Rob Sheldon: Taken seriously, the multiverse proves the existence of God

_{News
June 15, 2019

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, theism

2}_{Categories
Intelligent Design
Multiverse
theism}

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

Our physics color commentator Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Ethan Siegel’s multiverse, in response to Gunter Bechly’s observations:

My version of what Gunter said is this argument:

In an infinite universe, somebody somewhere has figured out how to talk from one universe to another. That technology can then collect the information in every universe, and become the Borg. But since there are infinite universes, this machine has infinite information. A machine with infinite information is omniscient and likely omnipotent and obviously omnipresent. Little finite minds like ours would see it as God. So the omniverse proves the existence of God, if that is what Ethan Siegel wants to do.

Of course, if God is inevitable, then the right question Ethan should ask, is how should he behave toward this being, aka morality. I’m not judging, but denying its existence doesn’t seem the wisest course of action.

The Long Ascent: Genesis 1â 11 in Science & Myth, Volume 1 by [Sheldon, Robert]

Experimental physicist Rob Sheldon is the author of Genesis: The Long Ascent

See also: Logic vs. the multiverse: Gunter Bechly offers some insights: For example, how can we “partition an infinite multiverse so to arrive at the finite probabilities we observe and require (e.g. for quantum mechanics) because in an infinite multiverse everything that can happen happens an infinite (with the same cardinality) number of times?”

and

The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments

Seversky, the ontological argument, in order for it to be successful, only requires that an atheist concede that it logically possible for God to exist. You conceded that point, i.e. "I have never claimed nor tried to argue that it is impossible for God to exist" You act as if the argument can continue after you have literally knocked yourself out of the argument by conceding the primary premise of the ontological argument, i.e. that it is logically possible for God to exist. Logic, along with science and philosophy, apparently does not appear to be your strong suit Seversky.bornagain77_{June 18, 2019
June
06
Jun
18
18
2019
03:24 AM
3
03
24
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 13
The atheist, in his concession that it is possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist, concedes the necessary premise in the ontological argument in order for the ontological argument to be considered successful, i.e. it is logically possible for God to exist:
1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists.

Simply re-iterating an argument doesn't make it any better than it was the first time. Neither does it address the points I raised against it.
Moreover Seversky, in your futile attempt to ‘logically’ prove that it is impossible for God to exist, you further shoot yourself in the foot in that logic itself cannot be based in your atheistic materialism but must instead be based in Theism. Needless to say, you cannot logically prove anything about God without first using his logic.
Strawman, I'm afraid. I have never claimed nor tried to argue that it is impossible for God to exist. In fact, at one point in my life, I believed He did. Now, I see no compelling reason to believe in such a being any more than I believe in the Dark Lord Sauron.Seversky_{June 17, 2019
June
06
Jun
17
17
2019
09:05 PM
9
09
05
PM
PDT}

Sharing infinite information can't solve the halting problem, and you need something like a halting oracle to get CSI. Plus, information by itself is inert, and doesn't do anything by itself. The most information friendly metaphysic, Platonism, still needs a demiurge to make stuff happen.EricMH_{June 17, 2019
June
06
Jun
17
17
2019
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT}

'The first step of the scientific method is “Observe something.” But... but... Richard Dawkins said the world only LOOKS designed.Axel_{June 17, 2019
June
06
Jun
17
17
2019
02:17 PM
2
02
17
PM
PDT}

The first step of the scientific method is "Observe something." No other universe of any kind has been observed, so the entire concept is not science. It is FICTION!SmartAZ_{June 17, 2019
June
06
Jun
17
17
2019
04:43 AM
4
04
43
AM
PDT}

This was in another multiverse-related discussion but it fits here too: Why is this obsession with multiverse ? What does the multiverse buy? Does it explain away the fine tuning thing? Ok, but does the fine tuning explain the OOL or the appearance of eukaryotic cells? It may be a necessary condition but it’s far from being sufficient. So let’s say this universe is one of an infinite number of universes. It happens to have the fine tuning all set. Ok. But then what? The origin of the prokaryotic or the eukaryotic cells is not the same as throwing dice. It’s not an statistic issue. It’s a Humpty Dumpty problem on steroids. No infinite number of attempts would do it. Had that been the case, scientists would have figured out by now how to put it together having all the components. They haven’t and they don’t even have a clue. First let’s get to work and try to understand exactly how the biological systems work, let’s figure out the complex functionality of the functional complexity that is observed. The fast technological progress allows scientists to see deeper into the biological systems in real time. Let’s take advantage of that and study seriously what is observed to understand it well. That’s serious science with valid purpose. We have many important medical questions waiting to get resolved. We need more biology-related research. And it must be scientifically directed, so that they don’t make the mistakes that have been made before, that have squandered so much valuable time and resources barking up the wrong trees following wrong assumptions based on biased unproven claims associated with particular worldview positions. Some neo-Darwinian ideas kept biology researchers ignoring things that later were found very important. Humble open mindedness must be the basic attitude in serious evidence-based scientific research. Leave the multiverse stuff to the folks that enjoy science fiction and fairytales. Some folks don’t know how to use their available time productively. They get bored easily. Perhaps multiverse can be their entertainment. That’s ok. Let it be. Maybe someday they’ll wake up and smell the flowers too.OLV_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
12:10 PM
12
12
10
PM
PDT}

Well Seversky, you have just proven yourself equally inept at philosophy as you are at science. Moreover, in your attempted philosophical rebuttal, the elephant in the living room problem for atheists just sat on you. The atheist, in his concession that it is possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist, concedes the necessary premise in the ontological argument in order for the ontological argument to be considered successful, i.e. it is logically possible for God to exist:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig) – video “It (This argument) puts the atheist in a very awkward position. The atheist must deny, not merely that God exists, he must maintain that it is impossible that God exists. And that is certainly a radical claim that would require great justification.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rlxuHK49KY
Moreover Seversky, in your futile attempt to 'logically' prove that it is impossible for God to exist, you further shoot yourself in the foot in that logic itself cannot be based in your atheistic materialism but must instead be based in Theism. Needless to say, you cannot logically prove anything about God without first using his logic. :) ,,, As the old joke goes about God's response to scientists who claim they do not need him anymore,, "get your own dirt", but in this case God's response to the scientists would be, 'get your own logic'
Is God Real? Evidence from the Laws of Logic - J. Warner Wallace Excerpt: All rational discussions (even those about the existence or non-existence of God) require the prior foundation of logical absolutes. You’d have a hard time making sense of any conversation if the Laws of Logic weren’t available to guide the discussion and provide rational boundaries. Here are three of the most important Laws of Logic you and I use every day: The Law of Identity Things “are” what they “are”. “A” is “A”. Each thing is the same with itself and different from another. By this it is meant that each thing (be it a universal or a particular) is composed of its own unique set of characteristic qualities or features. The Law of Non-Contradiction “A” cannot be both “A” and “Non-A” at the same time, in the same way and in the same sense. Contradictory statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. The Law of Excluded Middle A statement is either true or false. For any proposition, either that proposition is true, or its negation is true. There is no middle position. For example, the claim that “A statement is either true or false” is either true or false. These logical rules are necessary in order for us to examine truth statements. We also need them to point out when someone is reasoning illogically. We use the Laws of Logic all the time; you couldn’t even begin to read or reason through this blog post if you didn’t employ these laws. In fact, you’ve never had an intelligent, rational conversation without using these laws. They’re not a matter of subjective opinion; they are, instead, objectively true. So, here’s an important question: “From where do the transcendent, objective laws of logic come?” As an atheist, I would have been the first to describe myself as rational. In fact, I saw myself as far more reasonable than many of the Christians I knew. But, I was basing my rationality on my ability to understand and employ the Laws of Logic. How could I account for these transcendent laws without the existence of a transcendent Law Giver? (1) The Objective Laws of Logic Exist We cannot deny the Laws of Logic exist. In fact, any reasonable or logical argument against the existence of these laws requires their existence in the first place. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Conceptual Laws These laws are not physical; they are conceptual. They cannot be seen under a microscope or weighed on a scale. They are abstract laws guiding logical, immaterial thought processes. The Objective Laws of Logic Are Transcendent The laws transcend location, culture and time. If we go forward or backward a million years, the laws of logic would still exist and apply, regardless of culture or geographic location. The Objective Laws of Logic Pre-Existed Mankind The transcendent and timeless nature of logical laws indicates they precede our existence or ability to recognize them. Even before humans were able to understand the law of non-contradiction, “A” could not have been “Non-A”. The Laws of Logic were discovered by humans, not created by humans. (2) All Conceptual Laws Reflect the Mind of a Law Giver All laws require law givers, including conceptual laws. We know this from our common experience in the world in which we live. The laws governing our society and culture, for example, are the result and reflection of minds. But more importantly, the conceptual Laws of Logic govern rational thought processes, and for this reason, they require the existence of a mind. (3) The Best and Most Reasonable Explanation for the Kind of Mind Necessary for the Existence of the Transcendent, Objective, Conceptual Laws of Logic is God The lawgiver capable of producing the immaterial, transcendent laws preceding our existence must also be an immaterial, transcendent and pre-existent mind. This description fits what we commonly think of when we think of a Creator God.,,, https://coldcasechristianity.com/writings/is-god-real-evidence-from-the-laws-of-logic/
Verse and quote:
John 1:1 “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” What is the Logos? Logos is a Greek word literally translated as “word, speech, or utterance.” However, in Greek philosophy, Logos refers to divine reason or the power that puts sense into the world making order instead of chaos.,,, In the Gospel of John, John writes “In the beginning was the Word (Logos), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (John 1:1). John appealed to his readers by saying in essence, “You’ve been thinking, talking, and writing about the Word (divine reason) for centuries and now I will tell you who He is.” https://www.compellingtruth.org/what-is-the-Logos.html
bornagain77_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Bornagain77 @ 3
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:

Quite right, we can argue and once we have finished arguing, all we have left is an argument, which may or may not be valid, depending on whether it is properly formed but whose truth - if any - can only be determined by external verification of the constituent claims. So let's take a closer look at this argument:

1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.

Leaving aside the question of what is meant by a "maximally great being" - is a maximally great being capable of the greatest evil, for example - I will concede for the sake of argument that it is possible that a maximally great being exists.
2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
This is more or less a restatement of the first proposition. I would argue to exist at all means to exist in a world even if you are the sole occupant. But again, for the sake of argument, if it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.

Not quite. First, it should be rephrased for consistency to read, "If it is possible that a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it is possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world" But while it is possible that every possible world may include a maximally great being, there is no reason given why we should assume that it must be the same being manifested in all possible worlds.
4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
If it is possible that a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it is possible it exists in the actual world. But we still have no reason to think it is the same maximally great being.
5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
It's possible, yes, because we have no way of ruling it out as impossible.
6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists
Non sequiter
7. Therefore, God exists.
See above. If you want a simpler counter, let's try a substitution argument: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (the Dark Lord Sauron) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, The Dark Lord Sauron exists. Have we just proven that the title character of Tolkien's novel actually exists?Seversky_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
11:37 AM
11
11
37
AM
PDT}

BA77 @ 7 raises an interesting point about the 'hyper reality' of the world encountered during a near death experience. I have seen a number of materialistic explanations for this, along the lines of: "Well, the heightened reality is just due to the neuronal bombardment of the anterior central thingummy, giving rise to evoked potentials in the superior whatdidyacallit, so there's a very simple material explanation for this. Move along please, nothing to see here." What the materialists never do is to flag up the possibility that an overactive thingummy and a compromised whatdidyacallit might be causing our sense of 'normal' waking reality being 'realer' than dreams. IOW, if the heightened reality of the NDE world is an illusion, then maybe our everyday reality is also an illusion, and the 'real reality' is the dream world.Charles Birch_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
11:23 AM
11
11
23
AM
PDT}

@Ronvanwegen #5 And in that other universe, YOUR position might be reversed as well.Pater Kimbridge_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

hazel:
An infinite number of universes doesn’t mean that “anything that is logically possible will eventually happen.
Most materialists would disagree as they have posited the infinite multiverse for just that.
So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite wrong.
That's fine but that is not an argument. And you are also talking to the wrong people.ET_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT}

Dr Sheldon,
In an infinite universe, somebody somewhere has figured out how to talk from one universe to another.
This depends on what kind of multiverse is being proposed. In some models, it's simply impossible because the universes are completely disconnected. Similarly, even if we lived in an infinite multiverse, no one would ever be able to square the circle.
That technology can then collect the information in every universe, and become the Borg.
I'm not sure what this means. There's no guarantee that this technology would be able to collect an infinite amount of information, in any case.
But since there are infinite universes, this machine has infinite information. A machine with infinite information is omniscient and likely omnipotent and obviously omnipresent.
Holy non sequitur, Batman!
Little finite minds like ours would see it as God.
But is such a machine (assuming it could possibly exist) actually a god? Would you worship such a being?daveS_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
06:25 AM
6
06
25
AM
PDT}

Besides the fact that atheists wind up in catastrophic epistemological failure with their appeal to the multiverse, as is shown in the following video, atheists also have no compelling scientific evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth.
Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo
In fact, as was also shown in that video, there are some fairly strong lines of logical and scientific evidence that can be mustered against most of their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses. But for the most part, as George Ellis and many others have noted, multiverse theories simply are not science since they are not falsifiable:
GEORGE ELLIS AND THE MULTIVERSE November 17, 2012 Excerpt: And that is really his (Ellis's) criticism — multiverse theories aren’t really science. One of the most important aspects of any scientific theory is that it should falsifiable, which is to say that there must be some observation which you can make to exclude the theory. Since there is no casual link between these other universes and our own there is no way we could ever make an observation to rule out the theory. It’s not testable: these universes don’t ever interact with our own. But, it is certainly presented as a scientific theory by its practitioners. ,,, Reflecting on this I see one possible course of action for the multiverse practitioners — start a church! http://blog.insolublepancake.org/2012/11/george-ellis-and-multiverse.html
And whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, (as is shown in the following video), can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo
In fact, besides Christians being able to appeal to our most precisely theories ever in the history of science, (and as was also touched upon in the preceding video), Christians can also appeal to Near Death Experiences of people who have died for a short while to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension:
Near-Death Experiences: Putting a Darwinist's Evidentiary Standards to the Test - Dr. Michael Egnor - October 15, 2012 Excerpt: Indeed, about 20 percent of NDE's are corroborated, which means that there are independent ways of checking about the veracity of the experience. The patients knew of things that they could not have known except by extraordinary perception -- such as describing details of surgery that they watched while their heart was stopped, etc. Additionally, many NDE's have a vividness and a sense of intense reality that one does not generally encounter in dreams or hallucinations.,,, The most "parsimonious" explanation -- the simplest scientific explanation -- is that the (Near Death) experience was real. Tens of millions of people have had such experiences. That is tens of millions of more times than we have observed the origin of species , (or the origin of life, or the origin of a protein/gene, or of a molecular machine), which is never.,,, The materialist reaction, in short, is unscientific and close-minded. NDE's show fellows like Coyne at their sneering unscientific irrational worst. Somebody finds a crushed fragment of a fossil and it's earth-shaking evidence. Tens of million of people have life-changing spiritual experiences and it's all a big yawn. Note: Dr. Egnor is professor and vice-chairman of neurosurgery at the State University of New York at Stony Brook. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/10/near_death_expe_1065301.html
In fact, as Dr Egnor touched upon in the preceding article, we have far more observational evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences than we do for the Darwinian claim that unguided material processes can generate functional information. Moreover, the transcendent nature of 'immaterial' information, which is the one thing that, (as every ID advocate intimately knows), unguided material processes cannot possibly explain the origin of, directly supports the transcendent nature of the soul:
Darwinian Materialism vs. Quantum Biology – Part II https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSig2CsjKbg
The following line of evidence for the reality of Near Death Experiences is particularly interesting to look at. In the following study, materialistic researchers who had a bias against Near Death Experiences being real, set out to prove that they were ‘false memories’ by setting up a clever questionnaire that could differentiate which memories a person had were real and which memories a person had were merely imaginary. Simply put, they did not expect the results they got: to quote the headline 'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real”
'Afterlife' feels 'even more real than real,' researcher says - Wed April 10, 2013 Excerpt: "If you use this questionnaire ... if the memory is real, it's richer, and if the memory is recent, it's richer," he said. The coma scientists weren't expecting what the tests revealed. "To our surprise, NDEs were much richer than any imagined event or any real event of these coma survivors," Laureys reported. The memories of these experiences beat all other memories, hands down, for their vivid sense of reality. "The difference was so vast," he said with a sense of astonishment. Even if the patient had the experience a long time ago, its memory was as rich "as though it was yesterday," Laureys said. http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/09/health/belgium-near-death-experiences/
The reason this is so interesting is because, as has been pointed out numerous times to materialists who try to claim that consciousness is just an illusion, for anything to be "real" for us in the first place, you must first be conscious.
“Simply enough, you cannot suffer the illusion that you are conscious because illusions are possible only for conscious minds. This is so incandescently obvious that it is almost embarrassing to have to state it.” – David Bentley Hart
Thus, exactly how is it even possible for something to become 'even more real than real’ for a person having an NDE unless the infinite Mind of God truly is the basis for all reality? Atheistic Materialists simply lack a basis to even properly address the question, whereas the Christian should rightly expect things to become "even more real than real" in the presence of God. A few quotes on the 'even more real than real' aspect of Near Death Experiences,
“I was in the spiritual dimension. And this spiritual dimension, this spiritual world, that’s the real world. And this spiritual man that I was seeing and perceiving, that was the real me. And I instantly knew it. The colors are brighter. The thoughts are more intense. The feelings have greater depth. They’re more real. In the spirit world instantly I knew that this is the real world.,,,” – The Near Death Experience of Mickey Robinson – video (testimony starts at 27:45 minute mark) https://youtu.be/voak1RM-pXo?t=1655 A Doctor's Near Death Experience Inspires a New Life - video Quote: "It's not like a dream. It's like the world we are living in is a dream and it's kind of like waking up from that." Dr. Magrisso http://www.nbcchicago.com/on-air/as-seen-on/A-Doctor--186331791.html Medical Miracles – Dr. Mary Neal’s Near Death Experience – video (More real than real quote at 37:49 minute mark) https://youtu.be/WCNjmWP2JjU?t=2269 "More real than anything I've experienced since. When I came back of course I had 34 operations, and was in the hospital for 13 months. That was real but heaven is more real than that. The emotions and the feelings. The reality of being with people who had preceded me in death." - Don Piper - "90 Minutes in Heaven," 10 Years Later - video (2:54 minute mark) - per youtube Dr. Eben Alexander Says It's Time for Brain Science to Graduate From Kindergarten - 10/24/2013 Excerpt: To take the approach of, "Oh it had to be a hallucination of the brain" is just crazy. The simplistic idea that NDEs (Near Death Experiences) are a trick of a dying brain is similar to taking a piece of cardboard out of a pizza delivery box, rolling it down a hill and then claiming that it's an identical event as rolling a beautiful Ferrari down a hill. They are not the same at all. The problem is the pure materialist scientists can be so closed-minded about it. - per huffington post
Verse:
John 14: 1-4 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me. In My Father’s house are many mansions; if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again and receive you to Myself; that where I am, there you may be also. And where I go you know, and the way you know.”
bornagain77_{June 16, 2019
June
06
Jun
16
16
2019
04:12 AM
4
04
12
AM
PDT}

Exactly. By the way you don’t get to add rules to prevent something from happening all it takes in a statistical model is something like a singularity or a cosmological wormhole to happen that statistically can happen and will happen if you were dealing with an infinite number of universes That only has to happen with us once and we cease to exist That is not debatable And if you have to ad hoc rules to prevent this from happening you need to reevaluate a lot of the models of the universe because now you are fine-tuning the multi-verse which the whole reason for the multi-verse is to explain why our universe is so fine tunedAaronS1978_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
09:57 PM
9
09
57
PM
PDT}

Hazel: "So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite wrong." In another universe: "So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite right." QEDronvanwegen_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
09:23 PM
9
09
23
PM
PDT}

An infinite number of universes doesn't mean that "anything that is logically possible will eventually happen. This is not monkeys at typewriters. If there are laws that constrain the branching of each moment into an infinite number of next moments in parallel universes, or which constrain some unknown process that has produced other universes separate from ours (not necessarily infinite), then there may very well be (and this is likely) things that could not possibly happens for reasons other than just logic. I will once again refer to Conway's game of life. If somehow an infinite number of random beginning generations were seeded, (which is possible because this takes place on the infinite coordinate plane), and then each beginning generation was extended for an infinite number of generations, there still might be ending configurations or even parts of configurations that can never develop. So I think this argument about multi-verses meaning that eventually anything that is not logically impossible will happen is quite wrong.hazel_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
07:54 PM
7
07
54
PM
PDT}

Au Contraire Seversky, The materialistic conjecture of an infinity of other universes to ‘explain away’ the fine tuning of this universe also insures, through the ontological argument, the 100% probability of the existence of God:
God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig – Page 4 The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue: 1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists. 2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world. 3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world. 4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world. 5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world. 6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists. 7. Therefore, God exists. Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/july/13.22.html?start=4 What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig) - video "It (This argument) puts the atheist in a very awkward position. The atheist must deny, not merely that God exists, he must maintain that it is impossible that God exists. And that is certainly a radical claim that would require great justification." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rlxuHK49KY The Multiverse confirms the Ontological Argument for God - video https://youtu.be/MgDn_k11ups
As mentioned previously, where this argument has gained purchase is in the materialist’s/atheist’s appeal to the multiverse (an infinity of possible worlds) to try to ‘explain away’ the extreme fine tuning that we find for this universe. Simply put, the atheist cannot argue it is logically impossible for God to exist since he has already conceded that it is logically possible for an infinity of other possible worlds to exist. As well, as the following humorously makes clear, the multiverse is another prime example of the fact that assuming atheism as a starting position in science drives the atheist, yet again, into catastrophic epistemological failure:
Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One - February 9th, 2017 Excerpt: The ardent Multiverse proponent went on to state that he readily accepts that a universe governed by Mr. T riding a cyborg ostrich is possible. Also, one with floating, flaming bears instead of stars, one that contains planets full of hairy toasters made out of grape-flavored pudding, a universe that is just one humongous chicken in a bikini, and a universe that is literally a zit wearing a chef’s hat with the “@” symbol tattooed on its face. “I like to think there is a universe where Richard Dawkins has 20 heads, waffles rain from the sky covered in ice cream, the only plant that grows is pot and weiner dogs are the most socially progressive and advanced animal there is,” Hemsworth said with a cheerful glimmer in his eye. “Also there are only ponies, no horses.” When asked if this means that the universe outlined in the Bible might be one of these infinite possibilities, Hemsworth scoffed and said, “I am a scientist. I don’t have the luxury of engaging in that kind of wishful thinking.” https://babylonbee.com/news/atheist-accepts-multiverse-theory-every-possible-universe-except-biblical-one Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns - May 2014 Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.” By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales. Postscript While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.” https://pspruett.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/why-most-atheists-believe-in-pink-unicorns/
bornagain77_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

In an infinite universe, somebody somewhere has figured out how to talk from one universe to another. That technology can then collect the information in every universe, and become the Borg. But since there are infinite universes, this machine has infinite information. A machine with infinite information is omniscient and likely omnipotent and obviously omnipresent. Little finite minds like ours would see it as God. So the omniverse proves the existence of God, if that is what Ethan Siegel wants to do.
Not exactly. From what you say, it sounds like the super-Borg-like hive-mind to which you allude, would have arisen somewhere within the multiverse not created it from without. So it would not lend support to the Christian concept of God. The other problem, of course, is that the Borg had no chosen people, no favored creatures. They simply said "Prepare to be assimilated. We will add your biological and technological distinctives to our own. You will adapt to service us. Resistance is futile." Maybe such an advanced super-intelligence would mean us no harm but it's highly unlikely we would have the power to stop them if they did. So maybe we shouldn't be talking to such an intelligence if they did attempt contact, whether they presented themselves as an alien species or some kind of god. At least, not until we had clarified their intentions. Of course, it may already be too late. Maybe we've already been assimilated and, instead of being filled with Borg prosthetics and implants, we've been plugged into a Matrix-like simulation which is what is running now. The possibilities are endless.Seversky_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
04:01 PM
4
04
01
PM
PDT}

Anything that is logically conceivable is possible with infinite statistical power It doesn’t even have to be the borg or a machine for that matter The multi-verse is capable of giving Genesis to anything that exist including a being capable of transcending physics or at least the physics of its universe This being could continue to grow in power and absorb others of its kind or ilk becoming a Maximumly infinite being. Once something like this starts to exist, the one that made it to that point first could theoretically stop all others from doing the same and even stop the multiverse from continued production of universes. This would not be out side it’s grasp. Again anything conceivable is possible.AaronS1978_{June 15, 2019
June
06
Jun
15
15
2019
12:34 PM
12
12
34
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply