There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Robert.Evans]

That is simply not true. I have been a subscriber to Scientific American for over 40 years, plus I have read about a half-dozen books written by research cosmologists on the BB over the last several years. Both the concepts of quantum mechanics and the hypothetical possibility of infinity are very much in the running and, as a matter of fact, most cosmologists that I've read lean in the direction of both likely being true. However, they are as stuck as we are in that there's not anywhere near enough evidence to conclude that there is a multiverse or that infinity exists.

Oh I don't say that it is mainstream science, but there are scientists who believe it, and that QM makes it so. Anyway, I do agree, it is not solid evidenced yet.

Anytime there is matter, energy, or sub-atomic particles of any type, there will logically have to be limits because each has its own characteristics, and "characteristics" logically necessitates limits.

I use the term "natural" in this context of my "leaning" as applying to literally everything, ala Spinoza's approach. Matter of fact, he used the name "Nature" as another name for God. Because all things in Nature have characteristics, they therefore have limits.

For those of us Jews who tend to take this approach, most of us do not differentiate between pantheism or panentheism, and neither do I. Essentially it's beyond my job classification. Therefore, I tend to say my position this way: Whatever caused the universe/multiverse I'll call "God" and pretty much leave it at that. If "God" is a conscious deity, so be it. If "God" is merely the energy of creation as Einstein hypothesized, so be it.

Or, to put it another way, whatever is, is.

Ok

 

[Robert.Evans]

That is simply not true. I have been a subscriber to Scientific American for over 40 years, plus I have read about a half-dozen books written by research cosmologists on the BB over the last several years. Both the concepts of quantum mechanics and the hypothetical possibility of infinity are very much in the running and, as a matter of fact, most cosmologists that I've read lean in the direction of both likely being true. However, they are as stuck as we are in that there's not anywhere near enough evidence to conclude that there is a multiverse or that infinity exists.
.

I was thinking along these lines, (I do note the word 'believe'):
The Multiverse Has 11 Dimensions | Michio Kaku | Big Think

Michio Kaku: Andre, we believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our multiverse of universes is 11-dimensional. So think of this 11-dimensional arena and in this arena there are bubbles, bubbles that float and the skin of the bubble represents an entire universe, so we’re like flies trapped on fly paper. We’re on the skin of a bubble. It’s a three dimensional bubble. The three dimensional bubble is expanding and that is called the Big Bang theory and sometimes these bubbles can bump into each other, sometimes they can split apart and that we think is the Big Bang. So we even have a theory of the Big Bang itself. Now you ask a question what about the dimensions of each bubble. Well in string theory—which is what I do for a living; that's my day job—In string theory we can have bubbles of different dimensions. The highest dimension is 11. You cannot go beyond 11 because universes become unstable beyond 11. If I write down the theory of a 13-, 15-dimensional universe it’s unstable and it collapses down to an 11-dimensional universe. But within 11 dimensions you can have bubbles that are 3 dimensional, 4-dimensional, 5-dimensional. These are membranes, so for short we call them brains. So these brains can exist in different dimensions and let’s say P represents the dimension of each bubble, so we call them p-brains. So a p-brain is a universe in different dimensions floating in a much larger arena, and this larger arena is the hyperspace that I talked about originally.

Also remember that each bubble vibrates, and each bubble vibrating creates music. The music of these membranes is the subatomic particles. Each subatomic particle represents a note on a vibrating string or vibrating membranes. So, believe it or not, we now have a candidate for the "Mind of God" that Albert Einstein wrote about for the last 30 years of his life. The "Mind of God" in this picture would be cosmic music resonating throughout 11-dimensional hyperspace.

 

[Robert.Evans]

This I find interesting:
Neoplatonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The One[edit]
One of the characteristic features of Plotinus' system, which was also taken up by subsequent Neoplatonists, is the doctrine of "the One" beyond being. For Plotinus, the first principle of reality is an utterly simple, ineffable, unknowable subsistence which is both the creative source and the teleological end of all existing things. Although, properly speaking, there is no name appropriate for the first principle, the most adequate names are "the One" or "the Good". The One is so simple that it cannot even be said to exist or to be a being. Rather, the creative principle of all things is beyond being, a notion which is derived from book VI of the Republic,[11] when, in the course of his famous analogy of the Sun, Plato says that the Good is beyond being (ἐπέκεινα τῆς οὐσία&#962 in power and dignity.[12] In Plotinus' model of reality, the One is the cause of the rest of reality, which takes the form of two subsequent "hypostases", Nous and Soul. Although Neoplatonists after Plotinus adhered to his cosmological scheme in its most general outline, later developments in the tradition also departed substantively from Plotinus' teachings in regards to significant philosophical issues, such as the nature of evil.

 

[Ouroboros]

This I find interesting:
Neoplatonism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now you're getting closer to my view. It was Neoplatonism that got me on my way to a new understanding or definition of God. That which is beyond words. That which can't be named, because if you name it or define it, it's not that anymore.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Now you're getting closer to my view. It was Neoplatonism that got me on my way to a new understanding or definition of God. That which is beyond words. That which can't be named, because if you name it or define it, it's not that anymore.

Yeah, I was trying to think of the word Platonism for some time now. I can't say that I am a 'anything' as regards title, but I see a whole lot of truth in it.

I understand what you say above.

Yet, just as the Name Yhvh became unpronounceable because of their fear of saying it in vain, we can still see that 'it' exists, as without it there is nothing. It is just the closer we get to the Source or Origin of everything, the harder it is to understand or explain it. But to me, that is the name, and it is rendered as the 'Existent.'

 

[metis]

But if you have change then what is there is not perfect. Do you not think it is pefect, in the sense that it is complete, I mean. Is it in need of anything? Presumably not as it exists. So how can it change?

When we're dealing with something like the BB, infinity, etc., "perfect" really doesn't apply unless one decides to somehow squeeze it in there. And if we use the concept of many quantum physicists, "perfect" definitely doesn't apply.

I am speaking of something that is not as a deity as we would think. I am speaking of something primordial, archetypal, monadic, pure, simple not complex, an Existence.

What do you think.

It's at least hypothetically possible, but how could I tell? How can you tell? This is why even my Spinoza leaning I have reservations about. Some of my most heated debates is with myself. Do you think this might be a problem?

 

[Robert.Evans]

When we're dealing with something like the BB, infinity, etc., "perfect" really doesn't apply unless one decides to somehow squeeze it in there. And if we use the concept of many quantum physicists, "perfect" definitely doesn't apply.

I was speaking of God. How can he not be complete or perfect? and if he is, and he is, then how can there be change?

It's at least hypothetically possible, but how could I tell? How can you tell? This is why even my Spinoza leaning I have reservations about.

I can tell because it is what is given me. One might say it is just what I believe. Call it however you will. But I cannot say that. If he is with me, then I speak of myself, (humbly) so how then can I deny myself. Everything is God given.
I trust the One who tells me. When you know someone well, that is what you do.

Some of my most heated debates is with myself. Do you think this might be a problem?

Haha... you should here mine. I take all sides! I do not think it is a problem. I will tell you what it follows. It follows the First Mind that had nothing but its own Self to argue with. That is what we do when we are by ourselves, we talk to ourselves (soliloquize). That is why he needed another, and that is how creation began..... he had someone to talk to.

 

[Robert.Evans]

The only one who knows the son is the Father.
How then does anyone know the son?
We know the son by becoming the Father. Now therein is a mystery.

How then can One deny its own Self.

 

[Serenity7855]

But that's not what you post most of the time. You are a Christian who posts as a Christian, thus the above really doesn't fit you well at all. It seems that you sort of theologically fluctuate back and forth a bit to the point whereas I'm not totally sure what you believe. Maybe you can clarify this?

So, how do we Christians post that is any different then anybody else. Don't you talk of your belief in the same way as I do. Where is the difference, other then the aggression.

 

[metis]

I was thinking along these lines, (I do note the word 'believe'):
The Multiverse Has 11 Dimensions | Michio Kaku | Big Think

Michio Kaku: Andre, we believe, though we cannot yet prove, that our multiverse of universes is 11-dimensional. So think of this 11-dimensional arena and in this arena there are bubbles, bubbles that float and the skin of the bubble represents an entire universe, so we’re like flies trapped on fly paper. We’re on the skin of a bubble. It’s a three dimensional bubble. The three dimensional bubble is expanding and that is called the Big Bang theory and sometimes these bubbles can bump into each other, sometimes they can split apart and that we think is the Big Bang. So we even have a theory of the Big Bang itself. Now you ask a question what about the dimensions of each bubble. Well in string theory—which is what I do for a living; that's my day job—In string theory we can have bubbles of different dimensions. The highest dimension is 11. You cannot go beyond 11 because universes become unstable beyond 11. If I write down the theory of a 13-, 15-dimensional universe it’s unstable and it collapses down to an 11-dimensional universe. But within 11 dimensions you can have bubbles that are 3 dimensional, 4-dimensional, 5-dimensional. These are membranes, so for short we call them brains. So these brains can exist in different dimensions and let’s say P represents the dimension of each bubble, so we call them p-brains. So a p-brain is a universe in different dimensions floating in a much larger arena, and this larger arena is the hyperspace that I talked about originally.

Also remember that each bubble vibrates, and each bubble vibrating creates music. The music of these membranes is the subatomic particles. Each subatomic particle represents a note on a vibrating string or vibrating membranes. So, believe it or not, we now have a candidate for the "Mind of God" that Albert Einstein wrote about for the last 30 years of his life. The "Mind of God" in this picture would be cosmic music resonating throughout 11-dimensional hyperspace.

Yes, thanks for this as Kaku is one of those that I have read recently, and I like the way he thinks. BTW, I do believe you spelled "brain" wrong as cosmologists generally spell it "brane", as in "brane theory". See Brane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[metis]

So, how do we Christians post that is any different then anybody else. Don't you talk of your belief in the same way as I do. Where is the difference, other then the aggression.

If you check back you'll see that I edited what I posted out since it appears that I didn't categorize him correctly after I went into his profile and saw my mistake. Secondly, the "aggression" you supposedly see simply isn't there.

 

[metis]

I was speaking of God. How can he not be complete or perfect? and if he is, and he is, then how can there be change?

But another tact one could take is what is is "perfect", and this would include change. IOW, "perfect" may not really apply when dealing with this.

I can tell because it is what is given me. One might say it is just what I believe. Call it however you will. But I cannot say that. If he is with me, then I speak of myself, (humbly) so how then can I deny myself. Everything is God given.
I trust the One who tells me. When you know someone well, that is what you do.

Again, as a belief, I don't have a problem with that; but you simply state beliefs as facts, and that I do have a problem with. If I were to say "Our universe is part of a multiverse", I would be making a mistake because what I should be saying is more like "I believe our universe is part of a multiverse". Even with that, it would be "kosher" for me to come up with some evidence or rationale.

 

[Serenity7855]

Yes, thanks for this as Kaku is one of those that I have read recently, and I like the way he thinks. BTW, I do believe you spelled "brain" wrong as cosmologists generally spell it "brane", as in "brane theory". See Brane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kaku is a theoretical physicist. What he says is based on known science but it is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no proof that a infinite number of universes exists. That it is possible is neither here or there because it cannot be substantiated. What Kaku says is interesting but it is no more then that. Professor Brian Cox has a current documentary running in which he demonstrates that fine tuning is based on the existence of an infinite number of universes. These people deceive the general public with no more than heresy. He is lying rather then facing reality. He is using a probability far more extreme then the existence of God is.

 

[Parsimony]

But you are saying now that all things are natural.

I didn't say that all things are natural. I said that all things in nature are natural. That does not preclude the possibility of there being something beyond nature that is supernatural.

So what are you talking about?

The natural world, i.e. the Universe that is subject to the laws of physics.

What mystical property is this magical 'natural' that you put forward?

I don't posit nature to be mystical or magical, so I'm not sure how that question is even relevant to anything I have posted.

Where does it come from?

So far as can currently be deduced, the natural world came from the Big Bang.

What is it?

I answered that when I defined the natural world above.

 

[metis]

Kaku is a theoretical physicist. What he says is based on known science but it is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no proof that a infinite number of universes exists. That it is possible is neither here or there because it cannot be substantiated. What Kaku says is interesting but it is no more then that. Professor Brian Cox has a current documentary running in which he demonstrates that fine tuning is based on the existence of an infinite number of universes. These people deceive the general public with no more than heresy. He is lying rather then facing reality. He is using a probability far more extreme then the existence of God is.

Much like how you falsely imagined my supposed "aggression", you also falsely imagine what Kaku actually has written, and I have some doubts you are accurately portraying Cox, even though I'm not familiar with the latter. The concept of universes beyond our own is strictly a hypothesis whereas the evidence at best is circumstantial, and this was previously covered on this thread. I have not read or heard a single research scientist in this area of specialization that says otherwise.

 

[Bunyip]

Kaku is a theoretical physicist. What he says is based on known science but it is pure conjecture. There is absolutely no proof that a infinite number of universes exists. That it is possible is neither here or there because it cannot be substantiated. What Kaku says is interesting but it is no more then that. Professor Brian Cox has a current documentary running in which he demonstrates that fine tuning is based on the existence of an infinite number of universes. These people deceive the general public with no more than heresy. He is lying rather then facing reality. He is using a probability far more extreme then the existence of God is.

That was painfully dishonest of you. Cox has not claimed proof of the multiverse,it is a hypothesis. You are being deceptive by accusing Cox of making claims that he has not made - the hypocrisy is epic.

 

[Ouroboros]

I was speaking of God. How can he not be complete or perfect? and if he is, and he is, then how can there be change?

Maybe because chance is the only static thing, and change is perfect and complete. One static non-changing thing is perhaps not perfect.

The non-changing view of God comes from the "unmoved mover." But there's no reason to think that Aristotle's view must dictate all understanding of God. Maybe God is always in motion. And that's the thing that doesn't change.

 

[Robert.Evans]

That was painfully dishonest of you. Cox has not claimed proof of the multiverse,it is a hypothesis. You are being deceptive by accusing Cox of making claims that he has not made - the hypocrisy is epic.

I don't think he said in his post that he had. But I have seen some of Cox's documentary, and we must remember that he is a scientist and they hold a lot of sway. That is why people follow Dawkins. You think they would follow him if he was a road sweeper? (apologies to road sweepers).

Nor did Cox say that he could prove it.

Personally I agree with the idea of a multiverse.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Maybe because chance is the only static thing, and change is perfect and complete. One static non-changing thing is perhaps not perfect.

The non-changing view of God comes from the "unmoved mover." But there's no reason to think that Aristotle's view must dictate all understanding of God. Maybe God is always in motion. And that's the thing that doesn't change.

haha... I like the last part. But i would say that that is AFTER change and not before. Before there was no change in the way we would think of it, just an existence.

 

[Robert.Evans]

But another tact one could take is what is is "perfect", and this would include change. IOW, "perfect" may not really apply when dealing with this.



Again, as a belief, I don't have a problem with that; but you simply state beliefs as facts, and that I do have a problem with. If I were to say "Our universe is part of a multiverse", I would be making a mistake because what I should be saying is more like "I believe our universe is part of a multiverse". Even with that, it would be "kosher" for me to come up with some evidence or rationale.

I say that is what it is rather than believe because I feel I know. (That is what we do I guess. That is why Dawkins wrote the GD.) I cannot deny Him who gave me life.

I will go back to the beginning. You think that it is more likely infinite and not static it seems. I say it is simple, not complex, and it a Singularity. Why? Because, for one, the universe came into being through a singularity. Life probably did on this planet. It starts from something simple to something complex. It appears to be demanded in this universe. Simple then complex. So, if God is trying to communicate with his offspring, what are we to do with that? Think he is complex and has never been simple? Doesn't fit.

Everything comes through fractal consciousness. This is how he can reveal who and what he is (to a degree). Otherwise, as someone one said to me, if he does not communicate with us, what is the point. I did not get it at first, but later I saw his point. That is why we believe in the first place and why we have sacred scripture. It is not deluded people, it is people connected with the divine in one way or another, for thousands of years, and the largest part of the world.

So I have evidence for what I am saying. Fractals are seen in many things if you look it up... no doubt you already know.

EDIT
the spelling of 'brain' was as it was written. Copy and paste. I think you are probably right though. Kaku spoke it, someone else wrote it.