"The Multiverse Falsified" and fake physics.

[unimackpass]

well it's worth noting that several modern-day religious scholars have argued in Christian Ontological models that the existence of God does not limit itself to a singular planetary setting, because that doesn't approximate theological power and scope in the slightest

several different arguments pose the idea that to restrict God's influence on sentient life to just one planetary living creation would be counter to the omnipotent and universal creationist descriptions of God in popular theology; to expand "God's Love" to a universal model would be a much more appropriate extension because theological texts don't necessarily isolate the application of Man's origin under God, they only offer a detailed account where a Creation takes place in a universe owing its existence to God

if God can create Being out of Nothing that same test of Faith can occur in more contexts than a handful of side-by-side territories in our limited System -- they'd argue God does not create Earth for Earth's merits, he creates all life across all matter, time and space --

if God creates all matter/time/space in theological/christian ontological models, that same test of Man can happens wherever there is life, and would presumably take place outside our limited understanding of God's universe, so to say there aren't more living, sentient populations tested by God across the spectrum of Creation would be stepping outside the powerful connotations of our own Faith models

now granted I'm hardly a god-fearing scotsman, but it's neat to see theological scholars widening the context of "tests of the Faithful" to the rest of all possible settings in the universe, and if Christian theological interpretation were to expand their reading of God's invention of "Time" I don't see why multiverse theories wouldn't hold up as varying degrees of "tests" for the living under their God, who already proves to be limiting the field of vision his followers retain (His followers don't get to see proof of alternate planes of existence within His own model, after all. Heaven is another way of saying existence on another plane, etc)

MacDuffle, this is the type of Christian Ontological discussion that I'm familiar with and it's refreshing to have someone on sherdog understand and articulate the broader dialog. The standard and fashionable thing around here is to parrot mindless new atheist drivel and fancy themselves smart while actually proving themselves nothing more than clueless hipsters.
The concept of multiverses is intriguing and defiantly not a threat to Christian theology in any form other than young earth fundamentalism. What is interesting to keep track of is the discussion involving how sound the theory itself is and the responses to the possibility that it's quite weak. When people have emotionally invested into the latest fad I have to admit that I revel in pointing out it's possible flaws and observing the predictable response.

I've had more than my fair share of fun with the young earth bunch especially when they point out that fossils on top of Everest prove the flood. The irony for me is studying evolution, the age of the earth/universe and it's complexity was one of the major driving factors that set me on a spiritual quest. It's strange in deed to have people on one hand saying science has disproved the concept of God and others young earth fundamentalists telling me I'm believing bad science. Both groups have huge blinders on, there's plenty of people driven from atheism because of science.
I keep waiting for the philosophical bomb to drop I hear about that destroys Christianity but no one actually drops it, they just talk about how awesome it is.
Thoughtful atheists/agnostics claim no such thing and I have great conversations with mutuel respect with such people on a regular basis.

 

[blaseblah]

But they're not all bs and that is what you will learn through study. There is only one true God and that doesn't depend on what a person believes or they're born. Every other god and religion is a polytheistic one that serves to worship and venerate the sun god(ess), the moon god(ess), and the god son. Every one them lead back to these gods who are actually satan and his fallen angels.

If I were born in Saudi Arabia I'd probably be worshiping Al-Ilah, the moon goddess. If I were born in ancient Egypt I would be worshiping Isis, the moon goddess. And if I was born in the west I have a good chance of worshiping the Virgin Mary aka the moon goddess. It seems that no matter where I'm born I would be worshiping either the one true God or Id' be worshiping the moon(and sun, planets, animals) which is really just satan and his fallen angels.

Everyone, every group, every country, every culture has to make the same choice...worship the one true God or worship the false, pagan gods. Doesn't matter where you're born. Unfortunately tho the majority of the world chooses the false, pagan gods.

The Virgin Mary is Satan? This has escalated very quickly.

 

[MacDuffle]

MacDuffle, this is the type of Christian Ontological discussion that I'm familiar with and it's refreshing to have someone on sherdog understand and articulate the broader dialog. The standard and fashionable thing around here is to parrot mindless new atheist drivel and fancy themselves smart while actually proving themselves nothing more than clueless hipsters.
The concept of multiverses is intriguing and defiantly not a threat to Christian theology in any form other than young earth fundamentalism. What is interesting to keep track of is the discussion involving how sound the theory itself is and the responses to the possibility that it's quite weak. When people have emotionally invested into the latest fad I have to admit that I revel in pointing out it's possible flaws and observing the predictable response.

I've had more than my fair share of fun with the young earth bunch especially when they point out that fossils on top of Everest prove the flood. The irony for me is studying evolution, the age of the earth/universe and it's complexity was one of the major driving factors that set me on a spiritual quest. It's strange in deed to have people on one hand saying science has disproved the concept of God and others young earth fundamentalists telling me I'm believing bad science. Both groups have huge blinders on, there's plenty of people driven from atheism because of science.
I keep waiting for the philosophical bomb to drop I hear about that destroys Christianity but no one actually drops it, they just talk about how awesome it is.
Thoughtful atheists/agnostics claim no such thing and I have great conversations with mutuel respect with such people on a regular basis.

from a Scottish background with leanings towards Empiricism and Humanism I always found it discouraging that atheist philosophers could not engage ontological models for the sake of theory and that theological philosophers could not engage godless models for the sake of theory

If people believe in Post-Structuralism but can't flip sides and make arguments for Formalism then they make my philosophical glands swell with sadness

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Technically we observe gravity everyday but we still have no idea wtf it really is. There’s basically no way to test it,

That's simply not true dude

 

[That209]

That's simply not true dude

What’s not true? That we observe gravity or that there’s no way to test it?

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

What’s not true? That we observe gravity or that there’s no way to test it?

No way to test it? The conditions are repeatable and observable.

 

[That209]

No way to test it? The conditions are repeatable and observable.

Such as what? Dropping an apple? Lol. You’re missing my point. We don’t know how or why gravity exists. We don’t know how to actually use it. There are very few ways to test it. All we know about gravity is that it’s just there. If we knew how to manipulate gravity in any way, it’d be the biggest breakthrough ever.

 

[blaseblah]

Such as what? Dropping an apple? Lol. You’re missing my point. We don’t know how or why gravity exists. We don’t know how to actually use it. There are very few ways to test it. All we know about gravity is that it’s just there. If we knew how to manipulate gravity in any way, it’d be the biggest breakthrough ever.

Lol any tool that utilizes weight is manipulating gravity. Planes are manipulating gravity.

 

[MikeMcMann]

That's simply not true dude

No he is correct and you are wrong.

No way to test it? The conditions are repeatable and observable.

WRONG.

Nasa Doc's
Question:
What is gravity?

Answer:
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

Here is what we do know...

----------------------

What is the definitive proof there is gravity?
There isn’t one. That is not how science works.

Gravity is the name we give to the phenomenon that objects accelerate towards each other when they are otherwise left to their own devices.

The “proof” of gravity is the demonstration that the phenomenon happens...

---------------------
Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

Of all the forces in the universe, gravity is the one we're most intimately familiar with. Every time you roll out of bed, lift a coffee cup, or even just stand there, you feel its effects. So it may surprise you to learn that of all the forces in the universe, gravity is also the most difficult to explain scientifically. To understand why, you'll have to take a dive into the realms of relativity and quantum mechanics....

-----------------------

And then there is this nice Satire making fun of people who do not understand that Gravity, like Evolution is a theory and IS science even if the search for answers on both are still ongoing.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory

[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]

 

[MikeMcMann]

Such as what? Dropping an apple? Lol. You’re missing my point. We don’t know how or why gravity exists. We don’t know how to actually use it. There are very few ways to test it. All we know about gravity is that it’s just there. If we knew how to manipulate gravity in any way, it’d be the biggest breakthrough ever.

He is not missing the point as much as he is unable to comprehend the point.

I will bet anything he won't understand that Gravity, like Evolution is a working Theory which does not mean they are not fact simply because we do not have all the answers.

Religious nuts cling to the idea that if we do not have all the answers therefore then we cannot have a conclusion and therefore then GOD. But science has determined evolution and gravity exists even as they search to fill in all the pieces.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

Such as what? Dropping an apple? Lol. You’re missing my point. We don’t know how or why gravity exists. We don’t know how to actually use it. There are very few ways to test it. All we know about gravity is that it’s just there. If we knew how to manipulate gravity in any way, it’d be the biggest breakthrough ever.

Are you denying that gravity as a force is observable?

Also, my balisong disagrees with us not knowing how to use it

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

I will bet anything he won't understand that Gravity, like Evolution is a working Theory which does not mean they are not fact simply because we do not have all the answers.

Why not argue with me instead of assuming where im coming from? You keep developing these strawman arguments

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

No he is correct and you are wrong.



WRONG.

Nasa Doc's
Question:
What is gravity?

Answer:
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

Here is what we do know...

----------------------

What is the definitive proof there is gravity?
There isn’t one. That is not how science works.

Gravity is the name we give to the phenomenon that objects accelerate towards each other when they are otherwise left to their own devices.

The “proof” of gravity is the demonstration that the phenomenon happens...

---------------------
Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

Of all the forces in the universe, gravity is the one we're most intimately familiar with. Every time you roll out of bed, lift a coffee cup, or even just stand there, you feel its effects. So it may surprise you to learn that of all the forces in the universe, gravity is also the most difficult to explain scientifically. To understand why, you'll have to take a dive into the realms of relativity and quantum mechanics....

-----------------------

And then there is this nice Satire making fun of people who do not understand that Gravity, like Evolution is a theory and IS science even if the search for answers on both are still ongoing.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory

[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]

" Gravity is the name we give to the phenomenon that objects accelerate towards each other when they are otherwise left to their own devices."



This phenomenon is testable and repeatable. Agreed or disagreed?

 

[blaseblah]

No he is correct and you are wrong.



WRONG.

Nasa Doc's
Question:
What is gravity?

Answer:
We don't really know. We can define what it is as a field of influence, because we know how it operates in the universe. And some scientists think that it is made up of particles called gravitons which travel at the speed of light. However, if we are to be honest, we do not know what gravity "is" in any fundamental way - we only know how it behaves.

Here is what we do know...

----------------------

What is the definitive proof there is gravity?
There isn’t one. That is not how science works.

Gravity is the name we give to the phenomenon that objects accelerate towards each other when they are otherwise left to their own devices.

The “proof” of gravity is the demonstration that the phenomenon happens...

---------------------
Believe It or Not, Science Still Can't Explain Gravity

Of all the forces in the universe, gravity is the one we're most intimately familiar with. Every time you roll out of bed, lift a coffee cup, or even just stand there, you feel its effects. So it may surprise you to learn that of all the forces in the universe, gravity is also the most difficult to explain scientifically. To understand why, you'll have to take a dive into the realms of relativity and quantum mechanics....

-----------------------

And then there is this nice Satire making fun of people who do not understand that Gravity, like Evolution is a theory and IS science even if the search for answers on both are still ongoing.

Gravity: It's Only a Theory

[Textbook disclaimers are down, but not out. This satirical look at "only a theory" disclaimers imagines what might happen if advocates applied the same logic to the theory of gravitation that they do to the theory of evolution.]

Calling something a theory doesn't imply we don't understand it.

Actually after reading through your posts I think you and the guy you are arguing with are on the same page here. Not sure why you're arguing.

 

[MikeMcMann]

Why not argue with me instead of assuming where im coming from? You keep developing these strawman arguments

there is no point arguing with you as you simply cannot comprehend the topics but are unaware enough to not understand that you do not so you keep going like below.

" Gravity is the name we give to the phenomenon that objects accelerate towards each other when they are otherwise left to their own devices."



This phenomenon is testable and repeatable. Agreed or disagreed?

You are not asking the right question nor seeing the point. And you think a simple yes or no answer affirms your view but your view is flawed on its face but as I say above you cannot comprehend the flaw so you keep going.


Even a child can see a car runs and they can test it (hit the brakes or accelerator) but that does not mean a child has any working grasp of the science behind it, how it works and why it works and what it is or is not.

Testing a PART of the observable phenomena is not the answer you think it is. It is simply one correlating evidence aspect of the science that lends CREDIBILITY to the theory. Theories like gravity and evolution and the Big Bang have lots of correlating evidence aspects which underpin the acceptance of those theories. When it comes to gravity you see one aspect YOU can understand and therefore in your ignorance you think its complete. When it comes to evolution there are lots of correlating evidence aspects but you do NOT understand them and therefore you think that means those theories are wrong.

I've said it before as debates like this often come down to the dumbest amongst amongst us (religious folk mostly) saying 'if you cannot make me understand the science then the science must be wrong' and that is a laughable premise. Imagine trying to make Sarah Palin understand long division and her saying it does not exist simply because she cannot grasp it. That is where we are with you guys.

You would argue with NASA given the opportunity and think you were holding your own because they could not make you understand what they were saying.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

You are not asking the right question nor seeing the point. And you think a simple yes or no answer affirms your view but your view is flawed on its face but as I say above you cannot comprehend the flaw so you keep going.

Why don't you go back and check why gravity got brought into this discussion to begin with?

Gravity as a force is absolutely testable and repeatable. I make no other assumptions about gravity here

 

[franklinstower]

Posting to read thread later.

 

[oleDirtyBast4rd]

What’s not true? That we observe gravity or that there’s no way to test it?

No way to test it? The conditions are repeatable and observable.

Then you come in with a bunch of bullshit assumptions about my argument. The guy came in, and said some false things. I corrected him.

 

[capnlarge]

So you're saying it's been Berenstain Bears all along and I was just misremembering?

 

[robotsonic]

MacDuffle, this is the type of Christian Ontological discussion that I'm familiar with and it's refreshing to have someone on sherdog understand and articulate the broader dialog. The standard and fashionable thing around here is to parrot mindless new atheist drivel and fancy themselves smart while actually proving themselves nothing more than clueless hipsters.
The concept of multiverses is intriguing and defiantly not a threat to Christian theology in any form other than young earth fundamentalism. What is interesting to keep track of is the discussion involving how sound the theory itself is and the responses to the possibility that it's quite weak. When people have emotionally invested into the latest fad I have to admit that I revel in pointing out it's possible flaws and observing the predictable response.

I've had more than my fair share of fun with the young earth bunch especially when they point out that fossils on top of Everest prove the flood. The irony for me is studying evolution, the age of the earth/universe and it's complexity was one of the major driving factors that set me on a spiritual quest. It's strange in deed to have people on one hand saying science has disproved the concept of God and others young earth fundamentalists telling me I'm believing bad science. Both groups have huge blinders on, there's plenty of people driven from atheism because of science.
I keep waiting for the philosophical bomb to drop I hear about that destroys Christianity but no one actually drops it, they just talk about how awesome it is.
Thoughtful atheists/agnostics claim no such thing and I have great conversations with mutuel respect with such people on a regular basis.

TBF this is intellectually dishonest nonsense. Nobody in this thread has really been talking about how airtight the multiverse theory is, in fact quite the opposite. People have pretty much uniformly stated that for the time being it's just a theory they are trying to fit into current models that seems like it fits the best. This is all that the theoretical models regarding the big questions currently are because proving shit like how the universe came to be or the nature of space/time is a fucking massively difficult exercise, it's not like we won't need masses of evidence to make firm conclusions. If you understood anything about the bridge between theoretical and practical science you'd understand that.

Also your pompous attitude is tiresome. I always find in these online debates there's always that one guy who seems to think he is Wittgenstein reborn and that he is rolling his eyes throughout the discussion as he understands everything being talked about at such a deep level that the very existence of the debate in his vicinity bores him. Don't be that guy.

Also another thing I'll add, your over familiarity with the rebuttals of your stance doesn't mean they aren't valid. If you have something to counter them with go ahead, rolling your eyes just because you've heard them before is asinine. You couldn't rebuke them the first time and you won't be able to rebuke them regardless of how many times you hear them.