Let's talk about the "Big Bang" (theory)

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

So there was no end, you say to that hot gaseous material, is that how you and others figure it? It was just -- everywhere with no end????
??

Well first of all, don't let these folks on here in their contemptuous, arrogant ways, deter you from asking questions...because the questions that you ask are on target.

Unless you have an infinite regress of cause/effect relations in time (which is logically impossible), then yes, that would mean that "it was just --- everywhere with no end".

That is exactly what it would mean.

Which basically suggests that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and then expanded for no reason whatsoever. This is logically absurd, and cannot happen.

So what they (atheists) do is; simply sit back and wait for science to provide them an answer, which science is unable/incapable of doing.

This is "Science of the Gaps" reasoning. Fallacious, is what it is.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

"Everywhere" or "the end," is defined by the reality and dimensions of the universe, be it a singularity or the expanded universe we know today. Beyond its boundaries there is no existence, no "where."
No, more like expanded, and its origins, if any, and nature are unknown. But roll back the clock ~13.7 billion years from the universe we observe today, and an expansion from a singularity is what you get.

Yeah but the question becomes, where did the singularity come from in the first place?? One big fat "We Don't Know"...which is intellectually honest.

However, what separates the men (theists) from the boys (atheists) is that theists understand and accept/acknowledge that an external, atemporal cause is needed for temporal effects (such as a singularity expanding).

The atheists understand this, they just don't accept it.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

Well, we have an abundance of evidence about the state of the universe at about 1 second after the beginning of the expansion. The cosmic background radiation encodes such information, as do the abundances of the light elements.

The two main options theoretically are as follows:

1. Time began with the beginning of the expansion. There literally was no 'before the Big Bang'. This is the version in the classical theory.

Correct, no temporal before, but obviously a causal before.

The problem is that the classical theory does not include quantum mechanical effects, which we *know* will be relevant at some point (we just don't know specifics about how).

A few things..

1. The philosophical problem against infinite regress is independent of quantum mechanics and no quantum theory can negate such implications.

2. Quantum mechanics doesn't explain the fine-tuning problem (second law of thermodynamics).

3. The BGV theorem (which empirically proves a finite universe) is independent of quantum mechanics, and even applies to quantum models.

We all know that atheists/naturalists use quantum mechanics as a cheat code, a bail-out for whenever things get tough...but that won't work here.

2. Our universe (the region of expansion) is just one part of a larger multiverse.

Sorry, but that is WRONG.

The same three reasons above not only applies to any multiverse theory, but the multiverse theory has yet to be empirically proven.

It is all speculative, with no evidence supporting it.

Time is infinite into the past and matter and energy of some sort have always existed. Our universe is a type of 'bubble' in the much larger multiverse.

This version includes quantum effects, but we don't have a tested description of quantum gravity, so the details are unknown.

"The details/evidence which proves the theory are unknown, but..we go ahead and believe it anyway".

That's basically what you are saying.

 

[Polymath257]

Correct, no temporal before, but obviously a causal before.

1. Doesn't causally before imply temporally before? All causation that has ever been observed has obeyed this rule.

2. Why do you expect that causality applies outside of the universe?

A few things..

1. The philosophical problem against infinite regress is independent of quantum mechanics and no quantum theory can negate such implications.

What specific philosophical problems against infinite regress are you talking about? All the ones I have seen are merely misunderstandings of the differences between finite and infinite.

2. Quantum mechanics doesn't explain the fine-tuning problem (second law of thermodynamics).

The second law is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. Given infinite time, entropy will decrease (look up Poincare recurrence time).

3. The BGV theorem (which empirically proves a finite universe) is independent of quantum mechanics, and even applies to quantum models.

There are many possible models that violate the assumptions of the BGV theorem. Also, the BGV theorem is badly described by Craig and other theologians. It only deals with individual time lines being geodesically incomplete. That does NOT mean the universe as a whole has a beginning.
From the original BGV paperhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf :

"What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibil-
ities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can some-
how be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].[/QUOTE]

In particular, the BGV papaer gives a specific example of a universe that does not have a beginning that avoids the conclusions of their paper.

We all know that atheists/naturalists use quantum mechanics as a cheat code, a bail-out for whenever things get tough...but that won't work here.

I would also point out that the BGV papaer depends on some very specific relations between the Hubble parameter and time dilation which may not be part of a more inclusive theory.

Sorry, but that is WRONG.

The same three reasons above not only applies to any multiverse theory, but the multiverse theory has yet to be empirically proven.

It is all speculative, with no evidence supporting it.

Actually, no. In a multiverse with our universe (and others) being the result of quantum nucleation events, there is no violation of the BGV paper. The other two objections are rather irrelevant.

And there *is* good reason to suppose that some version of a multiverse is the case since every attempt to unify gravity and quantum mechanics has lead to some sort of multiverse scenario.

But you are correct, we do not know which (if any) of our hypotheses about quantum gravity are correct, so thi sis mostly speculative. but it is far less speculative than a hypothesis of an intelligent creator working outside of physical laws.

"The details/evidence which proves the theory are unknown, but..we go ahead and believe it anyway".

That's basically what you are saying.

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am saying that the 'God hypothesis' is far more speculative than anything mentioned by the physicists. it has far more ontological assumptions and far less evidence.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, what separates the men (theists) from the boys (atheists) is that theists understand and accept/acknowledge that an external, atemporal cause is needed for temporal effects (such as a singularity expanding).
The atheists understand this, they just don't accept it.

The first is a foolish statement, men and boys, very pretentious. Why should atheists accept something for which there is no evidence?

 

[YoursTrue]

Well first of all, don't let these folks on here in their contemptuous, arrogant ways, deter you from asking questions...because the questions that you ask are on target.

Unless you have an infinite regress of cause/effect relations in time (which is logically impossible), then yes, that would mean that "it was just --- everywhere with no end".

That is exactly what it would mean.

Which basically suggests that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and then expanded for no reason whatsoever. This is logically absurd, and cannot happen.

So what they (atheists) do is; simply sit back and wait for science to provide them an answer, which science is unable/incapable of doing.

This is "Science of the Gaps" reasoning. Fallacious, is what it is.

Yes. It has been an interesting journey. By the way, just to recount, I used to be an atheist and believed everything "science" taught me about evolution and the universe.

 

[YoursTrue]

The first is a foolish statement, men and boys, very pretentious. Why should atheists accept something for which there is no evidence?

Please go back to the links you provided with various (scientific) views about the beginning of life, as well as the end of life. All differing viewpoints. Have a great day.

 

[YoursTrue]

Well first of all, don't let these folks on here in their contemptuous, arrogant ways, deter you from asking questions...because the questions that you ask are on target.

Unless you have an infinite regress of cause/effect relations in time (which is logically impossible), then yes, that would mean that "it was just --- everywhere with no end".

That is exactly what it would mean.

Which basically suggests that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and then expanded for no reason whatsoever. This is logically absurd, and cannot happen.

So what they (atheists) do is; simply sit back and wait for science to provide them an answer, which science is unable/incapable of doing.

This is "Science of the Gaps" reasoning. Fallacious, is what it is.

Einstein worked on theories when he spoke of relativity and gravity, it is interesting, but does not prove that God does not exist and it surely does not show in the least that it all 'came about' by itself.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Please go back to the links you provided with various (scientific) views about the beginning of life, as well as the end of life. All differing viewpoints. Have a great day.

Yeah, you want a simple answer, though it may not be true. And that answer is 'Goddidit'. Be happy.

 

[rational experiences]

If you ask just a human thinking.

Didn't the cold sun cooling in space nothingness ...with space opening as more space because energy got consumed. So the sun moved into another dimension.

From a big bang burst light to earth why I'm conscious aware?

Yes he says.

Is bio lifes light support any blast?

No he says knowingly fully aware.

Oh did earths mass removed shift a dimension too?

Yes space increased.

Oh. Don't you greedy human think the increase of space by a new 0 zero means accumulated given power to its human theist?

Yes says just the human scientist self. A conscious thought giving itself a humans only agreed answer. As you are factually just the human.

Well..... meaning awareness says a real human aware natural life sees you for all your fake theories.

Yet you think a well is humans technology.

As they are fake.

As human thoughts do not own why created creation exists now in its presence. A humans science only chosen topic. Is a separate topic named science.

As human science hadn't caused created human life. As a human does the calculations.

Why calculating human meant a derisive not truthful human.

You should by teaching indoctrination...constants. Keep making that statement until you listen to your own human advice.

And I'm not any machines position history of used application so I'm not science either. It's legal you know to say I'm not your human science machine experiment. As humans said humans not machines own legal rights.

Machines a non entity don't. As machines don't exist earth mass first only...God.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's strange how the rather pedestrian story of a man who journey from Mesopotamia to Turkey to Palestine, had a few kids, kept sheep and believed in one God instead of many should be a myth.

Why is that strange?
Any myth is going to be about something.

And on the other hand a Cathagian general took an army and elephants and invaded Rome itself, is real.
What's the difference?

The difference is that the latter has independent, contemporary and corroborative evidence while the first does not. In fact, the evidence that does exists, contradicts it.

Also, the story of the Carthagian general doesn't include magic.

Because there's a lot at stake if the bible is true.

No. The difference is evidence.
There's no more "at stake" if the bible is true then if the quran is true, or the gods of mt olympus, or the gods of whalhalla or the hindu gods or.... any other religion you can think off.

For YOU, personally there might be a lot at stake though. You've probably invested your entire psyche and emotion into your religion. So, for YOU this is a big deal.

So YOU will be the one to ignore evidence in favor of upholding your beliefs, because there is a lot at stake for YOU if the bible turns out false.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There's two accounts of the creation, the first one is bang on target in terms of the sequence of critical events.

No, it isn't.

We dismiss Matthew, Peter, John, James, Luke and Paul's accounts as mere myths - then why can't I say that Homer, Socrates, Hannibal etc are myths? There's a doube standard here.

No double standard. The only problem here is you having no clue how the historical sciences are done and how one evaluates if claimed historical characters are actually historical or not.

Or put another way: you don't understand what is and isn't evidence. You graps at straws AND you come into this game assuming you already have the answers before you ask the questions.

You aren't lead by the evidence. Instead, you start with the answer and then grasp at any evidence you feel supports it, while ignoring everything that doesn't.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Unless you have an infinite regress of cause/effect relations in time (which is logically impossible), then yes, that would mean that "it was just --- everywhere with no end".

Time is finite into the past. It's an inherent part of the universe. Time doesn't exist if the universe doesn't exist.
The start of the universe IS the start of time.

Also, causality is a temporal phenomenon. You can't invoke it in a context where no universe exists, as there is no "time" there for causes to occur in. The universe can't be an effect, because that means that a cause would have had to occur BEFORE the effect. ie "before time". Which is nonsensical.

Which basically suggests that the singularity was just sitting there for eternity, and then expanded for no reason whatsoever. This is logically absurd, and cannot happen.

Indeed. But not for the reasons that you think. See above. You seem to have an invalid understanding of what "time" actually is.

It is in fact correct to say that universe has ALWAYS existed.
Always = a period of time. All of time, in fact.
Please, point me to a point in time when the universe didn't exist.

You can't do it. Because the universe IS space-time. Whenever there was time, there was an expanding universe.

Go back in time. At any point in time, the universe existed.

So what they (atheists) do is; simply sit back and wait for science to provide them an answer, which science is unable/incapable of doing.

This is "Science of the Gaps" reasoning. Fallacious, is what it is.

/facepalm

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

However, what separates the men (theists) from the boys (atheists) is that theists understand and accept/acknowledge that an external, atemporal cause is needed for temporal effects (such as a singularity expanding).

An "atemporal cause" is an oxymoron. Like a "married bachelor".

Causality necessarily requires temporal conditions.
Causes happen BEFORE effects.
There is no "before" the universe.

The atheists understand this, they just don't accept it.

The only thing that is to be understood here, is you arguing strawmen.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Correct, no temporal before, but obviously a causal before.

oxymoron again.
"before" = necessarily temporal
"causality" = necessarily temporal

These are phenomenon of physics as it applies IN the universe.
And that, btw, only really on the level of classical physics. Causality doesn't really exist in that sense at the quantum level.

1. The philosophical problem against infinite regress is independent of quantum mechanics and no quantum theory can negate such implications.

This "philosophical problem" is completely irrelevant to actual physical reality.
That "problem" only exists in the minds of people whose brains can't compute the weirdness that is the idea of an environment where TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

There is no infinite regress in a universe with a finite past.

2. Quantum mechanics doesn't explain the fine-tuning problem (second law of thermodynamics).

What problem? Another one that only exists in the minds of theological apologists?

We all know that atheists/naturalists use quantum mechanics as a cheat code, a bail-out for whenever things get tough...but that won't work here.

Nobody is doing that.
It is a fact that quantum physics is weird and doesn't follow plenty of rules that we otherwise, mostly intuitively, take for granted.

Like how our minds can't compute that an object is measured "here" while it simultaneously is observed "there". But subatomic particles do exactly that. And more stuff like that, obviously.
There's a reason why quantum physics is called "spooky".

Sorry, but that is WRONG.

There are actually very good reasons to suggest that a multi-verse exists.

The same three reasons above not only applies to any multiverse theory, but the multiverse theory has yet to be empirically proven.

First of all, it's not a theory. It's a prediction made by other theories. Like inflation theory.
It naturally flows from it. And not always to phycist's liking. They didn't set out to "model in" a multi-verse. Instead, they were dragged there by the evidence - some of them kicking and screaming.

It is all speculative, with no evidence supporting it.

False.
If you have a theory that addresses a specific physical phenomenon, like inflation theory, which just happens to predict a multi-verse theory when you work out the math... then any evidence for that theory would by extension be evidence for the multi-verse.

Indirect evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
So the more accurate inflation theory is shown to be, the more likely it is that a multi-verse exists.
If you have a model that makes predictions X, Y and Z... then that means that IF the theory is correct, then X Y and Z ARE the case....

"The details/evidence which proves the theory are unknown, but..we go ahead and believe it anyway".
That's basically what you are saying.

No, that's what YOU are saying in a dishonestly crafted strawman.
That's not at all a proper or accurate description of how science came up with a multi-verse.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes. It has been an interesting journey. By the way, just to recount, I used to be an atheist and believed everything "science" taught me about evolution and the universe.

Maybe you believed it.
But you clearly didn't understand it.

I can say that, because of the mistakes you insist on making.

 

[PruePhillip]

No, it isn't.



No double standard. The only problem here is you having no clue how the historical sciences are done and how one evaluates if claimed historical characters are actually historical or not.

Or put another way: you don't understand what is and isn't evidence. You graps at straws AND you come into this game assuming you already have the answers before you ask the questions.

You aren't lead by the evidence. Instead, you start with the answer and then grasp at any evidence you feel supports it, while ignoring everything that doesn't.

The sequence of the 1st Genesis account -
God creates the heaven and the earth
an observer on earth sees a dark, oceanic and sterile world
the skies open
the land rises out of the sea
life appears on land
life appears in the sea
finally man.

That's about right. 20 years ago there was no ocean world earth, or cloud earth, or life coming from warm ponds.
And in this time we have found evidence for king David, writing in Moses time, the Jordan plain catastrophe (Sodom) and evidence for significantly larger populations in biblical Israel than previously thought.

ps I used to be a science teacher.

 

[PruePhillip]

Why is that strange?
Any myth is going to be about something.



The difference is that the latter has independent, contemporary and corroborative evidence while the first does not. In fact, the evidence that does exists, contradicts it.

Also, the story of the Carthagian general doesn't include magic.



No. The difference is evidence.
There's no more "at stake" if the bible is true then if the quran is true, or the gods of mt olympus, or the gods of whalhalla or the hindu gods or.... any other religion you can think off.

For YOU, personally there might be a lot at stake though. You've probably invested your entire psyche and emotion into your religion. So, for YOU this is a big deal.

So YOU will be the one to ignore evidence in favor of upholding your beliefs, because there is a lot at stake for YOU if the bible turns out false.

The magic of Hannibal - that his Numidian cavalry were warriors who rode on giant scorpions, and that Hannibal's nemesis Skipio was born to the gods.
There was no eye witness, Hannibal needs to be assessed by the same level of criticism as the bible. And frankly I thought his battle exploits have a magical ring about them.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

1. Doesn't causally before imply temporally before? All causation that has ever been observed has obeyed this rule.

Yeah but since infinite regression is impossible (even applies to God), we have to posit a different kind of causation...one of which the cause does not precede the effect.

For example, a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity is the cause of the indentation on the cushion...however, the cause doesn't precede the effect, does it?

But it is still the cause, nevertheless.

2. Why do you expect that causality applies outside of the universe?

Because..

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

It is apparent that since the universe began to exist, an transcendent cause is necessary...which is why I expect causality to apply outside of the universe.

What specific philosophical problems against infinite regress are you talking about? All the ones I have seen are merely misunderstandings of the differences between finite and infinite.

Example; if there were an infinite amount of days which led to today, today would never arrive, because you cannot traverse infinity.

You cannot traverse an infinite amount of discrete points in order to arrive a specific point...but you can arrive at a single point if you begin from single, discrete point.

That is the only way we can arrive at today, would be if time itself had a beginning (the singularity).

So yeah, the infinite regression thing is a PROBLEM...a problem that no fancy pancy scientific theory can help you (in general) with.

The second law is a statistical law, not a fundamental one. Given infinite time, entropy will decrease (look up Poincare recurrence time).

Sorry, but that is false. The entropy will never decrease....entropy is one of the most understand aspects of physical sciences. It never fails.

An apple that has been rotting in the sun will never become fresh again.

A 90 year old man will never regain his youthfulness.

It aint happening.

Now, I understand that atheists tend to view "time" as their God, as you are doing here...and you guys do the same thing with evolution.

"Given billions of years, anything can happen".

Quite the nonsense.

Also, the low entropy conditions REQUIRED for human life had to be set (fine tuned), to the degree of 10^10^123, according to Roger Penrose (see Penrose on the initial conditions of the big bang).

These low entropy conditions had to be set as a prerequisite requirement from the MOMENT of the big bang.

Otherwise, life would not be permissible. So, you have an uphill battle, amigo.

10^10^123.

That is...ugly.

Second, and not only that...your argument is presupposing infinite time, when infinite time (as I just demonstrated), is precisely what CANNOT happen.

There are many possible models that violate the assumptions of the BGV theorem. Also, the BGV theorem is badly described by Craig and other theologians. It only deals with individual time lines being geodesically incomplete. That does NOT mean the universe as a whole has a beginning.
From the original BGV paperhttps://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0110012.pdf :

"What can lie beyond this boundary? Several possibil-
ities have been discussed, one being that the boundary
of the inflating region corresponds to the beginning of
the Universe in a quantum nucleation event [12]. The
boundary is then a closed spacelike hypersurface which
can be determined from the appropriate instanton.

Whatever the possibilities for the boundary, it is clear
that unless the averaged expansion condition can some-
how be avoided for all past-directed geodesics, inflation
alone is not sufficient to provide a complete description of
the Universe, and some new physics is necessary in order
to determine the correct conditions at the boundary [20].

In particular, the BGV papaer gives a specific example of a universe that does not have a beginning that avoids the conclusions of their paper.

I would also point out that the BGV papaer depends on some very specific relations between the Hubble parameter and time dilation which may not be part of a more inclusive theory.

Well first of all, the theorem only has one condition in order for it to hold...which is that the average Hubble expansion is greater than zero.

That is it...and virtually all models meets that requirement...in fact it applies to...

1. Higher-dimensional bulk space-time.

2. Cyclic universes.

3. Bouncing universe.

4. Bubble universe.

5. Multiverses

6. Quantum Fluctuations

etc, etc, etc

The theory applies to ALL of those models, because they all meet the minimum requirement...or, they have other problems...and it is a reason why all of those models exist in the first place, which is because they all attempt to avoid an absolute beginning, which has been verified by the empirical evidence surrounding the STANDARD MODEL of the big bang.

And another thing I want to point out; it isn't enough to just simply toss out hypothesis'.

What you need is evidence to support your hypothesis...and without it, all you have are possibilities, and possibilities aren't evidence.

Guessing isn't evidence. Speculation isn't evidence.

With the BGV theorem we have actual mathematical proof...and with the standard big bang we have empirical evidence.

Actually, no. In a multiverse with our universe (and others) being the result of quantum nucleation events, there is no violation of the BGV paper. The other two objections are rather irrelevant.

So you agree that there is no violation of the BGV theorem, even on the multiverse?

I'm glad we agree.

And there *is* good reason to suppose that some version of a multiverse is the case since every attempt to unify gravity and quantum mechanics has lead to some sort of multiverse scenario.

This is speculation and wishful thinking. I thought we relied on actual evidence in science?

Show me evidence that a multiverse exists, and then we can talk about "which version of the multiverse is the case".

Until then, you don't even have a theory.

But you are correct, we do not know which (if any) of our hypotheses about quantum gravity are correct, so thi sis mostly speculative. but it is far less speculative than a hypothesis of an intelligent creator working outside of physical laws.

Well when you consider the fact that natural law cannot be used to explain the origins of natural law, then an intelligent creator becomes less speculative.

I neither believe nor disbelieve. I am saying that the 'God hypothesis' is far more speculative than anything mentioned by the physicists. it has far more ontological assumptions and far less evidence.

I do not know you, but I am willing to bet money that you've spent a nice portion of your life arguing against the existence of God than you do with arguing against the truth value of atheism/naturalism.

So, you can kill the whole "neutral" approach.

I've noticed that some unbelievers, that is what they do...they make it seem as if their stance is so neutral, but when dissect what they say and how they say it...it is clear that the scales are unevenly balanced and far from the neutral stuff that they like to portray.

 

[Venni_Vetti_Vecci]

oxymoron again.
"before" = necessarily temporal
"causality" = necessarily temporal

Question; a bowling ball that has been resting on a cushion for eternity...is the indentation of the cushion before the bowling ball and/or the cushion?

These are phenomenon of physics as it applies IN the universe.

The universe began to exist. So obviously, causality must apply beyond the universe.

And that, btw, only really on the level of classical physics. Causality doesn't really exist in that sense at the quantum level.

Again, there are are at least 10 different interpretations of those quantum level events...and not all are indeterministic and there are at least two philosophical problems with it that you (or anyone else) is able to deal with.

More on that...sooner than you think.

This "philosophical problem" is completely irrelevant to actual physical reality.

LOL.

If philosophical problems are irrelevant to physical reality, then I guess it was impossible for criminals to get convicted of crimes before the age of forensic science.

I guess Sherlock Holmes or Columbo shouldn't have been able to solve crimes using good old philosophical reasoning...because after all, there were no DNA or finger print analysis during their times.

Foolishness.

That "problem" only exists in the minds of people whose brains can't compute the weirdness that is the idea of an environment where TIME DOES NOT EXIST.

?

There is no infinite regress in a universe with a finite past.

I agree...so when I speak about how infinite regression is not possible, there is no need for you to speak about it, since we are in agreement.

We don't need to comment about stuff we already agree on.

What problem? Another one that only exists in the minds of theological apologists?

What?

Nobody is doing that.
It is a fact that quantum physics is weird and doesn't follow plenty of rules that we otherwise, mostly intuitively, take for granted.

Like how our minds can't compute that an object is measured "here" while it simultaneously is observed "there". But subatomic particles do exactly that. And more stuff like that, obviously.
There's a reason why quantum physics is called "spooky".

First of all, you already admitted that infinite regression is impossible. And you also admitted that the universe is finite.

So as long as the universe is finite, then there must be an explanation for its existence, and quantum mechanics cannot help you here.

Quantum mechanics cannot explain how a universe can pop into existence out of nothing, nor can it explain the fine tuning of the universe.

Again, I understand that QM is the atheists cheat code, but it is a cheat code with no explanatory power whatsoever.

There are actually very good reasons to suggest that a multi-verse exists.

Coo. And I feel as if there are very good reasons to suggest that God exists.

So now what?

First of all, it's not a theory. It's a prediction made by other theories. Like inflation theory.
It naturally flows from it. And not always to phycist's liking. They didn't set out to "model in" a multi-verse. Instead, they were dragged there by the evidence - some of them kicking and screaming.

Well again, according to Vilenkin, a multiverse (if it exists) must have had a beginning (according to the BGV theorem).

And according to Penrose, a multiverse (if it exists), must be fine-tuned.

So, appeal to it as you must...doesn't change anything from the theistic perspective.

False.
If you have a theory that addresses a specific physical phenomenon, like inflation theory, which just happens to predict a multi-verse theory when you work out the math... then any evidence for that theory would by extension be evidence for the multi-verse.

First of all, you are WRONG. We cannot see anything beyond the observable universe. There is nothing from within the observable universe, that can predict anything beyond it...at least, nothing physical.

Even in multiverse theories, they are all part of the same physical reality, albeit different domains...but still, the same physical reality governed by the same natural laws....and there is no physical theory that you provide which will be able to demonstrate any other domain besides our own.

Second, again, the BGV theory applies to multiverses anyway, even if they did exist.

So, yeah..you are wrong.

Indirect evidence, but evidence nonetheless.
So the more accurate inflation theory is shown to be, the more likely it is that a multi-verse exists.
If you have a model that makes predictions X, Y and Z... then that means that IF the theory is correct, then X Y and Z ARE the case....

Well again, you have to do more than just come up with models, the models have to be more than possible, they have to be PLAUSIBLE.

That is why you haven't heard of any new discoveries involving multiverses. Why? Because they don't have empirical evidence supporting them.

But with the Standard Model, you have a history of new discoveries...a plethora of evidence which poured in over the course of the last hundred years.

That, is science. Not speculation, assumptions, wishful thinking, or hocus pocus.

No, that's what YOU are saying in a dishonestly crafted strawman.
That's not at all a proper or accurate description of how science came up with a multi-verse.

I can care less how they came up with a multiverse. I care about whether or not it is true, and whether it would negate a finite universe even if it was true.

Guess what; the answer is no to both questions.