Evolutionary Creationism and Materialist Evolution

Well how else could I know but by thinking? Unlike your more Jungian knowing.

All concepts are fabricated. Like QM, which maps to nature. Unlike your [Content removed]. Why is it threatened by eternity? What invention has deceived you by intent?

How does that superfluous infinite complexity beyond mere God allow Him to do anything? Or how does His unchangeability? Whatever you meant? Which ‘fact’? I deny none whatsoever, no matter what the facts of any one’s mental configuration.

I think we have a very interesting One And the Many question. Philosophers think that the One And the Many is really the One or the Many. You seem to have come to the conclusion that the Many becomes One by being Infinite…

As I said this is very interesting in that it is a vision of the Philosopher’s God that merges the One and the Many, but it is not the God of Jesus the Messiah and the Logos, Who is God of the the One And the Many, the Creator, the Logos, and the Spirit/Love.

My dear friend,

There is absolutely no evidence for the multiverse, as far as I know. Now, perhaps the multiverse is a reality and I am totally willing to accept that, but no one really knows for certain. Yet you seem to claim that it is absolutely fact.

Can you please explain why, friend?

-Joshua W.

All the evidence one needs is this universe. The alternative is meaninglessly, absurdly, irrationally and childishly inextricably unnecessarily complex.

Could you, perhaps, explain why this universe is all the evidence one needs?

Occam’s razor

Proponents and critics disagree about how to apply Occam’s razor. Critics argue that to postulate an almost(?)* infinite number of unobservable universes, just to explain our own universe, is contrary to Occam’s razor.[68] However, proponents argue that in terms of Kolmogorov complexity the proposed multiverse is simpler than a single idiosyncratic universe.[54]

'* it’s infinite.

1 Like

Friend,

I appreciate your efforts. I took a peek into Kolmogorov complexity but, honestly, it seems like I would need a lot more education in that area to really grasp those concepts. And, it still seems to me that an (almost) infinite number of universes is ultimately hypothetical. Which is fine. But, I would contend that no one knows with any high degree of certainty that the multiverse is or isn’t real.

-Joshua W.

We know by disposition Joshua.

My friend,

Hmm…I think that could be a fair position for you to take.

I’m not inclined that way, though, and the Wiki you shared even attests to the fact that prominent physicists are divided on the matter of the existence of universes outside of our own.

-Joshua W.

Aye. Their rationality is restrained to science for some reason I don’t understand. Rationality transcends science. The universe is rationally apprehendable at every scale and therefore beyond. There is no reason to limit it to science. We can know beyond the empirical, which is how we got atoms and quantum mechanics and evolution. Nothing in rationality can justify a single universe. Certainly not the posit of God.

Hmm…

So, presuppositions, perhaps? Biases that prevent the leap of intuition?

The objectors (link 68 above) are referred to by the Templeton Foundation which is biased.

What about the list of the objectors also found in the wiki? Those are different links…

Ah yes, sorry, I’d leapt straight to Kolmogorov. Will reply.

[So, to the list of two:]

Yeah, as I said, it’s dispositional. Davies is not an honest broker and is fallacious and lacking in his NYT comment. He doesn’t understand the impact of eternity, has a blind spot for it as many do. God would be infinitely more complex than the multiverse and encompass it from eternity. Ellis is better, but loses the infinite wood for counting the trees. The necessarily short sighted intelligence of scientists gets in the way and is consumed with the opportunity cost of single-mindedly doing science. The multiverse is useless to them doing their day job, justifying their existence with the empirical.

For some reason many of the religiously inclined think that a single universe means God. Why rationally I cannot possibly imagine. If there were such a thing as an idiosyncratic universe its explanation would be infinitely more complex than the multiverse and the only thing that fits the bill is God. Which is fallacious.

There is no faithful rational reason for wanting the irrationality of an idiosyncratic universe.

[And I don’t derive the multiverse from fine tuning. It’s unnecessary and… foolish. Not that I believe in fine tuning anyway.]

Good point, Christie. Suppose I asked an Evolutionary Creationist if God’s “design” was scientifically detectable, how would they respond? I just read “Yes, Intelligent Design Is Detectable by Science” by Meyer. It seems to me the ID people study structures then label them as irreducibly complex.

3 Likes

…is very real. You seem not to have met him yet. He is George’s, too. Such a fantasy.

God’s joy suffices.

I find there is a crucial difference between multiverse and dark matter. Dark matter is a part of our universe, while the multiverse is outside our universe. Dark matter and more important dark energy should be “visible” but they are not. Sometimes I am tempted to tease “materialists” who say they do not need faith for the material world, but cannot even locate where most of it is.

On the other hand the multiverse is a collection of “universes” which are totally different from each other. [ I think that there are several versions of the multiverse. This is the one that makes the most logical sense.] Thus each of these universes would have to be walled off from each other because contact would be mutually destructive as well as opaque. Interestingly enough there does Not appear to be an opaque wall around our universe, but a clear expanding boundary!

If one can think that Nature used the multiverse invent our universe, 1, that seems earth-centric to think nature do all that for us, and 2. that it would be easier to create billions of faulty universes instead of one right universe, but then this version of the multiverse is based on the Darwinian myth that species are created by the generation of genes by blind chance.

Multiverse works in the sense that its math seems to work, but math is not science. Science is based on actual verification. We cannot say whether the science works or not, since we cannot see beyond our universe, so multiverse is not science because we cannot verify it. It is speculation as to what Might be.

Furthermore, there is no way that these other universes could have any impact on ours, so who cares? That reminds me of the question if there is other intelligent beings in our universe? The nearest stars hundreds of light years away. That means that there is no way humans could communicate with aliens even at this short range unless they could wait 100’s of years for a reply.

Who cares if there are aliens in the universe? Since there is no solid evidence that they exist, most likely not. If so, of course God loves them. If so, more than likely God has sent Jesus to them, but that is God’s problem, not mine.

Thanks for the conversation, friend.

Well, there were others aside from just those two, like Nobel Laureate Roger Penrose. I cannot say about whether or not Paul Davies is “an honest broker” or not. Do you have something you can send me about that?

I think that a single universe framework with indications of a beginning found in science (such as background radiation and the expansion of the universe) make God, as creator, more plausible than in a multiverse framework, especially since the way I’ve heard it put is that the multiverse framework essentially accounts for the universe’s existence as simply “one of many universes which pop in and out of existence”.

A single universe with a beginning absolutely does not mean “God done it”, of course, or even the Christian God if there is such a being. The concept of the Christian God, after all, is dependent on Jesus’ existence and the historicity of His death and resurrection. But it does make some sort of creator more plausible than in a multiverse framework, at least from how I’ve seen it put forward.

See, I don’t see it as irrational. I think you lean heavily on your presuppositions when you make these sorts of arguments, and I mean absolutely no insult when I say that, my friend.

I believe that the fine tuning argument has some strength on a basic level from physics, as was described in another thread elsewhere. Other arguments take it further than I believe can be warranted. That doesn’t mean we go “God done it”, of course, but it adds a layer to the plausibility of a creator, in my humble opinion.

Anyway, we may have carried on this conversation for too long in this thread, since its focus is on evolution rather than the universe/multiverse. We could keep talking about it, if you want, but maybe elsewhere. Or, we can part from it here. For now. :wink:

May the peace of God be with you, my friend from across the pond.
-Joshua W.

2 Likes

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.