Posts Tagged ‘Multiverse’

“The Multiverse Created Itself” and “Who made God after all?” – The Kalam Cosmological Argument | With All I Am

Some have objected to the Kalam by raising the possibility of a multiverse. They say that this counters the Kalam because it’s possible that our universe is one of nearly infinite past universes, generated as another “bubble” among untold trillions of other bubble universes. There should be one glaring difficulty with this objection that most can see immediately: “Whence the multiverse?” If the multiverse is proposed as eternal, then every objection about actual infinites applies to the multiverse. Not only that, but the multiverse itself would have to account for entropy. How is it that all the energy in this (nearly) infinite multiverse has not been used if it has existed for all eternity?

— J.W. Wartick

via “The Multiverse Created Itself” and “Who made God after all?” – The Kalam Cosmological Argument | With All I Am.

simul iustus et peccator, 

Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 


I don’t necessarily agree with everything he says about religion, but the author makes some good points. Science has its problems.

“The technical triumph of the Human Genome Project led to big surprises. There are far fewer human genes than anticipated, a mere 23,000 instead of 100,000. Sea urchins have about 26,000 and rice plants 38,000. Attempts to predict characteristics such as height have shown that genes account for only about 5 percent of the variation from person to person, instead of the 80 percent expected. Unbounded confidence has given way to the “missing heritability problem.” Meanwhile, investors in genomics and biotechnology have lost many billions of dollars. A recent report by the Harvard Business School on the biotechnology industry revealed that “only a tiny fraction of companies had ever made a profit” and showed how promises of breakthroughs have failed over and over again.

Despite the brilliant technical achievements of neuroscience, like brain scanning, there is still no proof that consciousness is merely brain activity. Leading journals such as Behavioural and Brain Sciences and the Journal of Consciousness Studies publish many articles that reveal deep problems with the materialist doctrine. The philosopher David Chalmers has called the very existence of subjective experience the “hard problem.” It is hard because it defies explanation in terms of mechanisms. Even if we understand how eyes and brains respond to red light, the experience of redness is not accounted for.

In physics, too, the problems are multiplying. Since the beginning of the 21st century, it has become apparent that known kinds of matter and energy make up only about 4 percent of the universe. The rest consists of “dark matter” and “dark energy.” The nature of 96 percent of physical reality is literally obscure.

Contemporary theoretical physics is dominated by superstring and M theories, with 10 and 11 dimensions respectively, which remain untestable. The multiverse theory, which asserts that there are trillions of universes besides our own, is popular among cosmologists in the absence of any experimental evidence. These are interesting speculations, but they are not hard science. They are a shaky foundation for the materialist claim that everything can be explained in terms of physics.”

— Dr. Rupert Sheldrake

via Dr Rupert Sheldrake: Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion.

simul iustus et peccator,  

Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA 


English: Universal gravitational constant (G)

English: Universal gravitational constant (G) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The accumulation of evidence should be enough to overcome doubts about individual elements.

First, the LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE. Two such finely tuned laws are:

The law of gravity that acts on all matter. Without gravity, stars would break apart and we would have no long-term energy to sustain life.

The strong nuclear force. Without this, the protons in the nucleus of an atom would repel each other and our universe would be made up of nothing more than hydrogen.

Secondly, we see fine tuning in the FUNDAMENTAL CONSTANTS that govern just how much items in the universe are affected by certain laws.Here are just two:

We know that the gravitational constant, which is the value of how much masses will be attracted to one another could sit in a range anywhere within 1x 1040 power, or 1 followed by 40 zeros. But if the force of gravity was increased by one part in a billion, billion, billion, billion, advanced life would be crushed according to Cambridge Royal Society Research professor Martin Rees.[1]

Barrow & Tipler, in their landmark book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, note that if Einstein’s cosmological constant varied in either direction by as little as 1 x 10120, (which is a fraction so small that it would take more zeros to write than there are atoms in the universe) If this were to be changed by even that amount, the universe would expand too fast for galaxies & stars to form.

Thirdly, we see that the INITIAL DISTRIBUTION OF MASS AND ENERGY of the Big Bang needed to be just right. The initial conditions of the universe show extremely low entropy. Roger Penrose calculated the chances of this to be 1×1010^(123), a fraction so incredibly small it defies any example. Penrose said, “I cannot even recall seeing anything else in physics whose accuracy is known to approach, even remotely, a figure like one part in 1010^(123).”

Taking all this into account, John Leslie remarks, “Clues heaped upon clues can constitute weighty evidence, despite doubts about each element in the pile.”[2]”

— Lenny Esposito

via Come Reason’s Apologetics Notes: Can Infinite Universes Explain Fine-Tuning?.

simul iustus et peccator,


Man, making up stuff so he doesn’t have to believe in God since the Fall of mankind (which he denies, as well). But even a huge number of multiverses only begs the question-where did the machine that spits out all of these multiverses come from?
English: Level II Multiverse: every disk is a ...

English: Level II Multiverse: every disk is a bubble universe. Universe 1 to Universe 6 are different bubbles, with distinct physical constants that are different from our universe. Our universe is just one of the bubbles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

“Nobelist Steven Weinberg agrees:Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator.String theory has been known at times to sound like the Darwin of the cosmos, underwriting a God-free universe. M-theory is a composite of various versions of string theory, with an eleventh dimension added in the mid-1990s, in the hope of finding the “grand design” of the multiverse, as set out by Stephen Hawking in his 2010 book with physicist Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design 2010. Cosmologist Max Tegmark offers the most elaborate multiverse scheme to date, first introduced in Scientific American in 2003. Starting with the assumption that fine tuning is best explained by the existence of infinite undetected universes, he goes on to point out that therefore there is an infinite number of people just like you:The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10^1028 meters from here.” — Eric Chabot

via Not Only Is Earth One Nice Planet Among Many, but Our Entire Universe Is Lost in a Crowd | THINKAPOLOGETICS.COM.


simul iustus et peccator, 
Eric Adams 
Rossville, GA