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.

Some of the explanations don't actually explain anything - an never did explain anything. They were like "God must have done it!" which is equivalent to "It must be magic!"

For the most part, though, it probably did not occur to most of them to test their explanations. Moreover, they often did not even consider the consequences of their explanations. (Those "expected consequences" are the conditions against which one would test the explanation.



Consider it a place-holder. We may one day decide that some of these explanations are insufficient or we may figure out a way to test the idea or we may wait for the technology to come along - but they aren't giving up and saying "It must be magic!"

I doubt atheists would bring it up, if theists weren't attempting to use arguments from authority and quotes out of context as proofs for their opinions.

Of course not, but do you not think that this difference is a feature of our increased understanding and improved methods.

I believe it is usually (if not always) an unproductive exercise to try to judge the actions of people in past ages by the standards of the present day. However, it can be interesting to look in a general way at the underlying trends.

What is the authority?

Direct experience, a person or group of persons outside of ones experience?

If your experience doesn't agree with the authority does one deny ones own experience and then surrender ones being to what one is told is real?

Are we taught to surrender our sensibility to the authority in or schools and in the world, or are we taught to use our senses and to refine them so that authority does not become our dependance and our lives conditional as the tenants of authority?

Who does not use authority to reference fact and reality? Who will not twist the words of authority to try and gain an advantage?

I'm not judging people of past ages, Bill. Human knowledge and understanding has taken many millennia to develop. Part of that knowledge is the knowledge of how to build knowledge methodically. It's no more judgmental to note that the ancients did not have modern science than it is to say that they did not have modern trucks and houses. This is not to say that they were stupid or particularly ignorant. But - and this may seem radical - we have made some progress in understanding the universe in the past 50K - 200K years of human existence.

I don't know what a good reason is for believing in God (the only good reason I've ever been able to think of is possibly direct revelation, if such a thing exists, but even then there are epistemological issues) - but explanatory power has never been a good reason. OTOH, the existence of the multiverse, if it does exist, doesn't disprove a God. (Can't think of any way of doing that.)

One could argue that it pushes back the god of the gaps, but I don't think that's true either. OTOOH, it could be that so few of us have a sufficient understanding of the concepts (I'm not one of them) that it might as well be god (or magic) ... in the same way that tides or rainbows might as well be magic to a great many people.

Argument from authority is not necessarily a logical fallacy. Courtrooms use them all the time in the form of expert witnesses, but not everyone could be an expert witness. (If I were to ever get my P.E. license, *I* could be an expert witness.) And being an expert witness on one topic doesn't make one an expert witness on all topics. Unlike on NCIS, it is highly unlikely that the person who is an expert on fingerprints will also be an expert on bomb residue and computer forensics. It's not a perfect system and the standards are completely insufficient, but standards do exist. The NAS has recommended improving the standards.

The argument that many religious people make runs something like this:
"HO! Einstein believed in God! He's the SMARTEST GUY WHO EVER LIVED and HE said God exists! You think you're smarter than EINSTEIN?"

Of course there are a number of problems with this. First, few people doubt that Einstein was a smart guy, but what makes a person an expert authority on God? What makes him more knowledgeable than anyone else? Second, did E really believe in God? And third, if E did believe in a God, what did he mean by it? Not always - but most of the time - the person making this claim is implicitly (and often explicitly) arguing for an Abrahamic type god - a conscious god who pays attention to us, cares what we do, perhaps even communicates or otherwise interacts with us. Fourth, there are and have been other people who were equally smart who have clearly been atheists (Richard Feynman, for example).

I'm reminded in this of the quotes of Darwin taken out of context that demonstrate he refuted evolution or legends of his having recanted evolution on his death bed - as if knowledge has been stagnant for the past 150 years and the only reason that anyone ever accepted evolution, and the only reason anyone accepts it today is because of Darwin's expert testimony.

That's certainly the reason in each case that I know of - not that the reason makes a difference to fact.

Regarding the question as to whether or not there is a place for "god": If I were an Orthodox Jew I would say, G-d--that is, Being itself, which includes all things in all places--is not a person, an object, or an idol, a statue, or one who needs a place. This is the purpose of the dash in the English translation of the Hebrew, YaHWeH, which is related to Hebrew verb, 'to be'.

It seems to me that modern physicists--especially those who study the universe at its microcosmic (quantum) and macro-cosmic levels are now beginning to admit: While the science of physics has helped us accomplish much in understanding the nature of things, there is something going on here, beyond matter, that is not a measurable thing--a particle, or particles, in the material sense of the word.

EINSTEIN AND SPINOZA
Einstein, who studied the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, called the processes of creation, "mysterious and awe inspiring".

Spinoza--God&Nature.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNat

I agree. To me, it seems to be beyond anything that we can quantify in any way, shape, or form. Theists call it God; Orthodox Jews call it G-d (the all-knowing I amness of being); Muslims call it Allah (the all-knowing power of being) and I call G-0-D.
Note the -0- (memories and visions). The dashes symbolize the mysterious illusions we call the past memories and future illusions, which make up the reality we call, now.

Our role? Our role is to simply be aware. We have two choices--

BE AWARE AND BEWARE--and say yes, or no, to LIFE
-------------------
NOT INTENDED AS DOGMA
--------------------
Mysteriously, out of the "-0-" (the no thing) comes all that we experience as good and desirable. In my opinion, "good" does not come purely by accident. Again, in my opinion, it comes when we WILL it, love it, into Being.

Rev wrote:

"Einstein, who studied the philosophy of Baruch Spinoza, called the processes of creation, "mysterious and awe inspiring". "

'Mysterious and awe-inspiring' does not in any way further the debate about the existence of whatever is god. I think the processes of creation, the possibly endless grandeur of the universe, and life itself are mysterious and awe-inspiring,- but I do not attribute their being so to god- the architect. I feel that eventually, as we search further we will discover answers to the mysterious and awe-inspiring things that seem inexplicable to us, as our forefathers did when they realised that our planet was in fact merely one small planet amongst many- not the centre of the universe.

That is why FF was so right saying that what people say on their death bed is irrelevant. We have moved on. Science has built on some aspects of their work and rejected others. The story is growing each day.

If you believe in a Creator and the divine nature of the universal plan, that's fine--- but always bear in mind, as do I, that your own conclusion may in fact be incorrect, or only part of the truth. And the most important thing is to keep on searching for answers.

I agree, absolutely.

As far as the most important thing being to keep on searching for answers is concerned; I think that is so for most of us, but if there are those who are comfortable and happy with their beliefs, that's OK as well, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs on others.

So many millions of words in an endless cycle...repeating...repeating...repeating. It all seems so unnecesary. But, no, I must be wrong. If it were truly unnecessary, it wouldn't be happening. It must be serving a need. Perhaps many needs. Maybe somewhere in the multiverse, there are worlds where spiritual insight is developed beyond such needs. Could it happen here, or will our genetic heritage forever preclude it?

Perhaps, if we all kept our beliefs to ourselves, and discussed only those things that were amenable to scientific/logical debate there would be much less repetition. A comparison of threads with, and without, God might support that view, although there tends to be a lot of repetition in the “scientific” threads as well.

Then again; too tight a straight jacked could make the world a dull place.

It would have to be a sad world indeed if the omission of god conversations would leave it a dull place. Happily it would not, because what one feels in one's 'heart' is another matter. There's a whole universe of experience and knowledge beyond the remit of science that provide joie de vivre to scientist and non-scientist alike, and have nothing to do with discussions of the gods alluded to in these threads.

That is actually debatable. Because the limited imagination of the ego uses so much energy in outward moving senses (To use the reverends approach of an acronym..EGO everything goes outward from the senses) the subtle senses of intuition and uncommon sensibility are ignored. The authority within the system of measure where we are taught to accept ourselves as limited, and to compare ourselves and grade ourselves on relative scales of acceptable realities, creates doubt and fear which creates an experience not unlike removing a free animal into a cage.

The psyche which is forced into such a way of living where fear rules ones sensibilities seeks relief in the experience. Love which is conditioned, is sought to fill the voids where self measure has been imposed as the nature of worth. Enjoyment within the universe is sought as the relief from ones own beliefs in being victim to circumstance and a world that seems to have an order outside of ones beliefs.

Religion is created to conjure a benevolent presence or reality of relief, from the suffering humanity endures within the trials and tribulations of the human experience. When so many die of disease, war, poverty and even "natural" disasters one begins to question the reality of ones self, humanity in general and the nature of the universe.

The inherent capabilities of the human senses (if not developed) twist reality into subjective realities which are objectively experienced thru the filters of belief.

The divine presence within the individual being is squashed by the determination of democratic rule, subject to the authority and its self created system of acceptance and measure.

An example would be love. We are taught to accept love within certain ideals. We are taught that we cannot know love until we reach a certain age of understanding. We are taught to believe sex is acceptable with certain ritualistic boundaries of social mores, and those vary in culture and in history like the changing beliefs in religion and God.

Science might measure love by hormonal response and brain activity, but we as individuals often ignore any system of acceptance or measure when it comes to making claims to feeling love. We fear to do this when we are speaking of any other relationship to our experience in personal realities.

If we feel love we do not hesitate to make the statement to that fact, and we would argue with anyone who would challenge what we feel. When we feel love for our families and friends we are not so often challenged to prove this relationship or feeling as we are with everything else, because the social mores of society have not been able to put love entirely into a box of measure, but it will insist upon boxing everything else and the ego does in fact, try to put love into a box.

With everything in a box, the essence of who we are emerges by its very nature to expose itself, but it is beaten down by the ego and the social mores of democratically conceived standards of measure, and the political acceptance of physical realities.

With the belief and experience in what is determined to be good and bad, what recourse does anyone have but to seek that which is acceptable within those measures of good, and to try and protect ones self from the bad.

The prison of duality created by the outward going senses coupled with the atrophied intuitive capabilities inherent within the nervous system, keeps us looking outside of ourselves for perfection and reality.

In that sense, the Gods are all relative to conditions of self measure, and they are brought here to be debated upon as they are seen within the personal realities that might appeal to the whole, and be accepted as the good experience of self proclaimed belief.

TT wrote:
"We are taught that we cannot know love until we reach a certain age of understanding."

I realise that I am probably nit-picking here, but I must take issue with this statement. Anyone who has experienced the interaction of children and those who are caring for them will know that love is powerfully there on both sides from the beginning.

Perhaps you mean sexual love. That must wait for maturity-- but to assume that the ability for us to experience and return love is not innate, even instinctive, is to deny the best of our humanity.

Ellis, you say things likeKeep in mind: For me, G-0-D is not a "whatever" or a "whoever". For me, the theologies called monotheism, monodeism and pantheism--the prime targets of atheists, old and new--are passe. I agree with science-based atheists (unitheists?) who risked their lives for truth. Except for those who study the history of philosophy and religion; they are no longer useful; they are as dead as the polytheism they replaced.

Perhaps this is what Nietzsche had in mind when he wrote, "God is dead". Neither do I.As one who is enjoying the search, I agree. Of course! Then you add "a Creator"? By now, it should be obvious to all who read what I write that, I do not believe there is a separate and SUPERNATURAL CREATOR, which most theists call God--one who started of with a divine plan, which "He" wrote down in the Bible, the Koran, whatever. Conclusion? What do you feel is my conclusion, about truth? I like to think that what I am doing is searching for truth not making conclusions about it. Of course, as you say, any conclusionAgreed! READ ALL ABOUT about IT...
http://www.nationalpost.com/search/index.html?q=NEW+NEW+Atheism
How the new New Atheists are turning atheism into a religion Have they been reading what unitheism said on SAGGO, years ago? HMMM!
... Paradoxically, today, when atheism enjoys unprecedented respectability ... it is being turned into a new cause. Over the past decade, books celebrating atheism and denouncing belief in ... arguments of the so-called New Atheists, including Sam Harris ...
National Post - Saturday. Feb. 4, 2012
------------------
http://life.nationalpost.com/2012/02/04/how-the-new-atheists-are-turning-atheism-into-a-religion/

It is there,.. but witness a child say to an adult, "I am in love." and the average adult will say, "you do not know what love is" in response.
Or if Billy says "I love Jane" or visa versa and the children are pre-pubescent, the average adult will think that it is cute but without giving credit to any understanding of what love is.

I have no idea what is implied by the term New Atheism--- but if it is indeed turning into a religion, with faith, belief and dogma then it is not Atheism. It is the actual lack of belief that defines atheism. As I have said many times before (how right you are rede, millions of words indeed), atheism is a LACK of belief in the existence of the divine.

Ellis, could your definition of athiesm also be expressed as: a belief that there is no divine existence?

I too agree with Rede, I also think we have moved far enough from the OP to, perhaps, call it a day.

To Bill S:
Yes- on both points!

Bill S, you opened this thread with what I think is a crucial comment: "...this makes us in a sense the lords of creation." Before we "call it a day", I just wanted to make note of it and ask: In what ways do you think we are, could, or should be, "lords of creation?"

I thought I knew what love was ... until I had children.

I admit to opening the thread, but I don't admit to saying anything about "lords of creation".

OH NO!!! I don't have any kids!

An interesting phrase 'lords of creation', that begs the question- where are the 'ladies of creation'? The latter sound faintly ridiculous, whilst the former are just ridiculous.

Interestingly, Ellis, as I understand it, the English word 'lord' is a contraction of two familiar words: loaf...as in, bread...and ward...as in, warden, or keeper. From 'lord' we get: keepers of the bread.
ETYMOLOGY OF THE WORD:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord#Etymology

LET'S NOT FORGET TO INCLUDE THE LADIES
--------------------------------------
Therefore, in days of old, the lords and ladies of the castle, or of the manor, whatever--were in effect the government of the day.

They were the keepers of the bread--symbol of the necessities of life. What justice there was came from the lords and the ladies. This poses the question:

CAMELOT ANYONE?
Good kings--like king Arthur of Camelot, and of course me, king of SAGGO--took care to collect only the just amount of taxes. Also, we made sure that what was produced and collected was distributed justly. This assured that there was a "happy-ever-aftering"--the kind we have in Canada, eh?

Obviously I shall have to extend my vocabulary and address the bread bin, which hither to used to keep the bread-- as LORD Bread Bin.

No that would be tautology--- It's now Lord Bin.

One of the main troubles seems to have been that a lot of lords took “bread keeper” to mean that they should keep it all for themselves. Things don’t change much, do they?

Yes that's why some of them want to spend your tax money to search for it. They don't have any thing that they believe in so they want to look for more that they can believe in.

Hi Bill - Just watched a documentary about this today on YouTube (Are we real)and then I came on here and saw your post. Really interesting - Perhaps we are the pawns of creation and the multi universes our universe's creator - in the sense that many give rise to the probability of our existence.

Huh?