[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
there is zero for the multiverse theory.[/quote]
Actually there is.
But more importantly, do you think that belief in God and belief in the multiverse theory are mutually exclusive? I don’t.
I’m not trying to lean the argument one way or the other, but I will say that the randomness calculation stuff does rely on a massive number of assumptions obviously. Assumptions as to just how random things are in the universe and how random quantum “behavior” is.[/quote]
Well, no there isn’t actually evidence. It’s a theory of a theory. M-Theory postulates the possibility. Alas, recent developments at CERN has force a reworking of M-Theory. Apparently, the experiment shows that many of the postulations of M-Theory are false. Along with it, many of the dimensions.
Actually, I am a little sad about it. I had work up a neat little theory where jumping streams of consciousness puts you in another ‘universe’, but it seems that the reality we currently perceive is the only one we got. The ‘string’ part of the theory is intact as the basal information for matter/energy.
Dr. Matt, who visits these forums from time to time passed along this information as he was one of the scientists working on it.
That aside, there is no evidence in terms of eyewitness experience or anything tangible that shows it actually exists. I would even accept ‘exists in a mind’, but a theory of it’s existence is not the same as ‘it’ actually existing.
No I do not think, even if the multiverse theory were true that it’s a mutually exclusive existence from that of God.
The big problem for atheists, is existence itself. It doesn’t really matter what exists, just that something does. The atheist necessarily believes that existence came from nothing, or that is a function of itself. Neither are logically possible. Every new theory, if true, simply kicks the cosmological can down the road.
For instance, a theory favored by Hawking and Krauss is that the laws of physics demands something from nothing. That dark energy in a vacuum simply had the right interaction and boom, the universe started… Do you see the problem with that theory? The problem is that in their postulations, they don’t start with nothing. They have several ‘identifiable particulars’. You have a vacuum, space even if empty is something, then you have the laws of physics. Three things existing which owe their existence to something else. It may be a good theory for the cause of the ‘big bang’, but it does not replace something responsible for it. The laws of physics owes it’s existence to something else, as does dark energy, as does a vacuum.
