• 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!

Why do atheist believe something can come from nothing?

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The multiverse is not a "supernatural explanation". It's not even an explanation.
It's a prediction that flows naturally from a scientific model.
...

The multiverse says this: The multiverse,[1] also known as an omniverse or meta-universe, is a hypothetical group of multiple universes. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.[2][3][4][5] The different universes within the multiverse are called "parallel universes", "other universes", or "alternate universes".[6][7][8] Wikipedia

But you can't observe other universes, because you can only observe this. Thus other universe if being other are not observable and thus not open to science. It is a contradiction in terms that you can know through observation that there is another universe if you can only observe in this.

Multiverse is metaphysics, because it says what is outside this universe and if it is observable it is inside this universe.
That it flows naturally is weasel words. Say it as it is. It is a mathematical model based on the physics of this universe in heads of some scientists, which yields a model, which can't be tested, because it talks about something not in this universe.

Did you notice this: Hypothetical:
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it. Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

So please explain how you can test something, you can't test. Stop treating theoretical physics as standard science. There are many models in theoretical physics, but they only become actual science if confirmed by observation. The problem with the multiverse is that it is not observable.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
T
A hypothesis is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon. For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

No.

Hypothesis basics
A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
No.

Hypothesis basics
A hypothesis is a suggested solution for an unexplained occurrence that does not fit into current accepted scientific theory. The basic idea of a hypothesis is that there is no pre-determined outcome. For a hypothesis to be termed a scientific hypothesis, it has to be something that can be supported or refuted through carefully crafted experimentation or observation.

What Is a Scientific Hypothesis? | Definition of Hypothesis

In regards to the multiverse, how to you conduct experimentation or observation in another universe? How do you get there?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
In regards to the multiverse, how to you conduct experimentation or observation in another universe? How do you get there?

We couldn't see Pluto, but its existence was postulated based on perturbations of other orbiting bodies. Same principle.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago we couldn't observe anything outside our galaxy. Better tools come along.

Same thing with the atom, first suggested 2300 years ago by a Greek fella. Never saw one until recently.
 

columbus

yawn <ignore> yawn
I already explained this, environmental issues make it hard, yes, some almost completely lost functions, it affects everybody to different degree, it is fixable if one wants to improve self, it may take years or it is easier just to be an atheist.
No you did not explain this. You just made an implausible assertion with no evidence to back it up.
I believe that we humans haven't lost some semi-magical powers. We have gained hugely in terms of education and moral sophistication and scientific knowledge. That's why religiosity is generally in decline in the better educated parts of the world, not losing our ability to perceive the supernatural.
Tom
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
We couldn't see Pluto, but its existence was postulated based on perturbations of other orbiting bodies. Same principle.

Heck, it wasn't that long ago we couldn't observe anything outside our galaxy. Better tools come along.

Same thing with the atom, first suggested 2300 years ago by a Greek fella. Never saw one until recently.

The difference is that Pluto is in this universe. So again how do you get to another universe to conduct experimentation or observation?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The difference is that Pluto is in this universe. So again how do you get to another universe to conduct experimentation or observation?

You PREDICT it based on what is known about the one we live in. The prediction of a multiverse is one outcome of a mathematical model that resolved the singularity problem of the Big Bang, vis moving from a 10 dimensional model to an 11 dimensional model.

For more, see anything by Brian Greene, Brian Greene - Wikipedia or Brian Cox Brian Cox (physicist) - Wikipedia on the subject.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
The multiverse is a mathematical prediction that resulted from observations of the known universe

Yes, but if it can't even in principle be submitted to experimentation or observation, it is nothing but that. It is a theory, which can't turned into science as per experimentation or observation.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
You PREDICT it based on what is known about the one we live in. The prediction of a multiverse is one outcome of a mathematical model that resolved the singularity problem of the Big Bang, vis moving from a 10 dimensional model to an 11 dimensional model.

For more, see anything by Brian Greene, Brian Greene - Wikipedia or Brian Cox Brian Cox (physicist) - Wikipedia on the subject.

Words and math mean nothing, if you can't use experimentation or observation.
All defintions of natural science, not math and logic, I have read requires experimentation or observation. The prediction has to be submitted to experimentation or observation of it to be natural science, otherwise it stay as untested, since there is no experimentation or observation.
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Yes, but if it can't even in principle be submitted to experimentation or observation, it is nothing but that. It is a theory, which can't turned into science as per experimentation or observation.

It is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. The distinction needs to be made as the term 'theory' in scientific parlance is different than in common parlance.

No one is touting the multiverse as a fact except some who, for whatever reason, wish to mischaracterize science.

Often we just lack the tools for observation. This does not mean we always will, as I tried to point out with the atom example.

Maybe work on quantum entanglement will provide a method or tool to falsify a multiverse.
 

mikkel_the_dane

My own religion
It is a HYPOTHESIS, not a theory. The distinction needs to be made as the term 'theory' in scientific parlance is different than in common parlance.

No one is touting the multiverse as a fact except some who, for whatever reason, wish to mischaracterize science.

Often we just lack the tools for observation. This does not mean we always will, as I tried to point out with the atom example.

Maybe work on quantum entanglement will provide a method or tool to falsify a multiverse.

Okay, I will play along. We get a result from an experimentation(instruments) which confirms the prediction. How do we know, is from another universe, since we are doing it in this?
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
Okay, I will play along. We get a result from an experimentation(instruments) which confirms the prediction. How do we know, is from another universe, since we are doing it in this?

If multiverses are just universes separated by distance (so vast that their light hasn't reached us yet) they may operate under the same laws of physics that ours does. Maybe it's just a matter of time. Their light may some day be visible.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
If multiverses are just universes separated by distance (so vast that their light hasn't reached us yet) they may operate under the same laws of physics that ours does. Maybe it's just a matter of time. Their light may some day be visible.

The expansion of the universe appears to be a real thing. If that is the case the light from distant stars even in our own universe may never reach us. The expansion of space is an expansion everywhere. For a given constant rate of expansion one can calculate a distance where the rate of expansion is faster than the speed of light between two stars. What that means is that the light from one will never get to another.:

Cosmological horizon - Wikipedia
 

Wandering Monk

Well-Known Member
The expansion of the universe appears to be a real thing. If that is the case the light from distant stars even in our own universe may never reach us. The expansion of space is an expansion everywhere. For a given constant rate of expansion one can calculate a distance where the rate of expansion is faster than the speed of light between two stars. What that means is that the light from one will never get to another.:

Cosmological horizon - Wikipedia

Quantum entanglement and the speed of light?
 

It Aint Necessarily So

Veteran Member
Premium Member
God seldom communicate in literal ways, every person may have different take.

Yes, and that was the evidence that people claiming to see a god are not. Remember the the red and green socks? It was the uniformity of the responses that revealed that the socks appeared red or green to people with normal color vision. If every person had a different take, as you worded it, he would know that the respondents weren't seeing what they claimed to see. That's how I know that people claiming to experience an objectively existing god are only experiencing their own minds, mistaking part of it for a god, and projecting that god onto external reality.

How would you know what I got?

From your posting. It reveals more about you than you seem to know. Also, many here understand the limits of human understanding. No human being alive can justifiably claim to know that gods do or do not exist, including you. The fact that you are unaware of this is irrelevant.

I have an issue atheists stating that my experiences are just belief, how would they know.

Because you can't support your claims.

the last several hundred years, I'd say starting beginning of industrial era, atheism increased. I partially attribute it to industrial pollutions that kill perception functions.

Skeptics reject unsupported claims. There's a good reason for that. Wrong ideas are useless or worse.

it is fixable if one wants to improve self, it may take years or it is easier just to be an atheist.

Atheism requires intelligence and courage. What is easy is to accept the first holy book thrown into your playpen, and just believe that.

To the believer, the secular humanist says rise from your knees, cease groveling and calling yourself an unworthy worm in the eyes of an angry god, shed your magical thinking, and stand up with pride like the bipedal ape you were born to be and take your proper place in the cosmos..

Shed the comforting but disabling swaddling of religious belief, and look out into the universe, which may be almost empty, and which may contain no gods at all.

That may be terrifying to the person who has never tried it, but if you're still young and adaptable enough, the existential crisis will pass, and a new and enabling sense of self and ones place in the scheme of things will emerge.

Face and accept the very real possibility that we may be all there is for light years, and that things don't get better if we don't make them better.

Accept that you may be vulnerable and not watched over.

Accept the likelihood of your own mortality and finititude.

Accept the reality of your insignificance everywhere but earth, and that you might be unloved except by some of those around you.

Because as far as we know, that's how it is.

Lack of God or anything spiritual, materialism. That what was said to me since I was born.

In my opinion, authentic spirituality is a combination of a sense of mystery, awe, gratitude, and connection. It has nothing to do with ghosts, spirits, gods, angels, spiritualists, Ouija boards, or seances. Christianity detaches one from the world. It teaches that matter is base, our bodies vile flesh entrapping a pure soul, mankind is a failed and sin-infected species, that the world is a place to separate yourself from, and to divert your attention and your respect from our common and only known world to an imagined god and heaven - like somebody waiting at a celestial bus stop for life to end and to be whisked away to somewhere better. Even your mind is your enemy - don't listen to it, it's really Satan trying to harm you.

Now you tell me what is spiritual about that? Could you psychologically wrench a person out of reality any more than that? Death to connectivity to reality.

This is from an anonymous Internet source describing authentic spirituality:

"When I looked at the galaxy that night, I knew the faintest twinkle of starlight was a real connection between my comprehending eye along a narrow beam of light to the surface of another sun. The photons my eyes detect (the light I see, the energy with which my nerves interact) came from that star. I thought I could never touch it, yet something from it crosses the void and touches me. I might never have known. My eyes saw only a tiny point of light, but my mind saw so much more.

"If God exists, God made this [photo of a galaxy]. Look at it. Face it. Accept it. Adjust to it, because this is ... how God works. God would probably want you to look at it. To learn about it. To try to understand it. But if you can’t look — if you won’t even try to understand — what does that say about your religion?"

[snip]

"To even partially comprehend the scale of a single galaxy is to almost disappear. And when you remember all the other galaxies, you shrink 100 billion times smaller still. But then you remember what you are. The same facts that made you feel so insignificant also tell you how you got here. It’s like you become more real, or maybe the universe becomes more real. You suddenly fit. You suddenly belong. You do not have to bow down. You do not have to look away. In such moments, all you have to do is remember to keep breathing."

[snip]

"The body of a newborn baby is as old as the cosmos. The form is new and unique, but the materials are 13.7 billion years old, processed by nuclear fusion in stars, fashioned by electromagnetism. Cold words for amazing processes. And that baby was you. Is you. You’re amazing. Not only alive, but with a mind ... When I compare what scientific knowledge has done for me and what religion tried to do to me, I sometimes literally shiver."

See. This man is connected to his world, and it thrills him. No spirits involved in spirituality.

But it is default position, so, one needs dance around it, just because 7 out of 100 say that default position is not right does not put those 7 in a position to ask for a proof.


You have no evidence for your religious beliefs. The default position is to not accept them. If the default position was to believe, you'd have to believe everything ever told you.
 
Last edited:

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
T
But you can't observe other universes, because you can only observe this

You continue to repeat this "objection", which is something I have acknowledged in post 1 on the subject.

Thus other universe if being other are not observable and thus not open to science. It is a contradiction in terms that you can know through observation that there is another universe if you can only observe in this.

Nobody said anything about "knowing" the multiverse is real.

Seriously, do an effort in dealing with the actual points being made.

Multiverse is metaphysics

But the model that naturally predicts it by implication, is not metaphysics.
It is a proper and valid scientific model, which just so happens to have implications that turn out to be about "beyond" our universe (and by extension, our grasp, which - again - I have awknowledged in post 1 on the subject).

That it flows naturally is weasel words

It's not. You can't just ignore the predictions of scientific models.
Just like Einstein couldn't just ignore black holes. His theory predicted black holes. It was just another one of the implications. Einstein thought it was absurd, so he assumed his theory must have been wrong.

Because, once again, if it's right : then black holes have to exist - it's unavoidable.
That's what it means when a scientific model predicts things by implication... As said previously, it's like a logic argument... if the premises (= the theory) are true, and the logic is sound, then the conclusion (=the prediction) necessarily follows.

So, no.... that something is a scientific prediction and not just some claim dreamed up by somebody out of thin air, is very very meaningfull and the very opposite of "weasel words".


Say it as it is. It is a mathematical model based on the physics of this universe in heads of some scientists, which yields a model, which can't be tested, because it talks about something not in this universe.

No. The multiverse is not a hypothesis.
Inflation theory is the hypothesis. The multiverse is a prediction of that hypothesis.

Cosmic Inflation’s Five Great Predictions - Starts With A Bang! - Medium
Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

So please explain how you can test something, you can't test. Stop treating theoretical physics as standard science. There are many models in theoretical physics, but they only become actual science if confirmed by observation. The problem with the multiverse is that it is not observable.

The problem with you is that you seem to simply refuse to comprehend that the multiverse I'm talking about, is a prediction from a scientific model. Not a hypothesis by itself. Inflation theory is the hypothesis.


At this point, it seems you're just arguing strawmen without caring that they are strawmen.
 

TagliatelliMonster

Veteran Member
In regards to the multiverse, how to you conduct experimentation or observation in another universe? How do you get there?

You can't test the prediction of a multiverse. Not with our present technology anyway, and likely with no future technology either.

As has been stated from post 1 on this subject.
The multiverse isn't the claim.
Inflation theory is the claim. There's more ways to test inflation theory then just this one prediction of a multiverse.
 
Top