Sunday, June 12, 2011

Is the multiverse the atheist’s supernatural realm? - Albuquerque Christian Apologetics | Examiner.com

Mariano has written a great article about the Multiverse theory. He points out how the multiverse is based on the same kind of blind faith atheists erroneously accuse Christians of harboring. It works for science fiction like DC & Marvel Comics, Star Trek, The One (Jet Li's movie), and several other fictional stories. However not so much for real science. Take a look at his article.

Is the multiverse the atheist’s supernatural realm? - Albuquerque Christian Apologetics | Examiner.com
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
at

20 comments:

  1. AnonymousJune 12, 2011 at 5:40 AM

    Marino makes the mistake of assuming that the atheist's "faith" in the multiverse is analogous to the christians "faith that leads to certainty" in the existence of the supernatural.

    I don't know anyone who's certain of it's existance, and more importantly, claims to know anything about it's properties, assuming it does exist.

    With that said, there is some recent evidence for it's existence, see this and this, which shows Marino's 1st point to be flat out wrong, which then, amusingly, completely invalidates the rest of his points 2-9.

    ReplyDelete
  2. mmcelhaneyJune 12, 2011 at 9:59 PM

    Now that is funny!!! Which is it? Does the multiverse exist or does it? Make up your mind. You sound conflicted.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnonymousJune 13, 2011 at 3:16 AM

    Now that is funny!!! Which is it? Does the multiverse exist or does it?

    You illustrates my point perfectly. I have no idea if it exists or not. There is some evidence which suggests it does. But, as always you appear to not know what the words "evidence" and "prove" or "proof" actually mean.

    ReplyDelete
  4. mmcelhaneyJune 13, 2011 at 9:41 AM

    who said anything about "proof" of the existence of multiple universes? There is a far from a consensus. I'm saying you are speaking out bout sides of your mouth in hopes that in all your handwaving you can ignore the things Mariano wrote. It doesn't work. The soon you admit that the sooner Jesus can help you.

    ReplyDelete
  5. AnonymousJune 13, 2011 at 3:16 PM

    Well, the reason we can ignore what Mariano wrote in this case is that there is some evidence for the multiverse, and that means that the statement "the multiverse is [.] Unobserved /un-evidenced" is wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  6. mmcelhaneyJune 13, 2011 at 4:14 PM

    So U accept that unknown "structures" tugging on our universe may be other universes? Is the really the same thing as observed evidence? If it is then why do you dismiss prayer? Easy. You believe what you want to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  7. AnonymousJune 13, 2011 at 4:21 PM

    Sure, it's possible, it's also possible that some other phenomenon is causing that. And you just illustrated again that you don't know what "evidence" actually means.

    I would bet Matt Flannigan has covered "Evidence". You should see...

    ReplyDelete
  8. mmcelhaneyJune 14, 2011 at 10:39 PM

    You said that it was evidence of multiple universes and it's far too early to make that assumption. IF it isn't because of multiple universe then you can't say that multiple universes have been observed. It would have been more correct to say that you have evidence that you believe is explained by the existence of multiple universes because now you are back pedaling and punting to the possibility.

    Seems like you are the one confused about what "evidence" means.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AnonymousJune 16, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    It would have been more correct to say that you have evidence that you believe is explained by the existence of multiple universes...

    Sweet dumb Marcus, I think I've finally come to the conclusion you are just not worth interacting with anymore, but thank you for all the great material. But yes, this would be indirect evidence, which is, of course... evidence. And this would be evidence that's been observed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. mmcelhaneyJune 16, 2011 at 6:44 PM

    "indirect"? Personally, I hope you keep commenting. IT just makes my job easier the more silly your comments become. Poor backpedal by the way. There are other plausible explanations for the indirect evidence you have cited other than the possibility of multiple universes. Jury is not even out yet.

    ReplyDelete
  11. AnonymousJune 17, 2011 at 3:17 AM

    In any case, the statement "the multiverse is [.] Unobserved /un-evidenced" is wrong and I still don't think you understand what evidence is.

    ReplyDelete
  12. mmcelhaneyJune 17, 2011 at 9:12 AM

    You still have to show that the perturbations were caused by an adjacent universe. If you can't (and you haven't) then you have to admit that the observations could be caused by something else.

    That's how science works.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJune 17, 2011 at 3:58 PM

    That's how science works

    No, it's not. That's how your flawed epistemology works. In science, hypotheses are tested by gathering evidence and doing experiments, making observations, collecting data, adjusting the hypothese, etc... It's good you've stopped referring to yourself as a "scientist". That was really funny though.

    But either way, we aren't talking about whether or not m-theory is true, we're talking about whether or not it's evidenced. And it is.

    I'm dumber for having interacted with you. Enough (I'm aware this comment opens you up for one of your classic nanny-nanny-boo-boo type retorts, knock yourself out, but it's absolutely true).

    ReplyDelete
  14. mmcelhaneyJune 17, 2011 at 5:55 PM

    I agree you are dumber because you refuse to listen. The bottom line is that indirect evidence does not equal a fact. Conclude what you want but you can't show that it is another universe causing the effect. Feel free to assert what you want by blind faith

    ReplyDelete
  15. AnonymousJune 18, 2011 at 2:51 AM

    Conclude what you want but you can't show that it is another universe causing the effect.

    Like I'd said originally, and what you comically seem unable to grasp, I'm agnostic about m-theory. What I'm not agnostic about what how wrong Mariano's comment was.

    ReplyDelete
  16. mmcelhaneyJune 18, 2011 at 3:13 AM

    So you don't know if M Theory is evidence that there are multiple universes but you are sure that multiple universes have been observed. Yup, that makes sense as evidence of blind dumb faith

    ReplyDelete
  17. AnonymousJune 18, 2011 at 11:05 AM

    I'm sure evidence that supports m-theory has been observed, moron.

    ReplyDelete
  18. mmcelhaneyJune 18, 2011 at 12:00 PM

    I never said that evidence supporting M Theory has been observed. What I've been saying is that evidence does not necessarily equate to observing multiple universes. You've got to know that is what Mariano was saying. You seem to have a vested interest in proving the existence of multiple universes. I don't. If there is more than one universe, there is no reason to conclude that God did not create all of them too

    ReplyDelete
  19. AnonymousJune 18, 2011 at 1:48 PM

    You seem to have a vested interest in proving the existence of multiple universes.

    Nope.

    You can spin Marino's comments however you like.

    ReplyDelete
  20. mmcelhaneyJune 18, 2011 at 5:26 PM

    No need you are doing a great job of that.

    ReplyDelete