A “pretend” multiverse, has no properties whatsoever. It does not exist. A bit of evidence for it might be appropriate before it is cited as an imaginary solution for the ID fine tuning of the universe improbability problem. I know, I am talking crazy there! But somebody’s gotta do it!
In my opinion they are different... To believe either in a multiverse or in God requires faith. But there is no evidence for a multiverse, while there is evidence for God. The multiverse was invented only a few years ago to try and explain the real improbability of the existence of our fine tuned universe, without God. Someone out there even knows the date it was invented. In other words, science was getting too close to showing evidence for the existence of God, and the ID folks were spreading the news, so Atheistic Naturalistic scientists had to make up an imaginary alternative, multiverses, to replace God. Only it doesn’t really replace God at all, because it doesn’t exist, it is just made up. And the fine tuning of our universe is still just as impossible to explain without God as it ever was.
So you feel there is evidence but still it requires faith? Why? Or Why do you need faith when you have evidence?
To me, there is evidence for God, but perhaps not proof of God. I personally see a difference there. My Dad, personally knows he was healed by God, but there is no way he can absolutely prove that now to you or anyone else. But also, even if God was standing visibly right in front of me I would still need to have faith or trust in Him, in a similar way that I would need to have faith or trust in my doctor or my coworkers or my wife or anyone else in my life.
ok ...let's rephrase the question stressing the original context. "Why do you need faith in God's existence when you have evidence?" Do understand the difference? If you have evidence of God's existence then faith is not required. If you believe that the existence of the universe is evidence of God then no faith is required. However if you believe that God informs, guides, heals etc. in a positive manner then faith in his good character and intent may be required.
OK, I'll accept that. (It can perhaps be improved, but it captures what's important in these arguments.) I'm not sure that I want to agree with that. For one thing, "come from" needs more clarity. 'Come from' might mean temporally-prior efficient cause. There couldn't be any temporally prior cause in this 'something from nothing' case, simply by definition. But 'come from' might mean something rather different, something like 'explanatory principles'. Whatever it is that we use to explain something else. (The vaunted 'laws of physics' would be an example here.) And again, in this 'something from nothing' case, we seem to have ruled out explanatory principles by definition. So I'm agreeing with you I guess, regardless of which version we choose. But... I'm not sure how we get from there to 'no real and actual thing can come from absolute nothingness'. I can imagine something like the "big bang", where not only space, time and matter, but the 'laws of physics' that describe their behavior, just... appear... at some initial instant (counting back from 'now') in the past and the universe evolves from there. It's certainly possible to imagine events happening without any cause or explanation. Perhaps not everything that happens (including universes popping into existence) requires a cause or a reason. I think that you and I, and many people, would agree that there's just something... wrong... about that. It's kind of an intellectual surrender for one thing. Certainly it leaves the huge universal "why" question unanswered (and perhaps unanswerable). Why is there something rather than nothing?? I'm not sure that I want to agree with that. Nor am I sure that one need to hypothesize that 'absolute nothingness' ever existed. (Wouldn't positing the existence of absolute non-existence be self-contradictory?) It's more about acknowledging the contingency of reality. Why is reality this way rather than that way? Why is there such a thing as reality at all?? Something vital to our understanding, arguably the most important thing, still seems to be missing. Physics certainly seems to agree. The difference is that physics imagines the 'eternal', their timeless explanatory principles, the 'givens' in their arguments, as abstract principles: the principles of logic, of mathematics, and their beloved 'laws of nature'. (Krauss' quantum field theory among them.) The theists imagine their 'eternal', their explanatory principle, the 'given' in all their arguments, as a person, an anthropomorphized personality often lifted from ancient mythology, their "God". Both versions have deep roots in the late antique and medieval Platonic traditions. The physicists still rely on their beloved 'Forms', which they scrawl like magic incantations on their chalkboards, except that many of them no longer imagine the Forms to be ideas in the mind of God. (Nor should they...) They still face the problem of accounting for them though. (Even if many of them would prefer not to go there...) That being said, positing eternal being to explain everything else doesn't really solve the problem. One still needs to be able to answer why eternal being exists rather than nothing at all.... I think that I'm going to remain an agnostic on these matters. I simply don't know why there is something rather than nothing, nor do I know why all the something takes the form it seemingly does and answers to the kind of explanatory principles that physics likes to throw at it. And I don't even know how one would go about providing the missing explanations. What kind of explanatory principles can we appeal to in trying to explain the existence of absolutely everything? (Including the explanatory principles themselves.) I do agree with JamesR though, that personifying the explanatory principle(s) and using the word "God" doesn't really bring us any closer to an answer.
I think I am pretty close to your position, if I understand you correctly, but please take a quick look at the sentence you wrote, copied below. You wrote the sentence... “If you believe that the existence of the universe is evidence of God then no faith is required.” In that sentence you wrote the phrase “If you believe” and then “no faith is required”. Doesn’t the phrase “if you believe” kind of equal faith, at least at some level? What is the difference between belief and faith? Perhaps faith and knowledge can be regarded as the same thing in some cases, and be different in degrees from each other in some cases. Perhaps depending on how certain we are that the evidence is valid, convincing, convicting, accurate, rings true with our life experience, etc. Personal opinion... I think that every normal, mentally healthy, human “knows” that God exists from the evidence of creation all around them. But “knowing” God exists, does not mean that they have trust in Him, in His character, that they seek to know Him, or seek to align themselves with Him. Some “know” and willfully reject Him, so they can live apart from Him, or even live in open rebellion to Him. And that is their own choice. That is how it appears to me anyway.
Well: "In string theory, spacetime is ten-dimensional (nine spatial dimensions, and one time dimension), while in M-theory it is eleven-dimensional (ten spatial dimensions, and one time dimension). In order to describe real physical phenomena using these theories, one must therefore imagine scenarios in which these extra dimensions would not be observed in experiments." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory#Number_of_dimensions For mathematical reasons, but no one really knows.
good question... what is the difference between faith and belief? Using contextual sentencing helps IMO. try : "I have faith in my belief" "I trust and have faith that I am competent enough to hold this belief" "I have faith in my perception and cognition" "I have faith that my belief that evidence of God exists, is valid." Essentially believing in a belief that you may hold perhaps? or "Science has faith in the scientific method because there is ample evidence of it's utility" btw. Pantheism does not separate the divine from the universe. It does not generate a third player in a duality. Thus the universe has not been created by God but is in itself God. I am of Pantheist persuasion and believe that the only logical solution to "ex-nihilo" is to conclude that the universe (God) has always existed and was never created but is always in a state of creation. The sum of all it's influences is often mistaken as the will of God when in fact it is the will of the sum. ( as the universe and God are the same thing) Basically what you see is what you get and nothing more.... Science is about the understanding of God (universe) so as to eventually become the God of our dreams, a God with volition yet to be.
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Saudi Arabia has opened up their country for Tourism of the Mountain of God, the Split Rock, the Golden Calf Altar Site, the Blackened Peak of the Mountain of God, the Altar of Moses, the Cave of Elijah at the Mountain, the Caves of Jethro in Midian, the Oasis at Elim, the numerous Petroglyphs left by the Hebrews in the area, and the Gravesite from the events that occurred at the Mountain. All of it is just sitting out there. All of these Sites in Saudi Arabia match the Exodus Account in the Bible perfectly. Here are a few links on the topic... https://www.foxnews.com/world/saudi-arabia-christian-tour https://livingpassages.com/christian-tours/saudi-arabia/ https://doubtingthomasresearch.com/ http://realmountsinai.com/explore https://splitrockresearch.org/ The Google Earth Coordinates for the Altar of Moses at The Mountain of God are... Latitude: 28°35'5.22"N Longitude: 35°22'43.48"E Just copy and past the following coordinates... 28°35'5.22"N, 35°22'43.48"E into the Search Bar in Google Earth and hit enter. In the left hand panel, at the very bottom under "Layers" check the "Terrain" box to turn on 3-D Terrain. If you want, you can also check the "Google Earth Community" box as well. Oh and maybe also check the "Photos" box. Zoom out and take a look around, if you wish! The Golden Calf Altar Site is at... 28°34'53.05"N, 35°23'46.42"E The Blackened Peak from the Presence of God is at... 28°35'0.91"N, 35°20'55.47"E The Split Rock is at... 28°43'35.75"N, 35°14'10.53"E A possible location for the Burning Bush is... 28°37'3.22"N, 35°19'41.80"E The Caves of Jethro in Midian are at... 28°29'17.60"N, 34°59'59.09"E The Well of Moses is at... 28°29'8.01"N, 35° 1'7.12"E
No, but fun question! As you know God is not a Scientific Hypothesis. Science, or in other words Atheistic Naturalism, just flat out assumes God does not exist, without any proof at all. Even though a lot of evidence for God does exist.
