This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Scientists believe the universe may be made supernaturally

#1DarkContractorPosted 6/14/2013 6:27:14 PM
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=new-physics-complications-lend-support-to-multiverse-hypothesis


Now, before anyone of either sides shouts a gotchya about literally anything; there is not a lick of evidence for this, this is simply the predicted next stage of developments of what we know about the universe.

This is a pretty interesting double edged sword if it turns out to be true. On one hand, atheists lose their naturalism, opening up a pandora's box of mystique and intrigue that could counteract, or at minimally slow down, the rise of secularism and separation of Church and State. If anything, the open endedness that a supernatural occurrence grounded in empirical, peer reviewed data would be such a treasure cove for spirituality, I imagine we would see much more Eastern schools of thought increasing with it, Ba'Hai comes to mind. I believe we will see a reaching out to the spiritual, if supernaturalism turns out to be true, trying to fathom what there is and isn't about supernaturalism, and trying to comprehend if there's anything sentient to it.

On the other hand, undeniably theists must lose their teleological argument, arguably the strongest of all the natural theology assertions.

It really is an unexpected plot twist in the growth of our scientific understanding.
---
http://counteringchristianity.blogspot.com/ - My blog.
#2Julian_CaesarPosted 6/14/2013 8:15:35 PM
Why would this force an abandonment of the teleological argument? You can't simply "assume" that our fine-tuned universe is the result of umpteen-trillion universes existing simultaneously, just because that is the explanation that doesn't require God. I don't think the teleological argument is a good one myself; neither do I think that this particle physics revelation will affect whether God is (supposedly) a logical necessity for those particles to exist in the first place.

But on the flip side, how is this a disproof of "naturalism" either? All they're doing is suggesting that many, many multiple universes existed in order for ours to exist in this particular way. How is that different from the "naturalism" of a single universe, except that we've moved the starting point back? (from "Big Bang" to "Unknown Beginning of Multiverse")


I do think this is big news, and possibly heralds a paradigm shift about what the word "universe" actually means. But I suspect that many scientists are shying away from the multiverse theory because it seems an impossible one to prove...i.e. is it really another "universe" if you can observe it using the same rules as the ones governing our "universe?" Doesn't that just make it part of our universe, in the end?
---
Every day the rest of your life is changed forever.
#3Faust_8Posted 6/14/2013 8:22:42 PM
Julian_Caesar posted...
But on the flip side, how is this a disproof of "naturalism" either? All they're doing is suggesting that many, many multiple universes existed in order for ours to exist in this particular way. How is that different from the "naturalism" of a single universe, except that we've moved the starting point back? (from "Big Bang" to "Unknown Beginning of Multiverse"


I find I'm agreeing with this--I didn't see any disproof of naturalism or anything like that.

All I saw was "Well we think it's either multiverse or an argument from ignorance (ie. we can't find certain particles, therefore supernatural)."

Possibly very important findings (I'd like to see what other scientists are saying) but it's not what the topic title suggests.
---
Faust_8: Would you own slaves if you could?
OW: If I lived on a farm or something, sure. But I have no need of slaves right now.
#4JonWood007Posted 6/14/2013 9:22:25 PM
Interesting. However, ultimately it's a fine tuning argument. There are 3 possibilities here.

1) God or a similar being did it.

2) We live in a multiverse

3) It's an amazing coincidence.

As far as the first one, this would validate deism, but still leave religions in question. Even if the universe was created, it doesn't mean any religion is right, or that the universe was designed for us particularly in mind, like many claim. There will still be a gap in logic between "God" existing and God being a personal God. If this is true, it is nevertheless interesting though.

As far as the second one, I see this as plausible. I mean, the universe keeps getting bigger the more we learn. We used to think everything revolved around us. But then we found out that we revolved around the sun. And the sun was a star in the milky way galaxy, and there are billions of galaxies out there. It's also been posited recently that there are other big bangs (avoiding the term universes so JC doesnt have a heart attack, and to distinguish from the type of universe this article talks about) beyond what we can see, and they act upon our own through gravity. It's not implausible that there are other universes out there. Perhaps these universes have different laws of physics, perhaps not.

The third scenario is very unlikely.

In short, this article is interesting, but we should be cautious in exploring its implications. There is so much we still don't know about this universe we live in, it's hard to know what the truth is. It could be created, but then there's the question of who and how. It could also be part of a multiverse, or be a remarkable coincidence. Maybe we live in the matrix. Who knows.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#5Heineken14Posted 6/14/2013 9:54:02 PM
Well clearly that means scientists have given up, claimed Robocop did it and are no longer looking for any other kinds of evidence. Same thing both sides!
---
Rage is a hell of an anesthetic.
#6AynRandySavagePosted 6/14/2013 11:13:17 PM
Oh great, more Baha'i Curious people.
#7Blue_Dream87Posted 6/15/2013 10:31:45 AM
AynRandySavage posted...
Oh great, more Baha'i Curious people.


Is there really anything wrong with being curious of the Baha'i Faith?
---
http://f0.bcbits.com/z/25/08/2508209678-1.png
http://i.imgur.com/O0z1YeH.gif
#8footballforlifePosted 6/15/2013 5:01:15 PM
The LHC will resume smashing protons in 2015 in a last-ditch search for answers.

False
---
Looking up into the night sky is looking into infinity - distance is incomprehensible and therefore meaningless.
#9Polish_CrusaderPosted 6/15/2013 8:09:07 PM
Since when do all scientists have to be assumed atheists? I know many people personally who are in the science, engineering, math fields that are solid believers in christ.

Im just responding to the "OMG science is wrong". That doesnt make sense. Science and the bible/jesus were never against each other (to the best of my knowledge).
#10TheBlackCat13Posted 6/16/2013 12:43:19 AM
Polish_Crusader posted...
Since when do all scientists have to be assumed atheists? I know many people personally who are in the science, engineering, math fields that are solid believers in christ.

They don't have to be, but most are. Something like 70-80% of scientists are athiest or agnostic, while that number jumps to more like 93% if you look at top scientists (like those in the NAS). The number who are evangelical Christians like you is just a few percent. These numbers have been pretty consistent for about a century now.

Polish_Crusader posted...
Im just responding to the "OMG science is wrong". That doesnt make sense. Science and the bible/jesus were never against each other (to the best of my knowledge).

So says the young-Earth creationist who rejects all branches of science.
---
Man Is The Lowest Cost, 150 Pound, Nonlinear, All-purpose Computer System Which Can Be Mass Produced By Unskilled Labor
-- NASA