Are there parallel universes?

Post Reply New Topic

Huh?

The scripture was for me.
But who is THAT addressed to?

See Krabo's signature.

While some untestable hypotheses may speculate, and some esoteric maths may indicate, and many Bible-reading people will believe, there is still no irrefutable proof of any parallel universe.

True, but if there are no parallel universes there must be a God.

Between this and your ISIS thread, I seriously can't figure out if you're a troll or a legit conservative. If you are trolling, an autistic forum is a pretty effed up place to pull that crap. Just saying. And if you're not trolling....well then, I don't think I can even come up with a response that won't get me banned.

Scroll back, what confuses you? The fact is is that the universe is fine tuned for life. If many constants were even 1% off life would be impossible. The muti-verse theory provides a designerless explanation and the only designerless explanation.
As for the ISIS thread, what do you disagree with?)
1. ISIS is evil
2. ISIS wants to create a caliphate and control the oil.
3. It is in our best interest to stop that.
4. An intense action will produce better results than what we are doing now.
If you agree with all 4 then you agree with my position.
You really should think before spouting ad hominums and being an obvious troll.

Me conservative???
Why? Because I believe in a multi-verse?
So you disagree with my ISIS thread. What do you disagree with?
1. ISIS is evil.
2. ISIS wants to create a caliphate and control the oil.
3. We must stop them.
4. Intense engagement works better than what we are doing now.
So what do you disagree with? If nothing than you agree with my position.
I realize that you are only 22 but that is no excuse for a lack of debate skills and for laziness. Instead of actually reading my posts you skimmed over them. But then again why read when you have that powerful intuition?

You have no clue as to who I am! Troll? Because I pointed out that only a multiverse or a designer of the universe can explain the astounding amount of fine tuning? Because I do not use wienie words? I suppose you would prefer if I said "pacify ISIS" rather than the more honest "kill them".
Conservative?? please read a few more posts. Yes, I know you are still a kid and are more emotion than logic. But try to control yourself.

Wrong.

Your syllogism implies that the existence of God is an effect of the existence of the universe - cause precedes effect.

If you believe in God, then you know that He existed before the universe, and caused the universe to exist.



Wrong.

It was evolution that fine-tuned life for this universe.

Deal with it.

You obviously have no clue as to what I and scientists are saying. Hopefully, you will read the below and understand. Perhaps you will disagree but you will avoid the silliness of your last post.

?"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life.?
Stephen Hawking
The Multiverse hypothesis assumes the existence of many universes with different physical constants, some of which are hospitable to intelligent life (seemultiverse: anthropic principle). Because we are intelligent beings, we are by definition in a hospitable one
ALL ABOVE FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe
?The concept of other universes has been proposed to explain how our Universe appears to be fine-tuned for conscious life as we experience it. If there were a large (possibly infinite) number of universes, each with possibly different physical laws (or different fundamental physical constants), some of these universes, even if very few, would have the combination of laws and fundamental parameters that are suitable for the development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, stars, and planets that can exist long enough for life to emerge and evolve. The weak anthropic principle could then be applied to conclude that we (as conscious beings) would only exist in one of those few universes that happened to be finely tuned, permitting the existence of life with developed consciousness. Thus, while the probability might be extremely small that any particular universe would have the requisite conditions for life (as we understand life) to emerge and evolve, this does not require intelligent design per the teleological argument as the only explanation for the conditions in the Universe that promote our existence in it.?
FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse ... _principle

It is a fact that the universe is conducive for life, overwhelmingly so. However, that does not guarantee a designer. Perhaps a metaphor might help. In a lottery it is very unlikely that you will win. However, it is 100% that someone will win. Now suppose that winner says, ?I was meant to win. It was divine providence. Because what were the odds that I would win.? There is no need for divine providence. Similarly, since we exist, we must have evolved from that one universe of many that was conducive for life. Our universe was not designed for us; it?s just that it is the only universe life could have evolved from.
SEE
http://aeon.co/magazine/science/why-doe ... -for-life/
PS; the phrase ?fine-tuned? can be misunderstood. It does not mean that the universe was fine-tuned by a designer for life. It means that the conditions favorable for life in our universe are extremely unlikely
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
.

?????????????????????? read the above post. What you wrote is gibberish. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with the multi-verse and the anthropic principle.

Once again, that has NOTHING to do with the topic! I have said before I am an agnostic atheist.* My point is that I am an agnostic atheist because I believe in the many worlds interpretation, if I did not I would have to believe in a designer.
I believe in evolution. However, that has NOTHING to do with what we are talking about. I was talking about physical constants that are exactly ( and overwhelmingly precise) for the creation of life. SEE this article from Stanford!
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
* It is amazing that you did not even realize that obvious fact. Considering that I have repeated myself over and over.

You've repeated yourself over and over but you haven't explained what you mean when you say our Universe is fine tuned for life and you haven't demonstrated that our universe is actually fine tuned for life. From what I see "our Universe isn't fine tuned for life".

You are still confused? Did you read those posts or skim over them? I do not know how to make the obvious simpler but I will try.
1. Life requires very precise physical constants. If say plank's constant is off by a mere 2% life is impossible. There are many more constants (as Hawking pointed out in my post) that have to be outrageously exact for life to exist.
2. Life exists.
3. Some marvel at the fact that the universe is so fine tuned for life to exist and believe that means there must be a designer.(God)
However there is another explanation that does not require a designer. It is called the anthropic principle. * The anthropic principle requires a multiverse to explain why our universe (the constants) are so perfect for life,
Since the anthropic principle requires a multiverse to explain why our constants are so precise and perfect for life and it is the only alternative explanation to God. It follows that either there is a multiverse or there is a God.
* Read my explanation of it in the above posts,or read one of the links I provided.

Life is only possible if the constants are outrageously precise. As the above proves,they are!
In other words I did explain what I meant by fine tuned and I did prove that the universe is finely tuned for life. Ironically, I repeated that Stanford link in the post you quoted! Also, if you had taken the time to read the post you quoted (rather than skim over it) you would have seen that the part you quoted in bold font was referring to my being an agnostic atheist and not about fine tuning. However, I have repeated the point about fine tuning. Perhaps you should read a post before responding to it. That will prevent you from posting sillyness.

Fundamentalists believe in parallel universes? Most are unfamiliar with the concept. And why would they want to believe something that gives an alternative explanation to God?