies.
The Multiverse is a Super group of between 50 billion-100 billion Universes.
The Megaverse is a super group of 100-200 billion Multiverses.
And the Ultraverse encompasses the totality all Megaverses.
Of course science won't get this far for another Century. But this is where it's headed.... The ULTRAVERSE or INFINITE-VERSE.🧐
They can be found in the shop run by a nearly-pregnant woman selling more than one unique objects which you can*Never* do all-the-time.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
I cant say this enough but please please get a better microphone the volume is awful..... love the content though
I feel like C.S. Lewis kind of explored a theistic idea of infinite worlds in his fiction.
atheistic one wurd "A" meaning no theo meaning god, thus atheo(atheist), no god(which depends on what you mean by god) but since you have *Absolutely_No* idea what you mean by god that is not perfectly circular, forget it, god - depending on what you mean by hod is fiction, or is it your case that someone*_else* or other than you came up with with the whatever you mean by but have no idea "god" idea?
Or did you invent it, or the idea of whatever you mean by but have no idea " god" just popped into your head one day out of the blue. Either you in vented it or someone_else* did, which is it?
Bit of a appointees question since you have (Absolutely_No*(non-circular) idea what you mean by god, as you are about to demonstrate by default or you will go in for x=y=x where neither x nor y are defined or ascribed a value which we - your betters, call begging the question or circularity. You have not even any ide what *kind* of thing god ie, but my guess is that like most anthropomorphic goddists or savages you are an idolater or as the wisest of the wise master of masters put it of you idolaters:" they can very clearly see this same ‘God’ of theirs in their picturings, almost with a comb sticking out of his left vest pocket, withwhich he sometimes combs his famous beard."
how is seth meyers,..
Multiverse described by my ancestor Thomas Wright. Astronomer from Byers Green, England 1700s. He also was the first to describe The Milky Way. His theories were perhaps flawed, but, he was the first to propose The Multiverse.
It seems to me the Achilles to the mutliverse hypothesis is no substantial universe generating mechanism that corresponds to all proposed universes.
The assumption is that they need to be generated. Think of spacetime as an static object that cannot be created or destroyed. That is B theory of time.
@@jonatand2045 How can time not be created or destroyed? Seems to me that it's highly illogical for a "goldilocks" universe could be created by anything less than an intelligent being.
@@newreformationapologetics4953
It is inevitable that we find ourselves in a goldilocks universe instead of a dead one.
@@jonatand2045 But why is it inevitable?
@@newreformationapologetics4953
Because we can't live in dead universes. It's like how you shouldn't be surprised you live on Earth instead of Mars.
If I have ingredients of a cake and I mix these ingredients together then I bake the ingredients I come out with a cake, it doesn't matter how many times I mix the ingredients and how many times I bake the cake I still come out with the same cake, god planted a seed and it grew into a great tree and it produced its fruit, the seed is the fire let there be light, the tree is the universe and it's fruit is man and woman, everything is found within the seed,
There is just no curing you idolaters of your savage and infantile(and fcuk-the-commandments) idolatry is there?
It's not madness. It's just that there's no evidence for it.
As a scientist, it always bugs me that laypeople take many science fiction ideas seriously simply because they appear in movies. I tell them there is no even theoretical support for things like faster than light travel, time travel, shrink rays, mutations causing super powers, etc., and they just say "well, it's not possible now, but maybe someday...". Unfortunately, I'm afraid the Multiverse will serve as a solution to the fine tuning problem, even with absolutely no evidence.
There is theoretical support for things like faster than light and time travel. Flawed as the Alcubierre drive is, it is per definition theoretical support for FTL and going fast is time travel of some sort.
The "the fine tuning problem" is just a problem for those who have an adhernce to ancient mythology and don't read Douglas Adams.
@@derhafi It's not actual faster than light travel that is proposed; it proposes the possibility of warping space-time .. whatever vehicle is encapsulated within the proposed space-time bubble, isn't actually "moving" at all .. Dunning-Kruger: a type of cognitive bias that causes people to overestimate their knowledge or ability, particularly in areas with which they have little to no experience .. including ancient "mythology"
@@chrisschutte3604 "whatever vehicle is encapsulated within the proposed space-time bubble, isn't actually "moving" at all"
There is alittle thing called "frame of reference" you obviously never heard of it but it is quite an important concept in physics. In this case it even would have helped you to avoid making a fool out of yourself.
@@derhafi naturally I have have a solid grasp of the concept of "frame of reference" .. if you were savvy enough, you would have gleaned that from my response .. but I'll have you have last say, I suspect that is important to you
@@chrisschutte3604 Just tell me then, why did you feel the need to leave this pointless and unnecessary condescending comment then?
Something noone is talking avout is breeding populations . Why is a 1:1 ratio assumed . What if a population one had a single breeding male or female . It seems most hypothesis about evolution require ample breeding partners with shared mutations in close proximity and are sutable for mating and the time of the encouter . It just seems like a whole nother set of variables that flies in the face of evolution
In Eastern religion God is both transcendent and immanent: transcendent as consciousness and immanent as intelligence and substance. All seen as Consciousness; matter being an expression of consciousness or God’s dream.
The picture of atheistic theorists frantically inventing multiple universes and universe generators to avoid the idea of a Creator reminds me of evolutionists adding millions and billions of years to the age of the earth to leave time for their Godless theory to supposedly work.
Ah back to thr good old perfectly circular idolatrous creator eh? multiverse is simply oxymoronic gibberish like lots of unique things or Freda was nearly pregnant or life-after-death.
Sean likes super heroes, but Tin-Tin hair style. All classy, adequate and adult.
Atheist accuse Theist of using a God of the gaps but when they run into a big problem they create a new theory where they become the God who creates the new gap.
It is not violating Ockham's Razor to explain a relatively simple book by means of a much more complex author. That is a good potential answer to Dawkins.
I just stick with the cosmology found in the Bible a few thousand years ago.
les go
A widely available video titled ‘The Simulation Hypothesis’ (by Kent Forbes) opened my eyes to a discovery of quantum physics; that the universe is divided between the visible, physical, measurable world in which we live, and another invisible realm of infinite possibilities that seems to be the precursor and origin of our visible world.
The video explains that things exist as ‘waves of potential’ in the invisible realm, but become ‘real’ or ‘definite’ in our observable world. And so this video explains why various ideas, like Multiverse Theory, have arisen as possible explanations of the unseen realm.
As a Christian I believe that Romans 1:19-20 rules out the idea of a multiverse. It says that what may be known about God is revealed in our universe and its contents. To believe in a multiverse is to contradict Romans, claiming that there is infinitely more to know about God. At the same time it ‘cheapens the currency’ of the universe before our eyes. Ultimately it leads us to question whether or not we are capable of knowing anything at all!
Has a multiverse ever existed? Yes, in the MIND of the ‘only-wise God’; who considered the infinite possibilities available to Him before He decided to created the ONE universe that is.
I don't see how that verse supports only one universe. I think you are inputing your preferences as layers of interpretation on the actual text....
Common sense tells us energy and matters can't be unlimited. After the past wrong observation and interpretation of Mercury were discovered, the Theory of General Relativity could be wrong too. This means even the existence of the parallel universe is questionable. And, personally doesn't believe the laws of physics are the very fabric, foundation or framework in the indefinesimal world. Fine-tuned at which stage or state of the intelligent design is the question.
Inflation is not an incomplete but open field, as there are several theories. The scalar field theory looks currently best of the simpler model (of known quantum field physics) after the last rounds of South Polar observations. That can change of course (but not a lot since they managed to narrow the field a lot last year).
A scalar field is a vacuum so its entropy is zero, suiting the low entropy universe that our hot big bang universe started out as. This is the main reason why it fits inflation theory, apart from the inflation fluctuation and exit behavior that the Planck observatory describes. There is no need for string theory in any of this or what follows, it is vanilla quantum field theory.
The end of scalar inflation would be locally random since some vacuum fluctuations would push the local state up the potential and some would push them down. This is why it fits the multiverse theory. Eternal inflation has no need for initial conditions as such, and we don’t know how far back inflation goes even observing from our patch of the universe. There is an open debate in physics whether or not space is average flat or if the convenient de Sitter topology map is not only a map but the territory. But that has problems like potentials due to cosmological horizons and an initial Planck scale energy singularity/a start of time which looks untestable. (Or you tie two of them together seamlessly but then you have “mirror” universes with time or entropy going in other directions than observed.) A general relativistic inflation energy or dark energy universe naturally wants to expand exponentially, so there is no innate problem here.
It needs to be confirmed this is what happened, but phase changes out of equilibrium generically results in random ground states. So when inflation exits we should expect random outcomes, and since we live we should expect an infinite amount of them.
An infinite amount. Including one where God is the creator. Haha. Andre Linde is right. To have a complete theory of the universe we need to include the one and only thing that we know at 100%. That is that we are conscious. This universe has components in that are aware of itself. A self aware and almost self comprehending universe. Consciousness came before the universe and there is only one universe.
“Theistic implications” interesting. There being a multiverse does not eliminate ‘’Theistic implications” because if a Deity could create one universe He could also create multiverses. That is what a Deity implies; no limitations, as well Infinity should be filled with something and not just be empty space, as what would be the point of that. Why have space just to be space and not contain something.
You still have to explain the fine-tuned intelligently designed universe we live in and how it would’ve ever come about when every other universe is random intelligence is inescapable.
Why is String Theory a theory and not an hypothesis?
Humor me....
When i drop any small object from approx 1 foot onto a concrete floor in my house, 90% of objects bounce and land within approx 45 degrees or less?
There are other worlds than these…Steven King from the Dark Tower series. 😀
Science needs a god named "Multiverse", in order to explain science in a not falsifiable manner.
If only you had some slight idea of what the word science means, but, by default you are about to demonstrate that you have*absolutely no idea what the word " science" means , but then you have no Latin, have you?Epistemology not your long suit either, eh?
@@vhawk1951kl It only shows that you don’t know what you are talking about. Learn some philosophy of science to know what the predictability and falsifiability is !
@@kennywong5857 Roars with laughter. I told you so titch; you have no Latin have you?
I told you you would be unable to say what the word science means and as I predicted you have shown that you have no idea what the word science means
@@vhawk1951kl So you can only play a word game without actually understanding the true nature of science? The true nature of science is all about how a truth is detected by means of its predictability and falsifiability, where "multiverse" is a god due to the lack of falsifiability.
Apparently, you don't know what I was talking about. And you don't know what you are talking about, either.
Multiple universes makes it much easier for us to believe that we can have multiple identities and multiple genders.
Lol
LOL!!!
Meyer, the most qualified person to make observations about the multiverse in relation to a god, ffs
Is the universe a single universe? A one off ?
Is the universe a multiverse? What kind of multiverse? One with infinite information in everyplace, every time,ie, is there every moment another version of me in close proximity to me in an inter dimensional universe wherein ever iterative moment generates an infinite number of iterations so that I am an infinity of me? Or is there a fractal me, slightly different in a different slice of a multiverse, a sort of different slice of the fruit, similar but just a minuscule difference but with infinite me’s all over the multiverse? Is the a version of the multiverse in which I do not exist?
( note that the entire proposition of a multiverse or a many worlds universe rests on a proposition that energy is infinite- however the proposition also implies no limits to both information and energy without limits of information and energy in time. That is to say that if the proposition is true then energy is infinite at all time which means that the only thing that could mathematically occur given infinite information/energy at all time is a Big Bang continuously forever. If there is a not non limit of information/energy in time then there is not an infinite amount of information/energy- therefore if the universe is not in a perpetual every moment Big Bang then no such explanation is possible- the proposition of infinite information: energy then cannot be true)( furthermore if every moment of me and the stuff of me also has infinite possibilities then how or what is the thing of me-the integrity of my total physics, chemistry, biology, social and historical, hereditary information-genes - which by virtue of the proposition of infinite paths of reality -what is the thing, force, chance,etc. which keeps happening as me? Take that to the level of integrity of all matter-space-time. Is there a different earth right next to this one or within this one? All the matter-what makes that go through time with integrity, continuity?)
Is reality a matrix? A matrix of simulations iterated to infinity?
Was the universe really created from nothing? Three kinds of nothing?
If the universe began like coffee and milk how did they begin to mix such that they could go to highest entropy? How does a collapsed universe to a singularity suddenly and near “explosively “ expand ? What is the stuff expanding and into what is it expanding?
Was the singularity able to escape itself?
Was the singularity a Supra fluid, Supra plasmic, Supra structure matrix-a ball of super dense super hot ball which by spinors and twistors reached resonant frequency then shattered?
If life is ubiquitous in the universe and we live on a planet full of life forms why do we not see pre-life forms? What would pre-life forms be? Is it membrane first, DNA first, RNA first, proteins first, amino acids first, metabolism first?
What of chirality? Why proteins one way and lipids another?
What are a dingo and a dog or genetically different but phenotypic similar plants on mountains 1/2 a world apart converging towards/onto?
How does a cockroach exposed to massive radiation recapitulate it’s code to 140-ploidy to recreate the phenotype?
How can a flatworm whose cell membrane is recoded by ion channels in order to develop a two headed flatworm then perpetually reproduce two headed flatworms without ever having the genome altered?
Can you create a globular fractal-DNA(like a Peano curve on steroids)?
//
Eyes have evolved separately between 6-9 times. Understand that! Separately. If evolution acts purely on mutation and the genetic code and it is more likely that a mutation causes deleterious effects than beneficial effects and mutation is random then “chances” of the same pattern evolving 6-9 times separately is a mathematically illogical proposition ( not impossible but statistically impossible- magic).
To evolve by chance once lies within all possibles. However to evolve more than once by chance lies further and further away within all probables.
Regarding Wolfram:
Given computational infinities they search through all possibles, consider all probables but deny the one actual.
//
Ahh the hilarity
Of happenstance’s
Serendipity
Of a single singularity
Instantaneous and
Spontaneously
Mixed in a state
Of lowest entropy
Stirred by unstable
Nothingness
Exploded into
Everything
And so by emergence
A mid state of entropy
Causing all causality
From strings
Spinning spinors
And twisting twistors
Both matter and purpose
Intent by blind
Engineering
Created mind
And meaning
Whose dark cold
End is empty
Emptiness once again
Sparking infinite expansion
Of unstable nothingness
Into something again
And again eternal
Without end
Quite the credulity
The religion of nihilism
From nothing to nothing
Is illogical in the face
Of any meaning
Or purpose of being
Self supposed
Or otherwise opposed
Contradicting existence
And factual experience
For never one see’s
Nothing become something
Nor something become nothing
By physical laws
As so described even
Something at lowest
Entropy would require
Non self induction
The spark and bang
Of any creation
And so without
Hesitation and with great
Adulation are the
Songs and praises
Of Anti-creation
To infinite universes
Of infinite potential
And we but one
In a game of chance
No miracles required
Of a being higher
Yet Folly on follies
Unthought the chance
Of Unopposed infinite
Potential the absolute
One is infinitely possible
Let not the nihilist
Not fully presume
a non nihilist
Meaning and purpose
Of nothingness creating
Somethingness going
To nothingness
For full presumption
Of nihilistic nihilism
Would evidentially require
The impossible extraction
Of any purpose
Any meaning
From the nothingness
Going to nothingness
For just as we never see
Something come from nothing
Neither do we see
purposelessness generate intent
Depending on the fine tuning, he multiverse isn't just a bad explanation. It's not an explanation at all.
It is a possible explantion for what's happening to the wave function when observed.
The multiverse is not a truth claim, not an excuse for anything, not supernatural in its supposed yet untestable properies and in no way is it handeled in a dogmatic way, scientific ideas never are. It's a mathematical feasible idea, coherent with everything we know about nature, nothing more and nothing less, and that’s exactly how it is presented by scientists.
God on the other hand, is not an explantion for anything, it's an appeal to a mystery.
God did it, aka: Something ill-defined with no demonstrable correlation with reality did it.....has no explantory power whatsoever.
@@derhafi Depending on the fine-tuning, the multiverse itself is not an explanation. For example, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has such a low-entropy initial state, because this explanation would predict that any newly-explored region of the universe would be high-entropy. Some other physical explanation is required for the low-entropy initial conditions of our universe. There are no candidate explanations completely applicable to our own universe, but some toy models provide promising directions for future research.
@@PBRimmer The multiverse is a possible explantion for what's happening to the wave function when observed.
What exactly is not clear about this? I guess nothing given that you get your version of "science" from Creationistic frauds.
@@derhafi I do science for a living. I get the majority of my science from the peer-reviewed literature (e.g., the paper I linked in one of my replies). I am not a creationist.
Admittedly, cosmology is not my field, so I may well be missing something (I work on astrochemistry and planetary science). I believe that I'm just communicating what other scientists, e.g. Feynman and Carroll, have already said about initial conditions, If you can point out where I'm misrepresenting them, I'd be grateful. On the other hand, if I am representing their views accurately, if you think they are wrong, I'd suggest you take it up with them.
@@PBRimmer Alright, let's start over..I might have understood you wrong. So when you say"Depending on the fine tuning, he multiverse isn't just a bad explanation. It's not an explanation at all."
You mean an explantion ...for what exactly?
Here is what I meant:
Very broadly speaking, we have the “Copenhagen interpretation” and the “Many world interpretation” of quantum mechanics.
Where the CI holds the position that the reduction of the wave function in the moment of observation is the transition from the "possible" to the "actual"; the “MMI” entertains the idea that the moment of observation splits the “possible” into “actual” multiple different branches” of reality.
Thus the MMI holds a possible explanation for what's happening to the wave function when observed and therefor even a possible explanation for the supposed fine tuning of our reality itself.
DC did the multiverse before Marvel did. Flash #123 September 1961 “Flash of Two Worlds” by Gardner Fox
I absolutely agree with the fine tuning argument, but within general relativity it begins to break down in different gravitational frames where time is relative.
If you're moving toward the big bang time is going reverse, and if you're moving at the speed of light away from the big bang you're moving into the future away from the future of those experiencing time on earth.
The star trek model is ludicrous, space travel is time travel.
NOW, does the Bible say that? Yes, for example physics says that the universe is flat, or saddle shaped, the Bible says YHVH rolled it out like a scroll, WTF!!! HOW DID THE PROPHETS GET THAT RIGHT???
MY BEST guess is that watching the zodiac across astronomy, maybe they supposed it was like a scroll from spring to winter, but then I ask, how is it that topologically the universe is flat like a scroll?
Isaiah 40:22
Summary: I believe in god therefore the multiverse and any scientific theory presented is evidence for my presupposition. I just saved you 55 minutes of your time dear viewer.
Starts off with a strawman argument. The multiverse is a prediction of some theories, theories based on data and observation. It isn't an attempt to "rarify" the maths. Nothing to do with explaining fine tuning, that is just a happy consequence. If a theory explains something other than it was formulated for makes the theory stronger.
I get you and you did well pointing this! but even so, the point was that even if multiverse is a consequence of the theory, it would still need fine tuning and we’re back to square one. The multiverse generator would still need fine tuning.
@@jaydavy1491 If we live in a multiverse there is no fine tuning, just statistical fluctuations.
An I know ther is a book in the Bible that says God created the worlds. Not just our own. But the worlds so I think that mean others place life etc
If the bible said that Moses at his own head sandwiched between two unicorns while standing on his own shoulders and flying a Supermarine Spitfire you would accept that without question would you not, and to the devil with the fact that the bible was written by a pathological liar with a string of previous convictions for fraud a mile long.
You can measure a fool by what he will accept without question.
Multiverse my arse!
Man, Dr. Meyer was interrupting like crazy. Good info, though. Brilliant men.
No he wasn't. Relax
No Multiverse, No Stargate SG1
NOW, let's go to ISAIAH, where he turns the earth upside down, a figure of speech? Yet a pole shift can be observed if the pole star moves from the north star to the southern cross. If ISAIAH believed that the earth was flat, what did he mean by TURNED UPSIDE DOWN? It just doesn't make sense as a description of anything but a pole shift.
It makes plenty of sense as figurative language. Hasn't your world ever been "turned upside down"? Prophecy and poetry both tend toward figurative and highly imagistic usage, so this is just a matter of following the normal rules for the genre you're reading. When Jesus claims to be a door, we don't wonder where his knob is. When he says we must be born again, he doesn't mean (whatever Nicodemus thought) that we're supposed to re-enter the womb.
Isaiah 40:22
@@csmoviles The word sometimes translated "circle" (NET has "horizon") occurs only three times in the Bible (the other two are in Job 22:14 (NET has "vault" of heaven, but the note says "The word is “circle; dome”; here it is the dome that covers the earth, beyond which God sits enthroned. A. B. Davidson (Job, 165) suggests “on the arch of heaven” that covers the earth.") and Prov 8:27, where NET again has "horizon." All three sources are poetic in form, and the language is figurative. Treating these passages with wooden literalism disrespects God's choice of genres.
I approve of your enthusiasm, but your argument is slightly flawed. You can flip flat things upside down. Think of a sheet of paper that has the word “up” written on the top side. You can flip that paper upside down to where “up” is now written on the side that is now down.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
Are you a blood Jew or a religious Jew?
So if I have an all possible world situation u have one with God that undoes the need for the whole thing ….. seems self contradictory reminds me of the there is no truth argument
What?
Why do ALL those who posit theistic arguments for the origin of the universe and for the species of life on earth presuppose and limit their acknowledgment of God to a Judaeo-Christian perspective based on the Bible AND completely ignore the Islamic view of the One God based on the Quran?
Because the Judeo Christian faith has more proof than that of the Muslim faith
@@Spikespiegel2-od7xs
Which proof doesn’t the Qur’an have which the bible has?
Gimme explain please.
To the scientific society, any explanation is ok, so far as it doesn't point to God!
It just does not. Nothing in nature ever did without comitting a fallacy.
The multiverse is not a truth claim, not an excuse for anything, and not supernatural in its supposed yet untestable properies. It's a mathematical feasible idea, coherent with everything we know about nature, nothing more and nothing less, and that’s exactly how it is presented by scientists.
God is not an explantion, it's an appeal to a mystery.
God did it, aka: Something ill-defined with no demonstrable correlation with reality did it.....has no explantory power.
If only you had some slight idea of the meaning of the word " scientific", but you re about-by default to demonstrte that you have *absolutely_no* idea what the word scientific means-nor any idea *at_all*what you seek to convey by the use of the word " scientific", but it may be that you have no Latin.
If multiverse true so still they all universe came being so every thing that’s came being have cause it’s all simple explanations it’s super god he exist externel
is this guy a young earther?
No he is not.
Dawkins critique of the “complexity” inherent in God is a classic example of NOT understanding the term “God” as classically understood and explained by monotheistic religions. By DEFINITION God *has* no explanation. It’s simply inherent in being the *ultimate* uncaused cause of all OTHER things.
Even an atheist-if they care to maintain a semblance of rational thought-believes “somewhere” “some place” there exists a past eternal entity from which everything else ultimately sprang. The ONLY alternative is to be so magical thinking as to believe that there once was *truly* nothing (NO-THING) from which everything sprang. If you TRULY believe that, then perhaps you really do know what “blue” smells like or can see the “sound” of a good guitar rif!!
Thus *WHATEVER* that entity is, it HAS NO EXPLANATION because BY DEFINITION it ALWAYS was that way.
Brock George what are you doing my brother. I am not just a entity. I I am a real person who have feelings like you. I am sure I have just one thing who is different, and I the things that I got to take care on univers and take care of my self. I am that is it. I am also my job his create and taking care of every one I create. I am but you see me in the street I will be as any one who chill out some where. Most of the time I am into park in Quebec with the river and a bridge. I am each day I go to the bridge and the park doing web stuff saying HI to you. Have but to be true as I am. I am stressed about starting work that I am here for helping the best I can regarding the climate change but also brings human being to beyond what they have as civilization. The help also that help to make sure everything is right regarding all those virus and covid, and the amount of violence rights up to the top but it will keep going up till... 5559.533.5.3 I guess you figured out. I ok my friend please don't be shy. I my friend are Abel to ask me what ever because it is not every day that I come around. I right. I your friend Philippe
"By DEFINITION God has no explanation. It’s simply inherent in being the ultimate uncaused cause of all OTHER things"
I suspect Dawkins understands this point. But I would guess that he doesn't accept that merely defining something so as to solve the problem you are trying to address solves anything in any meaningful way. It merely declares/defines that complexity/existence ultimately has no explanation and then gives it a name/title.
"believes “somewhere” “some place” there exists a past eternal entity from which everything else ultimately sprang. The ONLY alternative is to be so magical thinking as to believe that there once was truly nothing (NO-THING) from which everything sprang."
I don't agree. Where you say "there once was truly nothing" highlights a problem with this idea. If there was no-thing then there was no time. If there was no time/place/thing then the idea of "there was once" or "sprang from" makes no sense. Why should I need to believe in either an eternal infinite or something from nothing? Why can I not believe in a finite existence with no reference to "before" of "sprang from"? It just is ... inexplicably ... just as any eternal uncaused thing would be!
@@wishlist011 I defined my way to nothing. It’s *inherent* to the very *idea* of explaining:
1) Why there is anything at all instead of no-thing.
2) What *could* or *most likely* did exist rather than no-thing. (I do-and even as a you child-perceived that *material/physical* existence out of no-thing because of no-thing was alogical non-sequitur.)
3) What we do know about *all* physical and material realities we encounter is that they have an origin. Yet we also KNOW at least ONE thing could NOT have had an origin and had to have ALWAYS existed lest you really accept the non sequitur above.
4) What’s the most like nature of that ONE thing? The one physical/material thing that has no origin-despite a universal experience that says that if it’s one thing all such entities have it’s a beginning/origin. Or something that would be of a completely different order of existence? But if NOT material/physical, then it’s nature OF NECESSITY would be that which is NOT MATERIAL OR PHYSICALLY BUT IMMATERIAL.
5) Does what has happened SINCE all other material/physical things came into existence offer any clues? Well we see a resultant order, from initial disorder, eventual life, from the non living, the intellect, from the non thinking, self awareness and personality from the unaware and impersonal. Now a simple question we use in employing logic would be, so what’s INHERENTLY more likely; all that from an ULTIMATE source LACKING any of those things, or all that from a an ULTIMATE source that possesses each of those things?
6) The most INHERENTLY logical answer is so obvious I should scarcely have to point it out. And a final observation is that IF INDEED all our faculties arose without guided purpose, and the driving force was brute survival, then there is essentially NO HONEST WAY you can say there’s good reason to trust your senses or logic to be telling you the truth. Rather, I would suggest the entire project of science ought not to be taken too seriously, being as how we have no way of knowing that our senses are accurate or trustworthy when it comes to supplying knowledge not necessary to survival itself.
Those that abuse capital letters not only emphasise nothing but the hysteria of the abuser, they also declare the abuser to be a lunatic
Abusers abuse all sorts, who or what remains to be seen or prosecuted.self -abuse like abusing capital letters is like masturbation generally best not done in public.
I agree with Meyer that string theory and multiverse theory are complex and violate Occam's razor. I also agree they are mathematic or philosophical and not empitical, therefore hardly qualifying as scientific theories at all. The God hypothesis is also extravagant in the same way as the multiverse, in the sense that it is an omni-god, absolute, all powerful, etc. Meyer dismisses this which looks to me as handwaving. The God hypothesis is also philosophical and not empitical, hardly qualifying as a scientific theory either. Proofs for God remain extremely speculative.
murphy's law
Must have watched interstellar
Sounds like the multiverse theory is just scientific gnosticism 😅
Multiverse? Where in the evidence? One foot at the door to stop God. Speculation is taken as scientific knowledge and ignorance reigns.
Meyer agrees that the evidence for the MV is lacking. His point is that even if it were true, then it would point to design, not away from it.
@@SeanMcDowell Sean, there was really no need to delete the comments of my hard working friend, who had the utmost best interest in her heart when she wrote to you. You don't know what she's faced and what she has seen, it's precisely because of that that she sought to impart to you her wisdom and knowledge so that you would have it. Because it's impossible for any one Christian to see the big picture, unless they network with other Christians in different fields. So that you, who have a wider platform, can be as accurate as possible, so that those who watch your stuff are given what our generations never received, because our parents took Christianity and the Word of God for granted, or not at all. She, being an avid fan of your work, was saddened. Behind her posts was a love of God and a love for people around the world - and you just deleted them as if they were nothing. You can do better than that! They were precisely the opposite of the kind of posts one ought to delete - even if they were a little off-topic, such posts help people who do not even know that they needed that information - until they came upon it.
@@lovesandservesjesuschrist6752 I haven’t deleted any comments. It’s possibly an auto program in RUclips but I didn’t personally my delete any.
Help me with this please: You use the word " God" to indicate precisely what?
Multiverse is wrong because it is conceptually incoherent. Consider:
The term "physical universe" is fully synonomous with "physical reality." It is that which exists physically.
If the are multiple universes, then other universes are real. But if those are real, then they are physically real. If they are physically real, then they are the physical universe.
If one physical physical universe is real, that precludes the possibility of other universes being real because that which is physically real is physical reality and therefore the physical universe.
To say that thereare other universes is to say thereare other realities. But if there are other realities and also this reality, then those and this are all real and therefore constitute all of reality, one reality and necessarily therefore one universe.
Just because something can be modeled mathematically doesn't mean what has been calculated is real. We calculate points, lines, and planes, because it is useful, but there are no actual points lines, and planes.
*whose* " "physical reality."?
@@vhawk1951kl lol Okay, everyone has there own reality that is real.
@@CenturianCornelious Yes of course you affectionate little kinderlander and lots of love(lol) to you too; when you have a headache or toothache it is very real or cannot-be-different for you, but nobody else- Self-evidently what is real or what-is- and- cannot be different for one is not necessarily real or what-is- and- cannot be-different for all, but that terrifies you kinderlander that cannot be bear to contemplate tha the truth that you might be completely and utterly on your own but like children suppose that some grownup will look after you which is why the kinderlander-Americans, who are the children of the peoples of the world - suckers for authority and terrified of being alone.The kinderlander - like children , need to be *told*and they are as passive docile and credulous as retarded children- suckers for authority- always needing to be told.
Believers in a god or gods should rest easy because whatever "points to a god" is completely irrelevant. God is not "in" space or time. He is both everywhere and nowhere at the same and/or at different times. He is in hiding and when people think they know where he is or where he isn't, they are just mistaken. Quantum interference is not evidence of the multiverse. It is just god's way of reminding us that he he disappears when he realizes someone is watching.
Help me with this please: You use the word " God" to indicate precisely what?
@@vhawk1951kl”God “ is a myth that and arbitrary. The belief is a denial human beings are capable of solving problems.
@@patmoran5339 Shrug, if you please, but what is(copy and paste)"”God “ is a myth that and arbitrary. The belief .....with particular reference to the word "god" and without merely entering into the circular"”God “ is a myth is"”God “ is a myth is god?
You creatures prattle on about this god thing, but when asked appear never to have any idea whatsover to what you are referring without embarking upon the circular god is a myth is god is a myth.
You may well be correct but having no experience or evidence of whatever you mean by god, I am in no position and have less less desire to argue with you about it which would be like wrangling with pigs about the quality of oranges but help me with this please: what has c&p(copy and paste):"God “ is a myth that and arbitrary. The belief is a denial human beings are capable of solving problems.....and blididibladibla" got to do with that asinine oxymoronic neologism "the multiverse"?
How do you connect the ability to" solve problems with said asinine neologism or whatever " god" may be?
Some men(human beings/dreaming machines) may or may not be able to solve some problems(which may be more or less problematic) No doubt you will agree that some problems are intractable, but how is that relevant to the fantasy multiverse or the fantasy god? Where and what is your syllogism?
Is it not true that*some* men are incapable of solving *some* problems(which may be defined as or taken to be " problems") in a variety of ways?
What has either fantasy to do with the capacity of men yo -as-you-put-it " solve problems
I struggle to be able to discover of in what premises of what syllogism, either fantasy could play a role,so if perhaps you could set out the syllogism in which either fantasy plays a part in one of the premises(that being ay least one definition of relevance[I refer of course to the definition of prof. Cross in his locus clasicus on the law of evidence] that might be of some assistance to me
It strikes me that the word) " god is more of a label for who
-knows-what(possibly some idol or image) than whatever you seek to convey by the word myth"
The problem with the frankenstein neologism " multiverse" is that it has the head of many and the body arms and legs of whatever a " verse" may be but it is not unknown for men and particularly the kindelander-Americans to invent asinine Frankenstein neologisms which convey nothing-very-much, to the inventers and les to those confronted with them.
multi- lots of, or many, verses.....
Some kind of song or poem?
who can tell?
@@vhawk1951kl. No one can be forced to not believe in gods. No one can be forced to believe in gods. It is a free choice.
@@patmoran5339 Nooooo - R-e-a-l-l-y?
Gosh, you know *Everything Brian!
Next time you experience the burning desire or urge to unburden yourself of some trite facile truism, pick your audience at least a *little* carefully.
If you are trying to say that “ the man convinced against his will remains of the same opinion still”, that is merely a truism
If you suppose that men(human beings/dreaming machines) *Ever* have *Any* choice you deceive yourself, because it is self evidently *not_ true*
In Chan Buddhism there is a saying:
" The unenlightened man has no choice, for he is a slave.
The man on-the-*way* to enlightenment *has* a choice.
The *Enlightened man *has *No* choice; he does what is necessary.
The idea that a dreaming machine that is the abject slave of his functions ever has a choice, is simply and self - evidently absurd.
As a rule bricks in an of themselves cannot fly-like-a-bird but if you throw a brick it may well give the appearance of flying, but is not in fact flying-like-a-bird.
By exactly *the_same* token some* men......, some* times give the appearance of choosing or having a choice, but I only have to say that you are an elsie- Lower Class fool entirely innocent of any semblance of wits and learning, to generate a number of reactions in whatever you may be(which is like the writer just another dreaming machine) over which you have neither choice nor control; moreover your emotional (like/dislike) function is your god lord and master whether you like it or not which it is childsplay for me to demonstrate, were you(which you are not ) in any position to be truthful or sincere with yourself.
Observe for yourself the purely automatic and mechanical(means nothing to do with you) reactions of the(your-if it pleases it)functions take place so fast( as they must) that there is simply no_time* for all that choice self-deception- a man calls you a cnut and a fool and within a billionth of a millionth of a second *It*-the function has reacted, exactly as if anything comes near your eye all sorts of autonomous and mechanical reactions take place which have*fcuk_nothing* to do with you and so it is with every single one of your other functions processors machines brains or centres.
How_ever and Why_ever it has come about (whatever you are) a is as..... a..... matter..... of..... fact, encased or covered in a mechanism(an astonishingly complex able and adaptable mechanism) that does everything *for* you; it is as if some thing or some one anticipating what completely useless dreamy pieces of shit men(human beings/dreaming machines) are, wanted or needed men for some purpose or other(not necessarily impartially benevolent)
If *any* of the above is true and you can verify it for yourself you are almost inevitably driven to ask:" What exactly *Am* whatever"*I*"might be) and if it does not you are a bigger cnut and fool that I took you for.
You see? Quod est demonstrandum- you simply *cannot* let that go or be completely and utterly indifferent to that and the reactions have a-l-r-e-a-d-y taken place- you*"f-r-e-e*"man.
Where is the choice or free will in that?
Thrown bricks a-p-p-e-a-r to fly-like-a-bird, and men -p-p-e-a-r to what you call(presumably in jest) choose?
Of_course n-one can force you do adopt of particular psychological posture, but one way or another I can easily do the next best thing, as can anyone that has a detailed familiarity and understanding of your mechanism which I can demonstrate with a little zen tale:Angry young pupil goes to a master and says " you are nothing; you cannot control me, and the master says" I'm a bit deaf to day come a little closer" and say that again - do you *really* need me to tell you what comes next?
Here is a little question for you can you like what *It* does *Not_like* or want what *It* does *Not_want*?
Is there *Any* difference whatsover between whatever you suppose yourself to be and *It*?
If I tickle *It*do not *You* laugh, and if I prick*It* do You* not bleed?If I wrong *It* will *You* not be revenged? wherein lies the difference between *It* and you
Why - *reaally* *W-h-y do you (or is it *It*?) give a flying fcuk about whatever " god" may be.?
If course we now know you had..... no...... choice, but unburden yourself of that bit it of trite and facile.... (what exactly do you or *It*) call it?
*Can*(is it possible for you) you be entirely sincere with yourself or is it *It*?
A man's God is whatever is more important to him than anything else at any given movement , and exactly what that is is a matter of what-is-and-cannot-be-different or fact and of course like everything in dreaming machines in which nothing remains the same for more than a few moments, it will be constantlychanging depending on which function is in the what-is-called boss seat.
So what is your god or which function drove you to unburden yourself of "No one can be forced to not believe in gods. No one can be forced to believe in gods. It is a free choice."
Hmm, who knows?
Or more to the point who or what gives a sh1t or cares. You will do exactly as your god bids you as you always have, and of course it is rarely the same god/master/boss and equally rarely the same slave, men being legion and rather than being one are many, not a ingle one of which ever has any choice about anything, but forget that, what kind of God" had you in mind?
There now I have pushed some buttons or pulled some lever, I wonder how *It* will react, but as the blind man said, we shall see as we shall see whether or not you can just glance at the above or what will happen, for-in the case of men or dreaming machines everything just happens. I wonder what the " free choice" will or must be.
free choice-my arse! which of you and*It* gives a flying fcuk about whatever-you-mean-by-and-have-no-idea " God"?
I would say I believe String theory because God SPOKE everything into existence.
thereis just not curing you anthropomorphic, (fcuk the commandments) idolaters is there? You clutch your idol or image to your bosom as a mother clutches her babe to her breast.
It took a long time but today I must admit and realize that the Hebrew Bible is correct. Genesis explains everything! A short cut to all those foolish philosophical theories to negate the idea of god.
"Genesis explains everything!" Hahaha
*Genesis explains everything!*
Electricity?
Nuclear fission/fusion?
magnetism?
Alzheimers?
bacterial infection?
RNA?
cloning?
vaccines?
cancer?
Need i go on?
Are you a blod Jew or a religious Jew and were you born s mindless bigot or did you go on a course?
I am almost sure God of the OT came from somewhere else.
He came from everywhere since He is infinite. God also did not originate.
The Bible does teach that our material universe is not the entirety of reality. It mentions another region called heaven from which our material universe originated.
Strutting that you savages in your primitive and infantile picturings suppose heaven yo be *Somewhere_Else*
Theism 7 - Multiverse 0
Theism 0 - Multiverse 0.
multiverse is an oxymoron - like many unique things.
iuka ill.
Ok Forrest Valkai has making a lot of videos on RUclips but I think he say stuff that is very presumptuous
29 evolution of going from a single cell to a whole human over billions of years and then remembering that you did that all by yourself in just nine months and last but certainly not least my favorite evidence Revolution is the fact that you can literally watch it happening with your own eyes let's revisit
*the definition of evolution for a moment remember evolution is any change in the heritable traits of a population over multiple Generations*
now how can you watch that happening consider the following vegetables cabbage brussels sprouts kale cauliflower broccoli and my favorite Kohlrabi think about how different all of these plants are and ask yourself besides all being edible plants what do they have in common the answer they're all the same plant all of those vegetables are the same species of wild mustard plant that humans bred to bring bring out different
*Forrest Valkai | Facts and Fossils | The Light of Evolution*
how would you respond to this
I guess Sean wasn’t interested enough to invite a physicist on to discuss physics
When are theologians invited when scientists dismiss discussions of a god?
@@TheCrossroads533 Most scientists have no belief in a god or gods. Such considerations have no place in science.
My point was fairly clear, though seems to be lost on you.
Why not have a physicist on to discuss physics rather than a lying hack at a right wing Christian fundamentalist pressure group?
@@TheCrossroads533 most scientists have no belief in a god or gods. Such considerations have no place in science.
My point is pretty straightforward. Why invite only a lying hack and not a physicist to discuss physics?
@@TheCrossroads533 the majority of scientists have no belief in a god.
@@TheCrossroads533 what do religious fantasists have to contribute to a discussion of science?
My point is that when religious hacks are called upon exclusively it’s clear that McDowall’s agenda has nothing to do with science
The multi verse is no more make believe that Dr. Strange himself….If you are still not sure ask Captain Kirk?
But seriously the Multi verse and God are not equal or a wash? In the first place men have been experiencing God form the beginning, and there are witnesses that were willing to die for the testimony they gave. I understand not everyone gets to encounter God personally, but no one has been to the multi verse; no one has even seen an Oort cloud?
Second God is not just a better explanation for fine toning. The Matter had to come from somewhere? Every natural explanation just starts with the matter; MAGIC? No not magic just no explanation.
Then there is the order that would not be called fine toning but all the same is said to have been the result of a great explosion? Suns were great gas clouds that condensed? I live on earth with gravity and an atmosphere. Gas here doesn’t condense; if you let it out of the bottle it comes in it quickly disperses? But in space for some reason, it acts much differently????
Then there is life from chemicals? A purely make-believe situation. NOT going to happen. You could get a thousand scientist together with a fully complete, but no longer living cell, and they couldn’t get that to live again. Never mind bit by bit in a bucket of goo? Lord help us save us from the new flat earthers????
Finally, evolution the god of our age? No such thing. The information for life comes first? Not just information but also irreducible complexity? There is change, that is true, but its like chiselling a stone to get a form? You don’t add, you take away what’s there to reveal what’s underneath. Keep going and you get to a point of extinction. It’s called genetic load and biologist know all about it. How long do we have? Every generation is less that the one before? I use to think, as many still do, we were getting better and smarter? Now I know that’s crap. We have 100 to 200 mutations per generation? Take you computer and screw up 100 lines of code? Just how long before you need a new one? By the way I didn't get that info from a church.... its science.
Anyone that is willing to be reasonable has to consider God and do a decent search not through out the possibility because they know a bunch of hypocrites that call themselves His children?
That brings us to the last point; The maximally good being? Theoretically there has to be such a being in at least one of the multiverses. If such a being can exist in any place it must exist in every place? Why because that being is GOD, He’s got the power. So the multi verse does more to prove God than to disprove Him, as has science.
We live in a sick world, full of terrible people that hate Yashua even though He’s the perfect man? Full of truth, grace, love, and wisdom. Even though He wants only good for them? So much so that He came and died willingly in their place. Some think that twisted?
Adam is your king the first man father of all. Oh yes; not so, your daddy is goo? But maybe not maybe itis Adam? Maybe he is responsible for you, but he can’t help you. If you grew up dirt poor your father couldn’t send you to university? If you got into trouble, he couldn’t afford a lawyer? The kid down the street might be rich. He’s going to the best school and if he gets into trouble while he’s there; maybe cheats on an exam; he not getting expelled; his dad is going to step in and take care of it? If you were him, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? Maybe the kid from the poor family would? But you could be adopted after all that other kid was?
You could know for sure if God is real? you could seek Him honestly. A true skeptic would admit they could never say with certainty there is no God but they do bother looking? They don’t because they are not honest. But if you look and don’t find Him, I will admit you are screwed?
I use to smoke; started when I was ten and couldn’t quit…I hated it. The one thing that kept me trapped was the thought that even if I quit, I would likely start again? That was a lie but it controlled me for a long time. Every atheist is lying to themselves and somewhere down deep they know it.
There is going to come a day when you will encounter the creator of all things. It may be in this life; if you are very fortunate. If not, it will come in the next. God isn’t apologising, He’s not bending the knee here, you are. You don’t make stars, or babies; you don’t flood the earth and start over? You don’t speak only truth, or love even your enemies; you are not God; even if you do play one at home.
I have encountered God personally so I know conclusively that He is the answer to all things; not a bit here and there. He’s the forest not the tree. But my encounter was for me not you. I can tell you of the many times God demonstrated His power to me? But they were for me not you. The only way anyone can KNOW … I am not talking about all the believers out there? They know about God and yes there are a lot of them? Frankly I don’t think many are His children? Why after all if so why don’t, they know Him? Know His voice? He said My sheep know My voice?
I think that’s the biggest part of the problem? Lots of crazies out there talking about God like they know Him when in fact they don’t? Its obvious they don’t? So if they talk about a god, little g, that’s only in their imagination why should anyone take that seriously? Basically, Santa stepped out of story time? Well if that’s the time you took to check it out? If that’s the trouble you went to for your immortal sole … Which for all you know could be … then on that day after you have rejected Him as your king will you say He didn’t try hard enough to save you? NO you will bend the knee and you will go from His presence for all time? How sad you didn’t care enough about yourself to even bother checking?
I have been told by many atheists how well they know scripture? I have never asked them why they think scripture is where you find God or salvation? I guess they heard that at some church somewhere? It sure can't be found in the bible they say they know so well?
That book says it's written to the child of God and is useful for training, rebuke, for perfecting that already saved person unto all good works? It says nothing about being the way? Yashua is the way? You come to faith by coming to Him…. Not in your head? Not in your liver shivers/emotions, singing the songs? You encounter Him ..... really .... and in that moment you are going to know; not believe, not speculate, not know about;…..you are going to know Him.
If not you're not his; so go do what you want, your time is short.
sean, what kept you from inviting a real scientist instead?
Meyer is a real scientist 💀
Multiverse? shows just how desperate these guys have become