There are two still going, and another to be announced shortly.

And if this contest thing takes off, I will be offered more prizes to give out.

Contest winner is #27. For a free copy of Expelled, John A Designer needs to send his snail address to me at oleary@sympatico.ca. He will not be added to a mailing list. I do not have a mailing list and do not want one.

A very good point!

In response, evolutionists attempt to save naturalism by adding an untestable, unfalsifiable assertion. That is, they claim there exists (in reality or in potentiality) an infinitude of other universes unlike our own – they call it “Multiverses” – and therefore, on average there is no design, rather we just happen to be in an exceedingly rare universe; perhaps the only one suitable for life. In this way evolutionists claim a Designer is still not required. I call it a dilution argument because evolutionists respond to the design they actually see by attempting to dilute-it-away into nothing, by artificially adding an infinitude of unseen non-design.

Nearly all leading evolutionists embrace testability as a requirement of science: (1) in all their court cases, and (2) by routinely using it as a weapon against their opponents. Therefore, since the Multiverses idea is not testable, we justifiably conclude it is unscientific. Ironically, evolutionists now embrace their own version of the supernatural – Multiverses – which is unscientific.

[Note: How do evolutionists respond when their own explanations are untestable and therefore unscientific? Answer: By jettisoning the testability requirement! Evolutionary cosmologist, Leonard Susskind does that in his book on this subject, The Cosmic Landscape. Other evolutionists scarcely notice, much less object, to their double-standard.]

By contrast the creationist/ID version of the supernatural is testable science, when approached properly. For example, we are driven to accept the supernatural by following the fine-tuning evidence where it leads. When the Universe itself shows design, the designer must have supernatural capabilities.

For another example, the idea that “the origin-of-life requires an intelligent designer” is testable (and frequently tested), as is also a finite-age Universe (as indicated by Big Bang theories and the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics). These are all scientifically testable, and individually none of them even mentions the supernatural, yet when combined together, logical self-consistency leads us scientifically to the existence of a supernatural agency.

The creationist/ID version of the supernatural is backed by testable science, while the evolutionist version of the supernatural – Multiverses – is an untestable, unscientific attempt to escape from the evidence.

(a) generate strikingly successful observational predictions (an absolute minimum requirement for a theory that goes beyond space and time);

(b) provide both cosmology and physics with a unifying fundamental theory, as it has to explain both the history of the cosmos and the entire range of its constituent particles;

(c) supply scientists with a “beauty yardstick”, that would at once enable them to (i) gauge the elegance of any theory of physics and (ii) ascertain that the theory instantiated by the multiverse itself is maximally elegant – i.e. the kind of theory we’d expect God would choose to build the cosmos;

(d) specify the amount of information required for the maximally elegant multiverse to generate a universe able to support intelligent life, like our own;

(e) be finite, and no “bigger” than it has to be to satisfy requirement (d) as parsimoniously as possible;

(f) reveal the hand of God by uncovering, somewhere in the cosmos, the program code which God used to create both the cosmos at large and the particular universe we live in – for without this code, the multiverse would merely further the cause of atheism;

(g) in particular, reveal a “global” program that no finite intelligence within the multiverse could possibly have created;

(h) be free of any metaphysical baggage that would rule out either human freedom (no determinism, please) or Divine intervention, if God so wishes (no clockwork universe, please).

In today’s culture there is much controversy in the field of science. There is even the problem of defining science as a term. My definition of science is

Science- an imperfect logically consistent framework whereby we seek new knowledge though, investigation, experimentation and reasoning.

When we do science we “seek knowledge though investigation, experimentation and reasoning. The question then is what benefit can the hypothesis of a mutliverse model yield for science?

I think we would be hard pressed to find any. To begin with there is not even a scintilla of evidence for multi-universes in existence. multiverse much like Materialism is actually a philosophical position- an apriori commitment, which comes out of the unsupported hypothesis that every event happens simply due to a necessary chance or total gamut of possibilities – and that it is the sum total of all possible events that characterizes and explains the true nature of our universe.

Besides there being to evidence and hence no reason to adopt the multiverse perspective the second problem is that the logic and rezoning of multiverse as an explanation is completely wrong. The questions that science deals with must first fall within the bounds of epistemology. If science claims to have revealed something that we know he cannot know – then we know there is a problem- and conversely if science claims to explain something that we possibly can know but fails to demonstrate it’s conclusion though supportive, logically consistent, reasoning and facts then we have to dismiss it’s claim again on grounds of invalidity, unsoundness or simply not being cogent.

Multiverse fails every logical test. It has no hard facts or physical evidence to back it up. Even if there was evidence a multiverse would still not explain why there is an infinite (or any particular number) of universes vs. any other number or finite number. Then multiverse cannot explain the physical causation of the big bang model- which even for materialists should be disheartening. Further it does not describe or allow for an explanation of what actually causes the “choosing.” Chance merely allows and makes reasonable a natural event- but it does not explain include or elucidate the mechanism that makes chance a reality.

In truth all that multiverse does is create physics papers. It is only favored because it uses a very simple mechanism (if you even believe it to be one) of chance to purchase and circumvent the very real- very rational and very evident physical universe withal of its beautiful symmetry, geometry, laws and of course the miracle of original causation or perhaps even Creation if you want.

Thanks for the kind words in both threads…

It’s obvious we are on the same chapter if not the very same page. I understand everything you said very well, and agree. Naturally I just say it a little differently, but all add theer unique take to the picture.

I was only trying to point out that it isn’t a science stopper in the sense that any other wrong theory (eg geocentrism) is not a science stopper. We correct and move on…

… or so it should be.

Why don’t we?

It’s the philosophy that is the real stopper, and where the real battle is in my mind. In the beginning was the Word, and it is our language that often covertly disguises assumptions and implications that follow quite naturally.

And like you said, many a naturalist denies that their view is even philosophy. They had better either ignorantly or intentionally if they want to win politically.

My other point (eluded to in the other thread) is that we cannot argue them into submmission. Spiritual battles cannot be won politically. They are playing politics, not genuine science in right relationship with its underlying and inevitable philosophy.

In other words, we cannot beat them. We can argue until we are blue in the face. They cannot hear us. As in your case and mine, God Himself must be heard through whatever person or impersonal medium God shooses to use.

But not even God will force them to concede. If they want to play god and insist on doing so (at whatever level) we must remember that He put the fruit there to eat. It’s a choice.

The very first man could not resist it. At this horrible time, we now have centuries of sophistry to lean on to justify consuming something so pleasing to the eye and proud will.

Like me, you have obviously argued alot. We may have even crossed paths at EVC or elsewhere. And to what frustration?

I was only trying to remind everyone (and myself) that it is impossible with man. Only god can convert and break through the barriers. But He will use us to do it if we remember that it is His name and not our own.

Speaking for myself, it has so often been about me.

The multiverse is a science stopper because it entails an infinite number of gods or creators of universes.

If there are an infinite number of universes, let us denote all these universes by the set X (this is a hypothesis of more than one version of the multiverse concept.) There will be a subset of X, which is also infinite and contains only universes just like ours that enable life, which we call X1 (these multiverse theories consider the laws governing the universes to be distributed randomly both in terms of form and the relevant constants.)

In X1 there will be a subset, which is also infinite where life arose naturally, say X2 (whatever factors that led to life arising will be repeated an infinite number of times). So there will be an infinite number of universes just like ours where life arose naturally. In X2 which is infinite there will be a subset X3 which is also infinite that has an intelligence much greater than us.

In X3 there will be some intelligences so far out that we would be in complete awe of their magnitude. Now these intelligences in which we are in awe and the universes in which they reside also form an infinite number of universes that we will call X4. Now in X4 some of these intelligences will be able to make new universes and communicate and travel to the other universes and this subset will be called X5 and X5 will also be infinite. And each intelligence in X5 will be given a name, which we will call god.

So the infinite multiverse theory means that there will be an infinite number of gods or creators. QED.

And if one member in X5 is more intelligent than the rest, then maybe one of these gods is called God by the other gods.

Now if we do not have an infinite number of universes but some paltry number such as 10^500 as thought likely by some versions of string theory then what are the odds of getting an X5 type universe. I would say probably pretty good.

Either way the multiverse theory has created a lot of gods or more than likely an infinite number of them.

After reading over my “essays” I realize that I have broken most of your rules – the one here is not actually an essay, but a fictional news article from the multiverse, and the one I posted in question 2 is over 400 words long. So my posts should be seen as (perhaps and hopefully) entertaining diversions, and not actual entries.

Re: #43 Excellent post. If Denyse doesn’t get to the post office early Monday morning and send you a DVD or some other goodie, I’ll be very disappointed.

Was it because of Mother’s Day that you chose to give to the multiverse (the mother of all preposterous ideas) it’s due?

Anyway,

“It confirms for me that science and philosophy are utterly indivisible.”

Very true. Except that when some (not all) materialist theorists do philosophy they have a tendency to deny that they are doing so. They often believe that science exists in a vacuum of “empiricism.” but one has to wonder; if Einstein had not done philosophy, would he have come up with relativity?

In the same vein, contrary philosophy to one’s own helps to strengthen one’s own perspective. For example, If there was no prior Darwinism, would ID have been theorized in the way it is rigorously posited (and challenged) today?

I thank you for changing my perspective on this issue, because I was headed in the direction of it not helping science.

As I was waking up this morning, a slightly expanded version of my response to your question popped into my head, so I would like this to be my official response, if that’s ok with you:

The really wacky and weird aspect of the multiverse theory is that each universe would have laws of physics and cosmology that are the same in form, but with different values for the constants. Since (as far as I know) no restraints are put on how much each constant can vary from universe to universe, the theory posits an essentially infinite number of other universes. There is really no scientific justification for this assumption of the variability of the constants from universe to universe. Clearly, the motive for incorporating it into the theory is to generate enough probabilistic resources for our own universe, with its anthropic fine tuning, not to be wildly improbable.

Thus, the theory of the multiverse is fundamentally an attempt to avoid the otherwise inescapable conclusion that follows from the Big Bang and fine tuning, namely, Yes, folks, there is a God.

Nonetheless, in my opinion it isn’t science, notwithstanding the fact that the idea seems to have been suggested by the notion of the quantum vacuum, because, as the opponents of ID are so fond of trumpeting, “If it ain’t testable, it ain’t science.”

What it is is speculation on the ultimate nature of reality, which makes it philosophy. But it’s not very good philosophy either, if you accept the validity of Occam’s razor, since the number of universes in the multiverse would be infinite (assuming that the multiverse has been around forever) whereas the number of additional entities in the alternative (God created the Heavens and the Earth.) is One.