Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum Is the Multiverse a God Substitute?

"Our universe seems to be one of many, each with different laws. That multiverse idea is not a notion invented to account for the miracle of fine tuning. It is a consequence predicted by many theories in modern cosmology. If it is true it reduces the strong anthropic principle to the weak one, putting the fine tunings of physical law on the same footing as the environmental factors, for it means that our cosmic habitat—now the entire observable universe—is just one of many.
Each universe has many possible histories and many possible states. Only a very few would allow creatures like us to exist. Although we are puny and insignificant on the scale of the cosmos, this makes us in a sense the lords of creation."

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704206804575467921609024244.html

Not unless you wish to worship another idea and create another ism.

Someone had to take the “title” literally and ignore the implication of the text! Thanks, TT, for getting that out of the way.

Our ancestors tried to make sense of the world around them. Some things seemed to make sense quite readily. Other things appeared to need an explanation that was outside anything they could experience, so they thought up explanations that seemed to make sense, but were not contemporarily testable.

Modern cosmologists try to make sense of the cosmos. Some things seem to make sense quite readily. Other things appear to need an explanation that is outside anything they can experience, so they think up explanations that seem to make sense, but are not currently testable.

If you argued, as many do, that god was everywhere, omnipotent and ubiquitous, without any scientific clutter to hinder the imaginings, and many do; would it not be entirely possible to suggest that the infinite is evidence for the existence of god, merely by being there, being everywhere, omnipotent and ubiquitous, and many do.

Or- to out it rather more simply---God = Cosmos.

There are some of our human ancestors who are on par with modern cosmologists and match what was said about the universe appearing out of potential (nothing) and intention rather than from a bang of chaotic energies. Intention meaning something much more appropriate to conditions of consciousness moving thru the essence of matter drawing it forth into creation.

Can you get something from nothing or do you can get something from something?

And your welcome Bill for the address to the topic title. I figured you were expecting no less since you decided to put the God nameplate onto your article.
I guess I'm not the only one... eh?

Then the word "God" is redundant? Thank Cosmos for that!

But, perhaps the word itself is not the only part that is redundant. The difference between god and the cosmos would have to be that whereas one is everywhere, omnipotent and ubiquitous without explanation and beyond comprehension, its ways too mysterious for comprehension and nourished by faith and belief, whilst the other succumbs to human curiosity and surrenders its truth and reveals its rules without insisting on fidelity or worship.

Will there be a place for god if one day all the vast scope and truth of the universe(s) is understood and known by us all, "puny and insignificant" though we may be?

I like it too Ellis. In answer to your question, I think the answer is 'yes', there will still be a place for god. Even if M-Theory is right, and the the cosmos is a manifestation of a symphony being played on Strings, the question will still be "why?"

Ellis, I assume you meant "put"? Rede, this is why long ago, and for my own reasons--with no intention of being dogmatic--I dropped using the noun "God"--the word has so many limitations--and started using acronyms like GOD, G0D and the one I like best, G-0-D.

I like it because, for me, it is so very inclusive, like panentheism (unitheism). It includes all the processes we call physical, mental and spiritual.

I would answer "No" to the question I posed--- But I have a temptation to answer your question with- "Why not?"

After all, who is playing (or perhaps pulling) those strings?

Well Bill... looks like the topic went where you didn't want it to go.

Sorry I couldn't get that out of the way for you.

Yes, Ellis. Since Einstein, at least, a number of notable scientists have spoken of the 'the mind of God'. Naturally, many atheists hasten to inform the world that this God doesn't count as God - it's a figure of speech, a metaphore, whatever you like, but it just cannot, and must not, mean God - thus getting their heros off the hook. After all, they must wonder, how could those icons of rationality possibly be hinting that they have intuited some metaphysical meaning behind everything? Heaven forbid, anything but that, surely.

In answer to Bill's topic question: For me, it isn't a substitutute. It's the real thing, be it uni or multi.

I recognise the utility of creating a verbal peg upon which to hang an abstract concept, where no such peg already exists. It serves to order one's own thoughts, and helps in conveying the concept to others.

In other words.. It helps some to make up something new where abstract concepts already exist, but conflict with the attention needed to bolster ones own imagined abstract concepts.

One can volley for recognition of ones own beliefs and gain support for the belief, to try and establish belief as a reality.

Thing is... (when it comes to God), the original language (inclusive of the original reflections of the subject) came from a much more expanded state of conscious awareness than the limited concepts projected upon any of the verbal pegs used to organize the limited imagination.

Therefore it was not the word which degraded into negative concepts, but the less conscious mindset that misuses the original language, which in turn projects superstitious/limited/ignorant connotations upon the original intent, distorting (in the mind) the reality and nature of the original subject of the discourse.

Religion has forever been making itself up as it goes along, re-defining itself to try and draw support to itself.

Preaching the "word" don'tcha know.

Instead of becoming conscious enough to draw forth the original understanding and experience, it is much easier for the ego to make something up and and establish the personal mindset as the authority, for designer concepts and illusions of fantasy.

It's like putting a butterfly into a jar.. The subject is relieved of the use of its wings to fly and express itself, when the jailer imprisons it within the confines of personality definitions.

Considering the "clutter" that goes with the word God, might it not have been better to find a completely different peg?

Some time ago, Kallog suggested I use "ugbugoo" in stead of infinity......just a thought!

I didn't really mind where the topic went. I posted this and the Something from nothing topic at the same time for a reason.
Rather than indulge in repetition, I am going to post the explanation in the “Does God have a role in science” thread.

Or remove the clutter by expanding the intellect and exposing illusions for what they are.

Why replace one illusion for another and perpetuate the clutter?

Another thought....

As the illusions gradually fade as knowledge increases, would not the clutter be the god

Or is god the space left at the end of the investigation.

Whilst the universe is presently inexplicable and awe inspiring, I feel one day it will be explicable and awe inspiring.

We are caught in a trap with discussing this topic due to the myriad definitions of the word god. How is it possible to discuss the god of the multiverse in all that entity's complexity in the same breath as the God who exerts His influence on the weather when we have prayed to Him to not let it rain on our team's football match? Both are valid beliefs, and the football loving God is no less real to the fan than the finely reasoned theological ruminations on the nature of the divine are to the academic.

Taking the nature of faith into consideration, for some of us the multiverse is a substitute for god, for others it is not, as their faith in their god is unshakeable, and for others it cannot be, as for them god does not exist.

All would be a reflection of God and yet no-thing of any relative comprehension or experience would ever encompass God.

Idealizing God's of function and form is the clutter of belief.

Faith is not enough because one can have faith in anything.

Without the direct experience of God, faith in a belief (any belief) is subjective. Anything subjective is going to change and be divided amongst the individual perspectives of personality.