• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Where do Proponents Of Intelligent Design Propose the Designer Came From?

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
I prefer the term debunked atheist creation myths!
Since when was the multiverse debunked? I'd also like to see a good, reliable source confirming that the concept of the multiverse was invented specifically to support the atheist position. Take note that I'm not talking about modern atheists using it as justification for their beliefs, I am asking for evidence that the first person to come up with the idea had purely atheistic motivations for doing so.
 

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Ah, yes they choose their words due to their lack of understanding. Good to know, thanks.
They 'know' because they believe. Whether one knows all things is irrelevant. It is important to know the core beliefs and values of each persons belief- that is their reality. We all answer for our own reality.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
You are looking from the point of view of a non-believer. The fact is, (if we look at it from the believers point of view) if there is a God, then you do "know"... you just can't prove it to others. I know that probably annoys the hell out of you, and you will not accept it as an answer, because if you do, you have no argument.
Whether or not they think they "know", in actuality, they strongly believe.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Since when was the multiverse debunked? I'd also like to see a good, reliable source confirming that the concept of the multiverse was invented specifically to support the atheist position. Take note that I'm not talking about modern atheists using it as justification for their beliefs, I am asking for evidence that the first person to come up with the idea had purely atheistic motivations for doing so.

well OK, static, steady state, big crunch were debunked. Multiverses, M Theory etc are of course inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation.

Hawking, Greene are principle proponents of multiverse and both atheists. Hawking always insists his theories make God redundant- Greene has talked about the possibility of our universe being intelligently designed by some alien intelligence (but not God of course!)- but this latest atheism of the gaps argument against God is becoming increasingly pedantic/ semantic.

The origins of parallel universes goes back beyond recorded history, so looking for a record of their indented implications of it, is about as practical as looking for multiverses themselves.

But obviously a multiverse is the latest atheist explanation de-jour - and probably also the last. An infinite improbability machine was always going to be the last resort after anything remotely testable had failed
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I'm confused. Are you saying that they are "atheist theories" merely because they were thought up by people who didn't believe in God or gods? Because, if that is the case, it is an extremely misleading classification.

Also, can you provide support for your claim that they were referred to by their creators as "scientific theories" (not just "theories", as that term has a very different meaning)? Because, I have been looking for a while now, and it seems to be referred to as either a scientific hypothesis or a non-scientific theory. I can't find anywhere that it is referred to as a "scientific theory" apart from lay articles and websites.


As above, they are atheist theories because they were thought up by people who expressly believed in atheism, AND explicitly linked their atheist theory to it's atheist implications- not all that confusing really!



This took about 3 seconds to find
http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

Here are the five most plausible scientific theories suggesting we live in a multiverse:
1. Infinite Universes
2. Bubble Universes
3. Parallel Universes
4. Daughter Universes
5. Mathematical Universes


This is something we DO agree on, 'scientific' has more than one meaning

they are obviously not scientific theories in the sense of the method, no atheist theory of cosmogony ever was.

Only in the sense of academic opinion of 'scientific' institutions, these are so often diametrically opposed.
 
Last edited:

Robert.Evans

You will be assimilated; it is His Will.
Greene has talked about the possibility of our universe being intelligently designed by some alien intelligence (but not God of course!)- but this latest atheism of the gaps argument against God is becoming increasingly pedantic/ semantic.
Haha... that is it isn't it.....ANYTHING but God.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
well OK, static, steady state, big crunch were debunked. Multiverses, M Theory etc are of course inherently beyond the inconvenience of scientific investigation.
Glad we got that cleared up.
Hawking, Greene are principle proponents of multiverse and both atheists. Hawking always insists his theories make God redundant- Greene has talked about the possibility of our universe being intelligently designed by some alien intelligence (but not God of course!)- but this latest atheism of the gaps argument against God is becoming increasingly pedantic/ semantic

The origins of parallel universes goes back beyond recorded history, so looking for a record of their indented implications of it, is about as practical as looking for multiverses themselves.

But obviously a multiverse is the latest atheist explanation de-jour - and probably also the last. An infinite improbability machine was always going to be the last resort after anything remotely testable had failed
These things do not make the multiverse hypothesis atheistic. An explanation being popular with a particular group of people does not make that explanation unique to or owned by that particular group.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
Glad we got that cleared up.

These things do not make the multiverse hypothesis atheistic. An explanation being popular with a particular group of people does not make that explanation unique to or owned by that particular group.

Do you believe in multiverses? that God made them?
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Do you believe in multiverses? that God made them?
I have no particular beliefs in the multiverse. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think there is any evidence for it currently (beyond maybe some math, I think). If it does exist, it certainly remains a possibility that God created it, yes.
 

Guy Threepwood

Mighty Pirate
I have no particular beliefs in the multiverse. It's an interesting idea, but I don't think there is any evidence for it currently (beyond maybe some math, I think). If it does exist, it certainly remains a possibility that God created it, yes.

Hawking, Greene, the principle proponents rationale is that the multiverse is a way to explain our universe without God, because if you created enough random ones, ours would be bound to made eventually-
his words or very close to them.
 

Parsimony

Well-Known Member
Hawking, Greene, the principle proponents rationale is that the multiverse is a way to explain our universe without God, because if you created enough random ones, ours would be bound to made eventually-
his words or very close to them.
Yes, but really that would only provide an explanation for the fine-tuning principle. It wouldn't answer the first cause question.
 
Top