Multiverse Fantasy (Goofiness Feigning Science)

[FredVegbarfuss]

We each have a soul. But what is a soul? How would you define it, how would you determine who would not possess a soul, unless you can define a soul well?

How the universe came into being can't be defined well. You have to either grasp at ideas with rejecting there is God the Necessary Being who is the Creator that brought the universe and all existence that had a beginning into being, or you trust that explanation. But then God exists and so we have responsibilities.

 

[sealybobo]

We each have a soul. But what is a soul? How would you define it, how would you determine who would not possess a soul, unless you can define a soul well?

How the universe came into being can't be defined well. You have to either grasp at ideas with rejecting there is God the Necessary Being who is the Creator that brought the universe and all existence that had a beginning into being, or you trust that explanation. But then God exists and so we have responsibilities.

Do whales have souls? If we have souls, so do they.

The first global estimate of the number of whales killed by industrial harvesting last century reveals that nearly 3 million cetaceans were wiped out in what may have been the largest cull of any animal—in terms of total biomass—in human history.

Humans in some ways are so stupid. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. No special souls.

• Chimpanzees are better than humans in some memory tasks.
• Goats have excellent long-term memory.
• Elephants can work together.
• Parrots can reproduce sounds of the human language.
• Dolphins can recognize themselves in the mirror.

We also tend to underestimate the brainpower of animals by relying too much on intelligence tests based around what humans are capable of. Right now, most people perceive speech as the main thing that separates humans from other animals, "but it's clear that parrots, dolphins, whales, and elephants have many more parts of language than we've recognized,"

These are the world's smartest animals, according to science

From chimpanzees to goats, elephants to dolphins, a number of animals in nature have developed complex thinking abilities.

www.businessinsider.com

If they don't have souls and they don't go to heaven, maybe we don't either. Maybe we are just smart enough to make up such a place.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

Do whales have souls? If we have souls, so do they.

The first global estimate of the number of whales killed by industrial harvesting last century reveals that nearly 3 million cetaceans were wiped out in what may have been the largest cull of any animal—in terms of total biomass—in human history.

Humans in some ways are so stupid. We are just the smartest animal on this planet. No special souls.

• Chimpanzees are better than humans in some memory tasks.
• Goats have excellent long-term memory.
• Elephants can work together.
• Parrots can reproduce sounds of the human language.
• Dolphins can recognize themselves in the mirror.

We also tend to underestimate the brainpower of animals by relying too much on intelligence tests based around what humans are capable of. Right now, most people perceive speech as the main thing that separates humans from other animals, "but it's clear that parrots, dolphins, whales, and elephants have many more parts of language than we've recognized,"

These are the world's smartest animals, according to science

From chimpanzees to goats, elephants to dolphins, a number of animals in nature have developed complex thinking abilities.

www.businessinsider.com

If they don't have souls and they don't go to heaven, maybe we don't either. Maybe we are just smart enough to make up such a place.

I would agree, that is kind of the point that I ask, as there is not good basis for some saying that we have souls but other beings not like us do not. If that were true, there should be basis with defining what a soul is, that others not like us would not have. There are other beings not like us that we are not really so different from. We are the ones ruining the world, which we should answer for. We could choose other ways.

 

[BreezeWood]

Duh! The very basis of the Anthropic Principle is that physical constants are necessarily very precise and without this exact precision, no star formation is possible, no synthesis of heavier elements would be possible, chemical reactions would be impossible, the reversibility of countless reactions, and on and on. So only one universe exists. It's common sense, all too often lacking in the educated Left.

So only one universe exists. It's common sense, all too often lacking in the educated Left.

the everlasting is a physical existence ... undoubtedly infinite cyclical bb events exist within the Everlasting. among countless other natural phenomenons and the metaphysical existence of life present throughout.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

the everlasting is a physical existence ... undoubtedly infinite cyclical bb events exist within the Everlasting. among countless other natural phenomenons and the metaphysical existence of life present throughout.

Why should the unlimited necessary existence that is the self existent Creator not be what is beyond all that is physical, bringing all that is physical, and anything else that is existing, into being, from the unlimited power that there is for that of the unlimited necessary existence? That is what we can find to be the case in whatever might qualify as revelation we would expect from our Creator, available to us.

 

[BreezeWood]

Why should the unlimited necessary existence that is the self existent Creator not be what is beyond all that is physical, bringing all that is physical, and anything else that is existing, into being, from the unlimited power that there is for that of the unlimited necessary existence? That is what we can find to be the case in whatever might qualify as revelation we would expect from our Creator, available to us.

... and the metaphysical existence of life present throughout.

because the everlasting is polytheistic (our) and life is both metaphysical and physical in composition. for all beings.

 

[hobelim]

Duh! The very basis of the Anthropic Principle is that physical constants are necessarily very precise and without this exact precision, no star formation is possible, no synthesis of heavier elements would be possible, chemical reactions would be impossible, the reversibility of countless reactions, and on and on. So only one universe exists. It's common sense, all too often lacking in the educated Left.

I don't know about that. In one day I encounter many people who live in different universes than I do where they believe to be true things that are contradicted by reality every single day of their lives.......

I know that their fantasies are not real but reality is not real to them either, so the question is, where are they if not in reality, in this universe?

Nowhere? The mult inverse?

 

[ChemEngineer]

I don't know about that. In one day I encounter many people who live in different universes than I do where they believe to be true things that are contradicted by reality every single day of their lives.......

I know that their fantasies are not real but reality is not real to them either, so the question is, where are they if not in reality, in this universe?

Nowhere? The mult inverse?

That's not what they mean by Multiverse. See Dunning-Kruger Effect for liberal fantasies.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

http://MultiverseFantasy.wordpress.com

The Eye of God

Helix Nebula NGC 7293

Only a few decades ago, Christophobes (atheists) claimed that the universe is SO LARGE that no creator would possibly have gone to such trouble and wasted so many resources to make this entire universe just for the benefit of us pathetic humans here on earth. It was preposterous, inconceivable, they said.

Now, exactly the opposite argument is being made, in order to counter advances in science. The Multiverse, *scientists* tell us, can counter the insuperable statistics of the Anthropic Principle, which examines forty or more physical constants which are exquisitely precise, much to mankind's benefit. The physical constants are precise to an extent that would be statistically impossible without a Designer. Hence God's deniers came up with their fantasmagoric Multiverse.

______________________________________

Light is extraordinarily fast, 186,000 miles per second (871,875 times faster than sound). This not only makes radio communications virtually instant anywhere on the earth, but it also helps us see our surroundings in real time, unlike hearing. Moreover the energy derived from solar fusion is likewise extraordinarily high, proportional to the square of the speed of light. Slower light would mean much, much colder earth. Contrast this value for c with the speed of sound, a paltry 768 miles per hour. It is slow enough that we can hear the direction from which sounds originate. We can also enjoy music in stereo, only because our ears can differentiate between tiny differences in the time sounds arrive at one ear versus the other - differences as small as 1/10,000th of a second. Fine tuning of values for the electromagnetic constant, the electron-proton mass and charge ratios, strong and weak nuclear forces, among many others, defy naturalistic explanation. And so, intellectuals argue (with straight faces) that there must surely be an infinite number of "multiverses," all of which have different values for all these physical constants, and we just happen to be in the *right* universe, permitting our very existence.

Thus *intellectuals* have gone from one extreme, that our universe is much too large for any creator to have bothered with it, to the other, multiverses, an infinite number of universes. Most of them are like the three bears' porridge of the Goldilocks story, either too hot or too cold. Our universe happens to be just right. Just so science.

The gravitational constant is precise to within one part in 10 to the 10 to the 120th power. Who determined this impossible precision? Why it just picked itself, we are told. How simple.

[By way of comparison, the universe is comprised of ~10 to the 80th fundamental particles. If you had fifteen spheres the size of our solar system, out to Pluto, full of sand, and there were one and only one chance to select a unique and specially marked grain in these fifteen solar systems full of sand, the probability of a man in a vehicle capable of navigating in the sand without any windows or any way of seeing his surroundings, would have to pick that grain on his first and only try. That is 1 chance in 10 to the 50th, my definition of "impossible." Compare that to the gravitational constant, precise to one part in 10 to the 1 followed by 120 zeroes.]

PROBLEM: The universe could not have created itself, from absolutely nothing. That would violate the first law and second laws of thermodynamics.

The first explicit statement of the first law of thermodynamics, by Rudolf Clausius in 1850, referred to cyclic thermodynamic processes.

In all cases in which work is produced by the agency of heat, a quantity of heat is consumed which is proportional to the work done; and conversely, by the expenditure of an equal quantity of work an equal quantity of heat is produced.

Clausius also stated the law in another form, referring to the existence of a function of state of the system, the internal energy, and expressed it in terms of a differential equation for the increments of a thermodynamic process. This equation may described as follows:

In a thermodynamic process involving a closed system, the increment in the internal energy is equal to the difference between the heat accumulated by the system and the work done by it.

where delta E is the total energy of the universe, Q is the change in heat, and W is the change in work.
Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.
How these values instantaneously changed from nonexistent to incomprehensibly massive has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.

PROBLEM: The second law of thermodynamics, as expressed by Rudolf Clausius:
The entropy of an isolated system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve towards thermodynamic equilibrium —the state of maximum entropy.
In other words, the entropy, or disorder, of a closed system constantly increases. Chaos can only increase within a closed system. The pretense of orderliness increasing dramatically after the Big Bang, to produce stars, planets, heat and light is the largest conceivable violation of the second law of thermodynamics. But who made these laws? Wellll, we are told, they simply made themselves. Talk about convenient.
How matter, energy, organization, elegance, physical laws, and the profound fortuitous interdependences which embrace and nurture mankind, moved uphill, against the forces of entropic degradation, has never and can never be explained in naturalistic terms.


The God Particle

Clearly this creation we call the universe had a creator, who is forever outside the purview of science. This is because science is restricted to what we can observe, understand, quantify, and explain. Professor John Lennox, of Oxford University, gave a lecture titled A Matter of Gravity. Professor Lennox elegantly responded to Richard Dawkins' clever ploy of asking "Who made God?" Said Lennox, "If someone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."
Precisely.
You must choose between two and only two inconceivable prospects.
Either:
A. The universe made itself, out of nothing, or else,
B. An infinite intellect and power made the universe.
Alternative A is, shall we say, distasteful, unconvincing, and largely offered only because its proponents have an illogical aversion to Alternative B, which is at once elegant and compelling if incomprehensible. But then again, we are truly surrounded by things that are at the threshold of incomprehensibility, like invisible waves of varying types (frequencies) flying through the air, to our computers, smart phones, televisions, radios, ears, eyes, and grass.

Until man duplicates a blade of grass, nature can laugh at his so-called scientific knowledge. - Thomas Edison

“Many people don’t realize that science basically involves assumptions and faith. Wonderful things in both science and religion come from our efforts based on observations, thoughtful assumptions, faith and logic. (With the findings of modern physics, it) seems extremely unlikely (that the existence of life and humanity are ) just accidental.” – Charles Townes, Nobel Laureate and Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley

“It seems to me that when confronted with the marvels of life and the universe, one must ask why and not just how. The only possible answers are religious…. I find a need for God in the universe and in my own life.” - Arthur L. Schawlow, Professor of Physics at Stanford University, winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, believes that new scientific discoveries provide compelling evidence for a personal God.

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind.” ― Max Planck

"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring you closer to God." - James Tour, Professor of Biochemistry, Rice University

Or simply made the sun not so hot, and closer....

 

[hobelim]

That's not what they mean by Multiverse. See Dunning-Kruger Effect for liberal fantasies.

I understand. I was pointing out something else. Still, the bulk of the matter in the universe, about 96%, is thought to be dark matter and no one knows what or even where it is.

That fact alone make me think that discounting the possibility of the existence of another unseen universe or dimension of space and time, elsewhere, or even right under our noses, as foolish as discounting the existence of God because he cannot be seen with a telescope, microscope, measured by an instrument, or detected by any means available to science.

 

[ChemEngineer]

Dark matter is such a racist term it should be banned.

I mean.....

 

[BreezeWood]

I understand. I was pointing out something else. Still, the bulk of the matter in the universe, about 96%, is thought to be dark matter and no one knows what or even where it is.

That fact alone make me think that discounting the possibility of the existence of another unseen universe or dimension of space and time, elsewhere, or even right under our noses, as foolish as discounting the existence of God because he cannot be seen with a telescope, microscope, measured by an instrument, or detected by any means available to science.

with Earth's bountiful universe expanding there is little doubt such other phenomena is occurring as celestial bodies within the Everlasting. the best explanation is a polytheistic existence for the variety of visible and calculative metaphysical events that are occurring.

 

[ding]

Still, the bulk of the matter in the universe, about 96%, is thought to be dark matter and no one knows what or even where it is.

As near as I can tell they believe it comes from the underlying quantum field as space expands. Apparently it's the glue holding the universe together so to speak as that is it's only purpose. It exists and doesn't exist at the exact same time. No need to imagine an unseen universe.

 

[FredVegbarfuss]

because the everlasting is polytheistic (our) and life is both metaphysical and physical in composition. for all beings.

That even if it were true is not explaining why the unlimited necessary existence that is the self existent Creator would not be what is beyond all that is physical, bringing all that is physical, and anything else that is existing, into being, from the unlimited power that there is for that of the unlimited necessary existence. The universe really doesn't explain itself, it came into being, and that it was brought into being explains that, and it would be the unlimited necessary existence that did that, the universe is not unlimited necessary existence, which we can understand the Creator to be, the universe showing it is made with intelligence. Even that there would be an underlying quantum field that just has the purpose of serving as glue to hold the universe together will show that.