Spacetime came to existence after the Big Bang. It’s an intrinsic aspect of the universe. Whatever is beyond the universe or the Big Bang, is beyond Spacetime
Local spacetime began with the big bang. If there is more to reality than that, then our universe's space time began and proceeded at a time and place in a meta spacetime.
Don't you know that multiverse is not a scientific theory?
Yes, thank you. I've taken a few science classes and read an article or two. Yes, it's a hypothesis like God, only more parsimonious, since it isn't described as conscious or aware of our universe.
So what's your point? That makes it not worthy of consideration? Your god belief is also a hypothesis, and it's good enough for you. Why the double standard (rhetorical question)?
I don’t agree with Davies that multiverse is equal to unseen Creator in the sense that multiverse was proposed to offset the need for a creator to explain the fine-tuning of the universe.
I define multiverse as any unconscious source for our universe. We don't know that it had a source. Perhaps it has always existed in a banging-crunching cycle. Or perhaps it came into being uncaused. But if it had a source, that source also had to have existed infinitely int the past or arisen de no and uncaused. We can divide this latter category into conscious and unconscious sources, I call the former gods and the latter multiverses. That looks like this:
Candidate hypotheses for the origin of the universe:
[1] Our universe came into being uncaused.
[2] Our universe has always existed and only appears to have had a first moment.
[3] Our universe is the product of a multiverse (any unconscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[4] Our universe is the product of a multiverse that has always existed.
[5] Our universe is the product of a god (any conscious source) that itself came into existence uncaused.
[6] Our universe is the product of a god that has always existed.
My guess is that you have chosen [6]. I haven't chosen any but put the multiverse hypothesis at the top of my list of candidate hypotheses, since it obviates the fine-tuning objection and is more parsimonious than a conscious multiverse (a god). I think that the correct answer must be on that list, as a creationist, I presume you agree.
For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested?
I can't answer that. Is that an objection to the multiverse hypothesis - that we don't know how to test for it? We can't test for any of the candidate hypotheses above. It seems to me that one of those must be correct. How could it not be that case that the universe either had a source or didn't, that if it did that that source was conscious or unconscious, and whatever is the original substance of reality - our spacetime, a multiverse, or a god - is timeless or arose spontaneously and uncaused.
Can you add to that list? I can't I consider it exhaustive. If so, doesn't that mean that one is correct? And if so, doesn't that mean that something that we cannot test at this time and perhaps never is the case? And if all of this is sound this far, it means that untestability doesn't disqualify or even weaken the position of any candidate hypothesis.
Logically we can infer the need for the distinct source for everything, i.e., God, once we accept the logical necessity
Disagree twice. We CANNOT assume a source for everything, nor if there were one should we call it "God." And once again, you bring a double standard to the debate. You believe in a god with no distinct source, or do you believe that your god had a source?
it becomes clear that there is purpose for our creation and logical that God conveyed that purpose to humanity through the messengers.
Here's where the theist jumps the shark. Now you're on a flight of religious fancy. There is no apparent purpose to reality, and no reason to believe in gods or to listen to self-proclaimed messengers of them.
If you don’t find God, you would struggle chasing false routes all of your life, you will think it would take you to comfort but it will not.
My life falsifies that claim. I abandoned gods decades ago and have relied only on reason, skepticism, and empiricism to decide what is true about the world, and I have used that knowledge to navigate it. I reached my intended destination long ago (which includes comfortable and has been comforting) and intend to enjoy the fruits of that journey for as long as I can. I ask for nothing more from a world view.
Maybe you should be taking life advice from me rather than giving it. How's your life? Have you found and secured love, beauty, comfort, and happiness for yourself? Or maybe those aren't your goals. Maybe you're trying to please an imagined deity with suffering and prefer such an outcome. I saw that in hospice with suffering, dying Abrahamic patients who refused analgesia in order to purify their souls prior to meeting Jesus.
The claim I actually made. You didn't, so I assume that you couldn't and deflected instead. If you'd like another shot at answering, follow the arrows back to the source comment, look at it again, and refute it or don't. I don't think you can, and I suspect you agree.
Our subjective decisions/opinions for ourselves are meaningless to others or to the objective reality. Can I impose the rules that I set for myself on you? If I do, would you accept it? we need a common logical reference.
You wrote, "you get to believe whatever you want but you do not get to “set the rules" of what is true or false" and I answered, "We all decide such things for ourselves. Whatever your rules are for deciding - perhaps because something appears in scripture makes it true to you, or feeling certain that what you feel is a god and not just your own mind makes that truth to you - that's YOU setting the rules for yourself."
It seems you agree.
“Nor need they” means that you accept the fact that such physical explanation of mind was never established.
Yes. Materialism is one of four logically possible candidate hypotheses for the relationship between mind and matter, also exhaustive in my opinion, meaning one must be correct even if we can't say which it is.
Candidate hypotheses for the relationship between mind and matter (feel free to add another if you can think of one):
[1] Materialism - asserts that everything that exists is physical including mind, which would be an epiphenomenon of brains. That is, matter can exist without minds, but minds only exist in matter.
[2] Idealism postulates the reverse: mind is the primordial substance and is the source of the physical world, which is an epiphenomenon of thought, like a dreamscape.
[3] Cartesian dualism - both mind and matter are fundamental.
[4] Neutral monism - both are derivative of something that is the source of both, like space and time relative to spacetime).
Hence, it we go back to my point, evidence to the contrary (mind is not dependent on the brain) was already established in NDE research. (The only evidence)
No, that hasn't been established. That's your religious intuition speaking. It wants idealism to be correct, declares it so, and then employes this Texas Sharpshooter fallacy where supporting evidence is given undue priority over contradictory evidence.
You took the TV example literally and missed the point. Even if every individual TV had a unique show like our individual conscious, it doesn’t mean that these unique TV broadcasts originated in the TV.
But it does mean that they aren't receiving the same common signal as this idea of our brains being receivers of some external source implies. The signal you receive is the experience of physical reality whether that be of the external world or the body and brain. Consciousness is a theater of qualia of assorted types reporting on the objects and processes comprising physical reality including the neocortex, which electrochemical machinations we experience as higher order symbolic thought, and this includes what is called free will, which is also generated in the neural circuits and reported to the "self," which sees itself as their original source ('the illusion of free will').
The manifestation of a source is not evidence of the location or nature of the source. If you see a compass following a direction, it’s not because the compass wants to follow that direction, what you see is the external influence of the magnetic field manifested on the compass, such manifestation is not evidence of the location of the source (cause).
You chose a compass to illustrate that it's response to a source doesn't indicate that source's location?
The compass is not the source; you still need to find the source.
Were you looking for one of the magnetic poles? Follow the compass needle in one of the two directions it's pointing.
But I get your point. The original source is underfoot in the planet's liquid metal outer core, and the compass won't reveal that.