Multiverse necessary for support of atheism.

amazon.com/Behind-The-Cosmic-Veil-Supernatural/dp/0983766304

Just heard Thomas Fusco interviewed. His “theory of everything” physics explains all kinds of phenomenological events, including the miracles of Jesus. As a Christian, Fusco noted that the missing material in our universe is so suggestive of intervention by deity that atheists are scrambling to bolster the notion of a multiverse. This, Fusco suggests, would allow atheists to dismiss all things spiritual, including God, by positing that miracles were just leakage, so to speak, from another of the multi-universes.

The book is published by the church he attends, and he’s yet another guy with a pet theory. He calls it supergeometry (pet theories always have a brand name) which "describes a new model of supernatural mechanics, which not only explains the behavior of strange phenomena like the paranormal and UFOs, but also provides compelling answers to some of the fundamental problems facing physics today. This cosmological model is based in part on a lost Biblical cosmology that has been hiding in plain sight for centuries :D" - latenightinthemidlands.com/video/late-night-in-the-midlands-with-guest-thomas-p-fusco.

Puh-lease. Guys like this give Christianity a bad name. It’s embarrassing. :o

Looks to me like another God-of-the-gaps. He has found something that science can’t explain yet, and has fitted his version of God into the gap. His problem is that science works to fill gaps, so his version of God can only get smaller as science learns more: ‘Multiverse’ theory suggested by microwave background.

rossum

We non-believers have no need to scramble in relation to anything but eggs. We have no churches to maintain. and no beliefs to protect. We simply welcome investigation and new understanding. We are not in competition with believers. (Actually some of us don’t quite behave like this, but most of us do).

where did the multis come from.

A question that can just as easily be applied to any god, if you ignore the unsupported assertion that god just “always” existed.

To what standard of support are you appealing? How does one support an assertion about God?

If you think that God created time and space, it’s more understandable.

The same way one supports any assertion about the way the world really is - with testable, repeatable, empirical data, with real, demonstrable phenomena (even if they are demonstrable in a context removed from the moment, 13-billion-or-so years ago, that our universe sprang into existence). The multiverse is presently a hypothesis, yet to graduate to the status of a scientific theory, but when coupled with the testable phenomenon of quantum fluctuation, it is becoming increasingly plausible.

The whole idea of a universe being ‘created from nothing’ is deeply flawed anyway. To begin with, even if one assumes a creator god, that is still not the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. That is a universe from god, not a universe from nothing. Then, it may well be that the philosopher’s nothing, being a state of absolute non-existence, never obtained, and there is actually no reason to think it ever did. The physicist’s ‘nothing’ is alive with quantum fluctuations and virtual particles, any of which may have had the potential to cause a universe. This is far, far closer to an explanation of how the universe came to be than any appeal to the creative whim of a personal god who magicked everything into existence.

Two questions:

  1. If truth happened to be non-falsifiable would the scientific method ever be capable of grasping and accepting the truth?

  2. Does 1 + 1 = 2? If so, why?

OK, but the notion of God isn’t a notion about the world (i.e., creation), anyway – the premise is that God exists outside of creation. Therefore, either you’re providing an irrelevant standard, or stacking the deck so that by definition, your standard may never be met.

The whole idea of a universe being ‘created from nothing’ is deeply flawed anyway. To begin with, even if one assumes a creator god, that is still not the philosopher’s ‘nothing’. That is a universe from god, not a universe from nothing.

That’s fine, though. You’ve hit upon precisely what is meant by ‘ex nihilo’ – creation from no pre-existing material.

The physicist’s ‘nothing’ is alive with quantum fluctuations and virtual particles, any of which may have had the potential to cause a universe.

Fluctuations of what, exactly? Of nothing, or of pre-existing quantum matter (or, as it were, of pre-existing probabilistic matter)? That’s not the nihilo of philosophy.

This is far, far closer to an explanation of how the universe came to be than any appeal to the creative whim of a personal god who magicked everything into existence.

Yet, religion doesn’t attempt a literal description of ‘how’ (i.e., a scientific account), but rather, ‘by what agency’. So, if you’re looking for a scientific explanation from religion, you’re asking the wrong question (and then castigating religion for not answering a question it never attempted to answer in the first place!)…

If a ‘truth’ is non-falsifiable, it’s a mere nudge away from being irrelevant - considering that any consequences of accepting or denying this supposed ‘truth’ must be negligible, in order for it to be non-falsifiable.

And the expression 1 + 1 = 2 is true, and always true, because that is how conceptual mathematics operates - that is its nature, and equations such as this are the way this nature is expressed. If you take one apple and another apple and put them together in an initially empty bag, you will have two apples in the bag, every time you try this experiment. Again, mathematical symbols are the way we express this entirely natural phenomenon, and abstract from it other useful expressions and equations that can be applied (although often inexactly) to the real world in which we must exist and operate. That is why children (and sometimes adults) are taught mathematics with concrete objects such as blocks…or other things, as is shown rather more humorously (thanks in large part to Ben Elton, a fellow unbeliever) in Blackadder:

BLACKADDER: Right, Baldrick, let’s try again shall we? This is called adding. If I
have two beans, and then I add two more beans, what do I have?
BALDRIC: Some beans.
BA: Yes…and no. Let’s try again shall we? I have two beans, then I add two
more beans. What does that make?
B: A very small casserole.
BA: Baldrick, the ape creatures of the Indus have mastered this. Now try
again. One, two, three, four. So how many are there?
B: Three
BA: What?
B: And that one.
BA: Three…and that one. So if I add that one to the three what will I have?
B: Oh! Some beans.
BA: Yes. To you Baldrick, the renaissance was just something that happened
to other people wasn’t it?

Abstract from the empirical experience of having multiples of a particular object, and you have theoretical arithmetic.

A mathematician came up with the idea of a multiverse.
Scientists rejected his theory for a simple reason: there is not and never can be any way to prove it.

Is this a sound basis on which to establish a belief, a philosophy, or write a book?

It’s razzle-dazzle nonsense designed to get rich quick selling a book,
but it sure isn’t philosophy, and it’s not even intelltigent.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.