At The Conversation: Can the laws of physics disprove God?

_{Denyse O'Leary

March 7, 2021

Fine tuning, Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Physics, theism}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This seems to be a rather light piece intellectually but it gives some sense of what the wine bar would be saying about God and science if COVID-19 crazy hadn’t put it out of business:

But how does God fit into the multiverse? One headache for cosmologists has been the fact that our universe seems fine-tuned for life to exist. The fundamental particles created in the big bang had the correct properties to enable the formation of hydrogen and deuterium – substances which produced the first stars.
The physical laws governing nuclear reactions in these stars then produced the stuff that life’s made of – carbon, nitrogen and oxygen. So how come all the physical laws and parameters in the universe happen to have the values that allowed stars, planets and ultimately life to develop?
Some argue it’s just a lucky coincidence. Others say we shouldn’t be surprised to see biofriendly physical laws – they after all produced us, so what else would we see? Some theists, however, argue it points to the existence of a God creating favourable conditions.
But God isn’t a valid scientific explanation. The theory of the multiverse, instead, solves the mystery because it allows different universes to have different physical laws. So it’s not surprising that we should happen to see ourselves in one of the few universes that could support life. Of course, you can’t disprove the idea that a God may have created the multiverse.
This is all very hypothetical, and one of the biggest criticisms of theories of the multiverse is that because there seem to have been no interactions between our universe and other universes, then the notion of the multiverse cannot be directly tested.
Monica Grady, “Can the laws of physics disprove God?” at The Conversation

There is actually no evidence for any universe other than our own, which is why the multiverse cannot be empirically tested and is not a scientific explanation. Fine tuning is, by contrast, evidence-based.

Maybe the wine bar wasn’t COVID’s worst casualty.

See also: Michael Egnor says God’s existence is proven by science.

Comments

What about Lazarus? Well for one thing, Jesus is the one who resurrected Lazarus from the dead. For another thing, Lazarus did not ascend to the Father's right hand like Jesus did but instead Lazarus's material body died once again later on. Whereas, Jesus's material body did not not die again but was raised incorruptible by God never to die again.
Acts 13:34 God raised him from the dead so that he will never be subject to decay. As God has said, "'I will give you the holy and sure blessings promised to David.' Mark 16:19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Acts 1:9 Now when He had spoken these things, while they watched, He was taken up, and a cloud received Him out of their sight.
Of supplemental note as to resurrection of Jesus's material body from the dead. To give us a small glimpse of the power that was involved in Christ's resurrection from the dead, the following article found that, ”it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology.”
Astonishing discovery at Christ’s tomb supports Turin Shroud – NOV 26TH 2016 Excerpt: The first attempts made to reproduce the face on the Shroud by radiation, used a CO2 laser which produced an image on a linen fabric that is similar at a macroscopic level. However, microscopic analysis showed a coloring that is too deep and many charred linen threads, features that are incompatible with the Shroud image. Instead, the results of ENEA “show that a short and intense burst of VUV directional radiation can color a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin, including shades of color, the surface color of the fibrils of the outer linen fabric, and the absence of fluorescence”. ‘However, Enea scientists warn, “it should be noted that the total power of VUV radiations required to instantly color the surface of linen that corresponds to a human of average height, body surface area equal to = 2000 MW/cm2 17000 cm2 = 34 thousand billion watts makes it impractical today to reproduce the entire Shroud image using a single laser excimer, since this power cannot be produced by any VUV light source built to date (the most powerful available on the market come to several billion watts )”. Comment The ENEA study of the Holy Shroud of Turin concluded that it would take 34 Thousand Billion Watts of VUV radiations to make the image on the shroud. This output of electromagnetic energy remains beyond human technology. http://westvirginianews.blogspot.com/2011/12/new-study-claims-shroud-of-turin-is.html
That it certainly NOT a 'normal' coming back from the dead as we witness when people are resuscitated from death in Near Death Experience testimonies.
The evidence for the Shroud's authenticity keeps growing. (Timeline of facts) - What Is the Shroud of Turin? Facts & History Everyone Should Know - Myra Adams and Russ Breault - November 08, 2019 https://www.christianity.com/wiki/jesus-christ/what-is-the-shroud-of-turin.html Colossians 1:15-20 The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.
bornagain77_{March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
06:36 AM
6
06
36
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique. What about Lazarus?JVL_{March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
02:34 AM
2
02
34
AM
PDT}

I don't know how any story, regardless of how otherwise accurate it is, regardless of miraculous events, regardless of the sensations and experiences described, can ascertain that the being referred to is THE "God." Any "evidence" for that particular being being the God relies on that very perspective of what would be evidence for God. It's all self-referential.William J Murray_{March 9, 2021
March
03
Mar
9
09
2021
12:47 AM
12
12
47
AM
PDT}

Mahuna spews out a bunch of debunked garbage (again) For instance, his reference to Isis and Osiris,
Jesus and the Story of Osiris and Horus (William Lane Craig) - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6AZqOO2FJA? Was Jesus a copycat Savior? - video playlist Jesus vs Osiris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z996Ur3foY&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVOYpPpjYhTUHXycJrY6P2I&index=8
also of note:
23 Reasons Why Scholars Know Jesus Is Not A Copy Of Pagan Religions. - 2015 Excerpt: 1. Professional scholars unanimously reject the claim that Jesus is a pagan copy. 2. Experts in the field unanimously agree that Jesus lived and that we can know things about him. This is very unlike the many pagan gods. 3. We actually know very little about these pagan secretive religions. 4. Most of what we know of secretive pagan religions comes after Christianity, not before it. 5. The Jewish were a people who refrained from allowing pagan myths to invade their culture. 6. The New Testament canon is history unlike much of the pagan secretive mysteries. 7. Unlike the pagan secretive religions, Jesus is an ancient figure we can actually know about, what he thought of himself, and what he did as a historical figure of history: 8. The Jesus of history does not fit the profile of someone that would be a myth. 9. Much of these secretive pagan religions have little to do with concrete history. 10. Evidence of dishonest pseudo-scholar work – Dorothy Murdock: 11. None of the mythicists are actual scholars in the relevant fields of expertise. 12. Jesus’ virgin birth is unique. 13. Jesus’ death had a radical impact on his disciples; a feat that no pagan god can boast. 14. Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is unique. 15. The notion that Jesus is a copy parallel of Mithras is rejected by scholars. 16. That Jesus is a copy of Horus is rejected by scholars. 17. That Jesus was a copy of Dionysus is rejected by scholars. 18. That Jesus is a copy of Krishna is rejected by scholars. 19. That Jesus was a copy of Attis is rejected by scholars. 20. That Jesus was a copy of the Buddha is rejected by scholars. 22. That Jesus was a copy parallel of Zoroaster is rejected by scholars. 23. Jesus’ crucifixion in comparison to other alleged deities is unique. https://jamesbishopblog.wordpress.com/2015/01/19/23-reasons-why-scholars-know-jesus-is-not-a-copy-of-pagan-religions/ The Real Jesus: Paul Maier presents new evidence from history and archeology at Iowa State - 2013 - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAN3kQHTKWI? Jesus Existed Excerpt: Contrary to some circles on the Internet, very few scholars doubt that Jesus existed, preached and led a movement. Scholars' confidence has nothing to do with theology but much to do with historiographic common sense. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/craig-s-keener/jesus-existed_b_1652435.html William Lane Craig: Are there historical grounds for belief in the resurrection of Jesus? - March 30, 2017 Excerpt: "Indeed, the evidence is so powerful that one of the world's leading Jewish theologians, the late Pinchas Lapide, who taught at the Hebrew University in Israel, declared himself convinced on the basis of the evidence that the God of Israel raised Jesus of Nazareth from the dead." http://www.irishnews.com/lifestyle/faithmatters/2017/03/30/news/william-lane-craig-are-there-historical-grounds-for-belief-in-the-resurrection-of-jesus--981071/
As to the Bible supposedly being filled with errors, well Inspiring Philosophy has been fairly meticulous in debunking those numerous claims, For instance, this video playlist debunking supposed contradictions in the Bible. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWq3fVQuSuA&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TXRZs52bpnVfiPM9TD_Ukfobornagain77_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
06:54 PM
6
06
54
PM
PDT}

Here is a stronger refutation of inflation theory Ethan Siegel’s faith in the multiverse is found to be wanting. https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/astrophysicist-ethan-siegel-tells-us-why-a-multiverse-must-exist/#comment-725105bornagain77_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Well, gee. That's a good question. But of course the answer is that it is IMPOSSIBLE to know whether you've met God, rather than simply BELIEVE you did. But if the God you met is not THE God, then I think ALL organized religion is refuted: none of them have any way to PROVE THEY have met God either, and what they're selling is simply a marketing scheme. Amongst Shamanists ("witch doctors" for non-Siberians), each young person who begins to show the ability to "see" things the rest of the tribe does not is encouraged by the locally established shaman to "cooperate" with the visions and such to see where the youngster is headed. Many never take the next step, flash-in-the-pan-wise, and the gift dies. There is no blame associated with this: if you were SUPPOSED to win through, you would have. But the thing about accepting the fact that some individuals can KNOW things that mere clerks and philosophers cannot CALCULATE would seem to suggest that we, as a community, should start ignoring the arguments amongst the clerks and philosophers. And most especially we should never give them money or political power. I have a whole STACK of well-researched books on the FACTUAL errors in The Bible. Fer instance, the rulers of Egypt are only called "pharaohs" by MODERN writers. In "Biblical" times the kings of Egypt were ALWAYS referred to as "kings". Similarly, there were no camels in Egypt until the Moslems brought them over. And Egypt did NOT have slaves: large labor projects were crewed by "corvee" (labor in lieu of taxes) workers. Again, ARABIA had slaves: the Hebrewites are from ARABIA... Which is to say, almost EVERYTHING in the Old Testament is not historically true. It was apparently assembled over the centuries using the tried and true method of "I won't complain about YOUR lies if you don't complain about MINE." The same is true for the New Testament, but that debunking requires a whole other pile of references. (But a quickie, because it's my favorite: There is a VERY old myth about a virgin who was impregnated by a god but remained a virgin. And she gave birth to the god-child in a stable, where he was worshiped by the local shepherds. When the god-child grew up, he was falsely accused, condemned to death, and executed. But he rose from the dead, etc., etc. And when the myth was told in Egypt, the named assigned to the Virgin was Isis, and the name assigned to the Man-God was Osiris. If you go to any Catholic church you can see a statue of Isis, Queen of Heaven, dressed in blue and white EXACTLY as Isis is ALWAYS dressed. Except the nameplate says it's someone called "Mary"... So, I find Keeney's argument more compelling than any of the known alternatives. (If you made it this far, you deserve a cookie. I'm gonna go get one myself.)mahuna_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT}

This is one of the most irrational sentences ever written.
This statement is completely irrational. Does the double negative make the referenced statement one of the most rational ever written or just plain rational.jerry_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
06:09 PM
6
06
09
PM
PDT}

One wonders, how the heck can anyone know that whatever being they are interacting with, is "God?"William J Murray_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
03:44 PM
3
03
44
PM
PDT}

There is actually no evidence for any universe other than our own, which is why the multiverse cannot be empirically tested and is not a scientific explanation.
This is one of the most irrational sentences ever written.William J Murray_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT}

Mahuna claims, "but there is VERY little that Christianity can contribute to understanding God once you can experience God directly." Really??? Dr. Eben Alexander, who experienced God directly in a very deep Near Death Experience, begs to differ with you.
The Easter Question - Eben Alexander, M.D. - Harvard - March 2013 Excerpt: More than ever since my near death experience, I consider myself a Christian -,,, Now, I can tell you that if someone had asked me, in the days before my NDE, what I thought of this (Easter) story, I would have said that it was lovely. But it remained just that -- a story. To say that the physical body of a man who had been brutally tortured and killed could simply get up and return to the world a few days later is to contradict every fact we know about the universe. It wasn't simply an unscientific idea. It was a downright anti-scientific one. But it is an idea that I now believe. Not in a lip-service way. Not in a dress-up-it's-Easter kind of way. I believe it with all my heart, and all my soul.,, We are, really and truly, made in God's image. But most of the time we are sadly unaware of this fact. We are unconscious both of our intimate kinship with God, and of His constant presence with us. On the level of our everyday consciousness, this is a world of separation -- one where people and objects move about, occasionally interacting with each other, but where essentially we are always alone. But this cold dead world of separate objects is an illusion. It's not the world we actually live in.,,, ,,He (God) is right here with each of us right now, seeing what we see, suffering what we suffer... and hoping desperately that we will keep our hope and faith in Him. Because that hope and faith will be triumphant. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eben-alexander-md/the-easter-question_b_2979741.html
Moreover, the overwhelming love experienced in Near Death Experiences fits exactly what would be expected from a Christian perspective:
"The only human emotion I could feel was pure, unrelenting, unconditional love. Take the unconditional love a mother has for a child and amplify it a thousand fold, then multiply exponentially. The result of your equation would be as a grain of sand is to all the beaches in the world. So, too, is the comparison between the love we experience on earth to what I felt during my experience. This love is so strong, that words like "love" make the description seem obscene. It was the most powerful and compelling feeling. But, it was so much more. I felt the presence of angels. I felt the presence of joyous souls, and they described to me a hundred lifetimes worth of knowledge about our divinity. Simultaneous to the deliverance of this knowledge, I knew I was in the presence of God. I never wanted to leave, never." - Judeo-Christian Near Death Experience Testimony http://iands.org/experiences/nde-accounts/736-never-wanted-to-leave-the-presence.html? 1 John 4:7-8 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
bornagain77_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
03:03 PM
3
03
03
PM
PDT}

I'm currently reading "The Bushman Way of Tracking God" by Bradford Keeney, PhD. Professor Keeney is accepted as a full-fledged "witch doctor" by the Bushmen of the Kalahari. And once he's properly "spun" himself up, he can remain in direct contact with God all night and well into the next dawn. (As he mentioned in one of his earlier books, there is an instant during each sunrise when it is BOTH night and day, and during that instant, you can see Eternity...) Needless to say, there isn't a whole lot of quoting the Bible in all this, and there is no mention at all of anyone called "Jesus". Because once you've made the connections, you talk directly to God, and God, who is of course without gender, talks directly to you. And a hundred or a thousand or a million other people are simultaneously also talking directly to God. And then you, and the others, finally come back down and have breakfast. No "herbs" are needed for any of this. And the other enlightened women and men can IMMEDIATELY identify a fake because the truly enlightened share their spirits with each other. And the fakers of course cannot. Some of the Black enlightened in the Americas (there are many on the islands in the Caribbean) publicly say they are Baptists, etc., but there is VERY little that Christianity can contribute to understanding God once you can experience God directly.mahuna_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

For us Liberal Arts majors, God is proven by Culture, and the Philosophic arguments that followed. If Physics were to ever prove God did NOT exist, it would mark a failure of PHYSICS. Celtic culture, which is VERY very old, STARTS with the fact that God exists. There then follows the fact that God loves us to an extent that humans can only guess at. (Hold your newest granddaughter and SMILE when she spits up on your shirt. This is the BEGINNING of understanding how God loves us individually.... If you hesitate even a second, you can't hope to understand God.) Any particular human Religion is a fumbling attempt to get notoriety for the professional clergy who expect to earn a LIVING from the people who believe they have something important to say.mahuna_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
01:37 PM
1
01
37
PM
PDT}

As to, "But God isn’t a valid scientific explanation." Funny that the Christian founders of modern science did not see it that way in the least. If fact, the assumption that God created a rational universe that could dare be understood by creatures that were made in His image was a necessary presupposition that lay at the foundation of modern science in Medieval Christian Europe,,,, and it continues to be a necessary presupposition to this day.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons?IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics.?http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
As Paul Davies explained in his Templeton address of 1995, "science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.”
Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address – by Paul Davies – August 1995 Excerpt: “People take it for granted that the physical world is both ordered and intelligible. The underlying order in nature-the laws of physics-are simply accepted as given, as brute facts. Nobody asks where they came from; at least they do not do so in polite company. However, even the most atheistic scientist accepts as an act of faith that the universe is not absurd, that there is a rational basis to physical existence manifested as law-like order in nature that is at least partly comprehensible to us. So science can proceed only if the scientist adopts an essentially theological worldview.” https://www.firstthings.com/article/1995/08/003-physics-and-the-mind-of-god-the-templeton-prize-address-24
As Paul Davies further explained in 2007, "Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way."
Taking Science on Faith – By PAUL DAVIES – NOV. 24, 2007 Excerpt: All science proceeds on the assumption that nature is ordered in a rational and intelligible way. You couldn’t be a scientist if you thought the universe was a meaningless jumble of odds and ends haphazardly juxtaposed. ,,, the very notion of physical law is a theological one in the first place, a fact that makes many scientists squirm. Isaac Newton first got the idea of absolute, universal, perfect, immutable laws from the Christian doctrine that God created the world and ordered it in a rational way. Christians envisage God as upholding the natural order from beyond the universe,, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/opinion/24davies.html
The author mentions "biofriendly physical laws" and opts for the multiverse, (specifically, the author opts for inflation theory), to try to explain why these "biofriendly physical laws" exist. Yet, the multiverse generated by inflation theory is no explanation at all. It is a 'multimess' that doesn't predict anything at all. As Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, stated, “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace”
Cosmic inflation is dead, long live cosmic inflation – 25 September 2014 Excerpt: (Inflation) theory, the most widely held of cosmological ideas about the growth of our universe after the big bang, explains a number of mysteries, including why the universe is surprisingly flat and so smoothly distributed, or homogeneous,,, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, who helped develop inflationary theory but is now scathing of it, says this is potentially a blow for the theory, but that it pales in significance with inflation’s other problems. Meet the multiverse Steinhardt says the idea that inflationary theory produces any observable predictions at all – even those potentially tested by BICEP2 – is based on a simplification of the theory that simply does not hold true. “The deeper problem is that once inflation starts, it doesn’t end the way these simplistic calculations suggest,” he says. “Instead, due to quantum physics it leads to a multiverse where the universe breaks up into an infinite number of patches. The patches explore all conceivable properties as you go from patch to patch. So that means it doesn’t make any sense to say what inflation predicts, except to say it predicts everything. If it’s physically possible, then it happens in the multiverse someplace Steinhardt says the point of inflation was to explain a remarkably simple universe. “So the last thing in the world you should be doing is introducing a multiverse of possibilities to explain such a simple thing,” he says. “I think it’s telling us in the clearest possible terms that we should be able to understand this and when we understand it it’s going to come in a model that is extremely simple and compelling. And we thought inflation was it – but it isn’t.” http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn26272-cosmic-inflation-is-dead-long-live-cosmic-inflation.html?page=1#.VCajrGl0y00
And in 2017 Steinhardt and company further explained, “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.”,,, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.”
Pop Goes The Universe – Scientific American – January 2017 – Anna Ijjas, Paul J. Steinhardt and Abraham Loeb Excerpt: “If anything, the Planck data disfavored the simplest inflation models and exacerbated long-standing foundational problems with the theory, providing new reasons to consider competing ideas about the origin and evolution of the universe… (i)n the years since, more precise data gathered by the Planck satellite and other instruments have made the case only stronger……The Planck satellite results—a combination of an unexpectedly small (few percent) deviation from perfect scale invariance in the pattern of hot and colds spots in the CMB and the failure to detect cosmic gravitational waves—are stunning. For the first time in more than 30 years, the simplest inflationary models, including those described in standard textbooks, are strongly disfavored by observations.” “Two improbable criteria have to be satisfied for inflation to start. First, shortly after the big bang, there has to be a patch of space where the quantum fluctuations of spacetime have died down and the space is well described by Einstein’s classical equations of general relativity; second, the patch of space must be flat enough and have a smooth enough distribution of energy that the inflation energy can grow to dominate all other forms of energy. Several theoretical estimates of the probability of finding a patch with these characteristics just after the big bang suggest that it is more difficult than finding a snowy mountain equipped with a ski lift and well-maintained ski slopes in the middle of a desert.” “More important, if it were easy to find a patch emerging from the big bang that is flat and smooth enough to start inflation, then inflation would not be needed in the first place. Recall that the entire motivation for introducing it was to explain how the visible universe came to have these properties; if starting inflation requires those same properties, with the only difference being that a smaller patch of space is needed, that is hardly progress.” “…inflation continues eternally, generating an infinite number of patches where inflation has ended, each creating a universe unto itself…(t)he worrisome implication is that the cosmological properties of each patch differ because of the inherent randomizing effect of quantum fluctuations…The result is what cosmologists call the multiverse. Because every patch can have any physically conceivable properties, the multiverse does not explain why our universe has the very special conditions that we observe—they are purely accidental features of our particular patch.” “We would like to suggest “multimess” as a more apt term to describe the unresolved outcome of eternal inflation, whether it consists of an infinite multitude of patches with randomly distributed properties or a quantum mess. From our perspective, it makes no difference which description is correct. Either way, the multimess does not predict the properties of our observable universe to be the likely outcome. A good scientific theory is supposed to explain why what we observe happens instead of something else. The multimess fails this fundamental test.” https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~loeb/sciam3.pdf
Moreover, contrary to the garbage the author has believed about the 'multimess' generated by inflation theory being a valid explanation for why we have ""biofriendly physical laws", the scientific evidence itself, (the scientific evidence that we can actually see, and not just merely imagine as with the multimess), argues that the earth, and humans on it, were indeed specifically, and purposely, intended by God since the beginning of creation. Just as the Bible itself predicted thousands of years ago." https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/michael-egnor-on-why-the-multiverse-is-just-a-way-of-evading-reality/#comment-725393 One final note, I don't know the author's specific reasoning behind claiming that "God isn’t a valid scientific explanation". My guess it that the author is just regurgitating some made up crap about methodological naturalism being the supposed 'ground rule' for science. But what I do know is that excluding God as a viable scientific explanation, and strictly adhering to the dictates of methodological naturalism, leads to catastrophic epistemological failure for us, and therefore leads to catastrophic epistemological failure for science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist (who believes Darwinian evolution to be true) is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. the illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who also must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the hopelessness of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is simply too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must also hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
In other words, although the Darwinian Atheist and/or the Methodological Naturalist may firmly believe that he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for naturalistic explanations over and above God as a viable explanation), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists themselves are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
In conclusion, News is right, this piece "seems to be a rather light piece intellectually", and indeed the article very much reminds me of Francis Bacon's quote, "“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion."
“It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism; but depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to religion. For while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them, confederate and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity.” - Francis Bacon - a devout Christian and founder of the scientific method (via his treatise on inductive reasoning)
And that article sure seems to suffer from being philosophically superficial in its treatment of these matters. One more note, the Bible is far more science friendly than the author, and other atheists, are predisposed to believe,
“My argument,” Dr. Penzias concluded, “is that the best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted, had I had nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the Bible as a whole.” - Dr. Arno Penzias, Nobel Laureate in Physics – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation – as stated to the New York Times on March 12, 1978 “Certainly there was something that set it all off,,, I can’t think of a better theory of the origin of the universe to match Genesis” - Robert Wilson – Nobel laureate – co-discoverer Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation - Show Me God (Wheeling, Ill.: Daystar, 2000), 1 Thessalonians 5:21 but test all things. Hold fast to what is good.
bornagain77_{March 8, 2021
March
03
Mar
8
08
2021
01:36 PM
1
01
36
PM
PDT}

The laws of physics show order in an otherwise chaotic universe. Order cannot arise from chaos. Only chaos can arise from chaos. The laws of physics are just one example of many of ID, since intelligence beyond human understanding is the only reasonable explanation for a single law to exist. Remove the intelligence and you remove the laws that govern the universe.BobRyan_{March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
11:15 PM
11
11
15
PM
PDT}

A "virus" didn't close wine bars. Demonic governments, everywhere but South Dakota and Tanzania, closed wine bars. If we want to discuss alternate universes, we should be asking why those two places are the SANE universe, while every other place is the DEMONIC universe. For one thing, those two places don't have a lot of wine bars, or a lot of inbred imbecilic aristocrats who enjoy superficial intellectual Conversations in wine bars.polistra_{March 7, 2021
March
03
Mar
7
07
2021
10:36 PM
10
10
36
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply