neutron_star6 - I believe - albeit not religiously.<br /><br />Universe implies only one. However, in the Bible "heaven" is usually plural. 1 Kings 8:27 speaks of a "heaven of the heavens." One interpretation would substitute our universe for our singular heaven among many other heavens or universes within a much larger heaven of the heavens - a much larger universe.<br /><br />Also, even without Biblical teaching, one would expect scientifically that whatever caused the effect known as our universe may not have been the only such cause and effect event in primordial time.<br /><br />This is logical since how could our universe's space time be caused without time? Isn't time required for cause and effect?<br /><br />Call this primordial time.<br /><br />Now, this primordial time would operate where before our universe was caused to exist? <br /><br />To me to assume our universe is the only universe is no more valid than assuming our solar system is the only solar system!<br /><br />Getting back to the Bible, it should be noted that the word "universe" is not found in the Bible, and no statement implying there is only one heaven is found there - quite the contrary.<br /><br />See my Biblical astronomy threads. <br /><br />Knowledge of other universes is not ascertainable from man-made scientific sources.
Newtonian, Its interesting that you use the Bible to support the contention that there are multiple universes. I see multiple (infinite) universes as a necessity to avoid resorting to a creator as an explanation for the perfection of our universe as a place for life to occur. If there are an infinite number of universes, its not surprising that one (or many) of them is suited for life. If there is only one (or a few) universes, the explanation for our universe's suitability for life becomes much more difficult. Unless you resort to the supernatural. <br /><br />I do have a problem with the many worlds, quantum mechanical, multiverse theory -- where every quantum event spawns a new universe. That, I just don't get. It's too mind boggling. I can better visualize the fractal universe model of Andre Linde where a process is at work which continually creates new universes -- but not, I think, a new universe tied to every single quantum event. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<i>"I think the creator god theory is more likely to be true."</i> -- kraken<br /><br />So, do you think this Creator made multiple (or infinite) universes, or only one? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">"NOT !!"</font><br /><br />Do you believe that multiverses do NOT exist, or that there is no way of knowing? If the former, you are making as much of an untestable assumption as those who believe they DO exist. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
I think you're right when you say it's all THEORETICAL physics for the forseeable future. Some may even say the question is relegated to the realm of phillosophy. In any case, any experimental proof to boost the mulit vs. uni-verse case is probably a ways off. So anyone stating their belief in a UNIverse has no more factual basis for this belief than someone stating their belief in a MULTI-verse. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
<font color="yellow">"Probably one, maybe multiple, almost certainly not infinite."</font><br /><br />Believing in a Creator offers no help in determining if there are one, multiple, or infinite universes... unless the Creator tells someone. An omnipotent Creator could create infinite universes if He wanted. Do you have a reason for believing He did not?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
Kraken - I basically agree with you.<br /><br />You all - yes, there is some factual basis - although the lines of argument are long - with many links - the evidence is only as strong as the weakest link in the line of reasoning. I will post that later - it is complex. It is NOT philosophy.<br /><br />The most obvious reason is what I already posted. Our universe had a beginning by cause and effect. However, cause and effect cannot proceed without time.<br /><br />Or universe's space-time began at the big bang - therefore the cause of our universe cannot have proceeded to cause our universe during space-time since space-time did not yet exist.<br /><br />The cause must have proceeded during primordial time. <br /><br />For primordial time to have existed there would have to have been another universe or location(s) where primordial time existed.
centsworth_II - Did you miss my earlier post?<br /><br />Yes, the Creator, Jehovah, does tell us he made at least one other universe, where He resides. I will quote the verses later.<br /><br />Note 1 Kings 8:27 which I quoted above. God cannot be contained in our universe - if fact, He cannot be contained in the "Heaven of the heavens," which phrase can be interpreted to mean that there are many universes, including our own, within a much larger universe- still not large enough to contain God.l<br /><br />NOTE: Jehovah, YHWH = JHVH, the Divine Name in Hebrew, is defined: "He causes to be;" therefore, it is linked to the observed scientific principle of cause and effect. The derivation is from the Hebrew word "to be" in a causative sense. Compare the definition Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh in Exodus 3:14 and note the application in the context that Jehovah causes his promises (e.g. the promised land) to be fulfilled.<br /><br />Frankly, to believe there is no other universe would lead to belief that our universe came from nothing - which is a totally unscientific belief - contrary to both observation and to the laws of physics- for example: the law of conservation of matter and energy.
centsworth_II - on your first post on this thread:<br /><br />It was not a contention - i.e. I try not to be contentious.<br /><br />You believe our universe is perfect?<br /><br />Perfect for what purpose?<br /><br />For example, so you understand my question: <br /><br />A perfect toaster will not help you log on to the internet or get PBS on TV to watch Nova, Origins. <br /><br />A perfect TV will not make you good toast.<br /><br />Again - our universe is perfect for what purpose?<br /><br />I would agree that it is amazingly fine tuned for the existence of stars and planets, and that our earth is amazingly fine tuned for the existence of human life, as well as other life forms which may or may not require the same degree of fine tuning.<br /><br />On infinite universes, please define the following two words:<br /><br />Infinite:____________________<br /><br />Universes:_________________________<br /><br />For example, I believe there are a finite number of universes at this time. However, I consider it likely God will continue to create more universes during time - His time.<br /><br />Get the point? I.e. - finite at a given point in time like the present; infinite in future time given infinite future time.<br /><br />Of course, some universes could either go out of existence or merge with other universes - which will skew the counting system.<br /><br />In other words, is the infinity you are referring to time-dependent or independent of time?<br />You also seem to espouse the belief that an infinite number of universes makes all things possible including our own fine-tuned universe.<br /><br />I disagree.<br /><br />For many reasons. For one reason, that would mean your posts could have come about by chance since they are a possible arrangement of matter and energy- given an infinite number of universes.<br /><br />I disagree with that and put this question to you:<br /><br />Could your posts have come about by chance?<br /><br />I state my belief: your posts were made by intelligent design an
centsworth_II - Still on your first post.<br /><br />Is God supernatural? How do you define supernatural?<br /><br />I believe God created the laws of nature, e.g. the laws of physics. I also believe God obeys the laws he created.<br /><br />Therefore, creation was according to the natural laws and properties He created first and incorporated into the so-called big bang.<br /><br />How do you propose the laws and properties of our universe came to exist. E.g.: why does e=mc^2?<br /><br />To me it is scientifically logical to believe that laws require a law-giver or law-maker.<br /><br />Concerning Andre Linde's theory for the origin of our and other universes - I like it better than the universe came from nothing belief - at least it has some scientific basis.<br /><br />However, where did those 'scaler fields' come from?<br /><br />A universe for every quantum event? That's why I wanted you to define: Universe. But I do agree with you.
eburacum45 - Thank you for the link. I'll start with level 1 which is purported to be uncontroversial - I disagree.<br /><br />I do not agree with the link, case Level 1, that the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation) points to flat infinite space.<br /><br />I tend to agree with flat, sort of - certainly not the balloon model.<br /><br />I prefer the Biblical model of a stretching fine gauze:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) . . .There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell. . .<br /><br />Biblical writers and readers would have considered a gauze to be finite, not infinite.<br /><br />The problem with infinite space is density. For there to be density in infinite space there would have to be infinite matter and energy. Most models of the big bang have the size of our universe at the big bang as finite, and have a specific decreasing density thereafter - hence a finite universe.<br /><br />In fact, astronomical observations confirm our universe has threads and filaments - remarkably confirming the Biblical model of a stretching fine gauze (literal translation) universe.<br /><br />The links level 1 model also assumes ergodic matter distribution. Dictionary.com notes:<br /><br />Ergodic: positive recurrent aperiodic state of stochastic systems; tending in probability to a limiting form that is independent of the initial conditions.<br /><br />I see no reason to believe that the present condition of our universe is independent of the initial conditions at the big bang - sounds totally illogical to me.<br /><br />In fact, other Scientific American articles point to the Cosmic Symphony orchestrated at the big bang and which has awesome harmonious overtones which naturally led to the awesome and beautiful structures in our universe.<br /><br />Note that Scientific American publishes articles from many scientists wh