New Evidence for Multiverse from Planck Scientist

[Astreja]

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency.

You say "natural pride and self-sufficiency" as if they're bad things.  They are highly positive, and much more useful than religion.

When a human spirit humbly accepts God’s righteous condemnation of sin by awaking to its depravity then contrition will lead one to God’s plan of redemption by Christ Jesus.

I reject that redemption unconditionally.  I do not consent to anyone being sacrificed in my place for any reason whatsoever.  This is not negotiable.  If your alleged god can't tolerate me just the way I am, it can bite me.

What many don’t realize is that God doesn’t possess unlimited power (albeit, immense) since his nature won’t allow sin —- God can’t sin, can’t accept sin, and most importantly can’t overlook sin. When people agree with God on the sin question and accept his remedy, then they are declared righteous for eternity; otherwise, they declare that sin is alright by God which blasphemy, the eternal sin which is not forgivable.

That is laughable.  You haven't even demonstrated that your god is anything more than a fictional being, so you are committing an existential fallacy by ascribing traits to it.

As for the unforgivable sin -- I see no functional difference between your god (including the holy spooky thing) and its nemesis Satan.  As far as I can see, Satan is the lesser of the two evils because he only killed Job's children, whereas Yahweh wiped out virtually every living thing on the planet.  Unworthy of worship.  Unworthy of respect.  Rejected.

[Anomalocaris]

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency.

Wrong.  Reason for people to say there is no god is because they don't take Bullshit.

When a human spirit humbly accepts God’s righteous condemnation of sin by awaking to its depravity then contrition will lead one to God’s plan of redemption by Christ Jesus..

Wrong.  
1.  A human who accepts bullshit because he does not accept a world with facts and without infantile imaginary security blanket has no spirit.  Hence "a human spirit humbly accepts God" is a contradiction in terms.
2.  There is nothing righteous about bullshit.
3.  Bullshit can not redeem even if there is anything to redeem.
4.  Accusing soneone else of "depravity" in order to advance the cause of bullshit is the Supreme depravity and the only depravity here.

What many don’t realize is that God doesn’t possess unlimited power (albeit, immense) since his nature won’t allow sin —- God can’t sin, can’t accept sin, and most importantly can’t overlook sin.

God can't anything, so it is no credit to him if he can't sin or overlook sin.  Too bad he can't not sin nor not overlook sin either.

When people agree with God on the sin question and accept his remedy, then they are declared righteous for eternity; otherwise, they declare that sin is alright by God which blasphemy, the eternal sin which is not forgivable.

When people agree with God they agree with nothing.

When they use the fictional agreement with tge nonexistent god to browbeat others, then they are unforgivable.   There is no hell, but we humans certainly are up to the challenge of creating one suitable for this kind of unforgivable.

[AFTT47]

Snowtracks, I see no credible evidence for your god and have no belief in it.  As such, it's absurd to consider it a player in one's alleged "eternal destiny."

Based on what I know and believe about life, the universe and everything, I am strongly of the opinion that my current self terminates forever at the  moment of physical death, with no aspect of my personality surviving.  My destiny, as I see it, is simply for the atoms of my body to be recycled into various other things that may or may not possess sentience.  I have no need of your mythology, and the chances of me accepting this alleged "redemption" are effectively zero.

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency. When a human spirit humbly accepts God’s righteous condemnation of sin by awaking to its depravity then contrition will lead one to God’s plan of redemption by Christ Jesus.
What many don’t realize is that God doesn’t possess unlimited power (albeit, immense) since his nature won’t allow sin —- God can’t sin, can’t accept sin, and most importantly can’t overlook sin. When people agree with God on the sin question and accept his remedy, then they are declared righteous for eternity; otherwise, they declare that sin is alright by God which blasphemy, the eternal sin which is not forgivable.

Wow! Such knowledge about the Creator of the Universe! It sounds like you are the one with the "natural pride" issue.

How do you get off thinking that you know these things? There are several major world religions, each with hundreds or thousands of variant offshoots. But you have the goods. Wow, you're heroic!

[bennyboy]

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency. When a human spirit humbly accepts God’s righteous condemnation of sin by awaking to its depravity then contrition will lead one to God’s plan of redemption by Christ Jesus.
What many don’t realize is that God doesn’t possess unlimited power (albeit, immense) since his nature won’t allow sin —- God can’t sin, can’t accept sin, and most importantly can’t overlook sin. When people agree with God on the sin question and accept his remedy, then they are declared righteous for eternity; otherwise, they declare that sin is alright by God which blasphemy, the eternal sin which is not forgivable.

Have you "humbly accepted" Woden's guidance? How about that of Zeus?

[cosmology]

Its often said by theists when debating the fine tuning argument , there is no evidence for a multiverse. ...
OP, please read the rules.[/mod]

[Nay_Sayer]

Its often said by theists when debating the fine tuning argument , there is no evidence for a multiverse. ...
OP, please read the rules.[/mod]

The same folks that lied under oath, FSM however mightily smited them.

[Agnosty]

Its often said by theists when debating the fine tuning argument , there is no evidence for a multiverse. 

I have used the fine-tuning argument before, but now I see it as evidence for an evolutionary process... in a sense like a multiverse.  That is because we use algorithmic learning which mimics evolutionary biology to arrive at solutions which seem far too complex to be solved in a straightforward manner (which would imply supernatural intelligence).

I am strongly of the opinion that my current self terminates forever at the  moment of physical death, with no aspect of my personality surviving. 

I hope you don't mind my asking, but I'm curious... Do you see yourself as a flash of consciousness between two eternal darknesses?  If so, then how do you see yourself really existing at all?

Similar pondering must have prompted Nietzsche's "eternal return" argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_...nal_return

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

How do you reconcile this in your belief?  Have we had this conversation infinite numbers of times previously and are destined to discuss it infinitely more?  Not only that, but in every possible form also for an infinite number of times?

If causality is not infinite, then it must have a beginning and therefore causeless, which doesn't make any sense.  How do we escape the ridiculous?

St. Augustine is no help; merely calling upon god for “the ridiculousness of the Logos dying on the cross like an acrobat in an interminable sequence of performances.”  In other words, god wouldn't care for the idea that christ would need to be sacrificed an infinite number of times; therefore, it's false.  He had the advantage of assuming a creator, but how are atheists to handle this proposition?

The reason for people to SAY there is no God is because of natural pride and self-sufficiency.

Yes, but isn't it also pride to chose eternal life?  "Nothing can be more egotistical than true repentance." - Alan Watts.

Ephesians 2:9 Not of works; lest any man should boast.

If there is nothing you can do to be saved, then is "choosing" something you do?  If you choose correctly, then you can brag about it, so Ep 2:9 comes into play and it appears that, yes, choosing is a work.  How can anyone, therefore, be saved?

Paul states clearly that it's a gift and there is no bragging about something you had nothing to do with.  You could not have made a choice to receive that gift because then you'd feel entitled to drag your large ego through the Gates while shoving St Peter aside in haste.  "Make way!  I made the right choices and therefore I deserve to enter."  Jesus even tells of such occurrence Matt 7:22...

22 Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?  23 And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Paul says, "...work out your own salvation with fear and trembling."  That's as opposed to "proudly proclaiming".

You may consider whether you've realized the true meaning of faith and humility.  Faith isn't clinging to religion and religion and humility are antipodal.

If the atheist community is searching for a reason to push against religion, they may add to the toolbox the assertion that religion defeats its own purpose and may subject its adherents to the very destruction they're fleeing.

[GrandizerII]

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

What's your logical argument in defense of that?

How do you reconcile this in your belief?  Have we had this conversation infinite numbers of times previously and are destined to discuss it infinitely more?  Not only that, but in every possible form also for an infinite number of times?

Well, even if we're positing a multiverse here, it can be argued that you are only you here in this local universe. You are not the other ones in the other universes that look exactly just like you and have gone through identical experiences as you up till now.

If causality is not infinite, then it must have a beginning and therefore causeless, which doesn't make any sense.  How do we escape the ridiculous?

Loaded question is loaded. Truths that are incredibly hard to believe because they defy intuition are not meant to be escaped, but rather accepted as truths regardless.

That said, under certain views such as eternalism, causality may just be an illusion. At the metaphysical level, no change is really happening. All connections that are perceived as causal are really connections in the same way movie frames are connected to one another in a movie roll or in the same way USA is connected to Canada.

[Agnosty]

If something happens by chance in an infinite chain of causality, it must happen infinite times.  Anything that happens by chance, cannot happen only once.

What's your logical argument in defense of that?

I posted the link originally that contain Nietzsche's line of thinking.  The only opposing argument has been invalidated by the fact that such an apparatus could not exist with the precision necessary in order to avoid the inevitable consequence of eternal return.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_re...g_argument

This is an interesting read, as well, which explains the logic involved: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

How do you reconcile this in your belief?  Have we had this conversation infinite numbers of times previously and are destined to discuss it infinitely more?  Not only that, but in every possible form also for an infinite number of times?

Well, even if we're positing a multiverse here, it can be argued that you are only you here in this local universe. You are not the other ones in the other universes that look exactly just like you and have gone through identical experiences as you up till now.

Are you saying that even if I come back with the same dna and have all the same environmental influences in exactly the same way, that it's still possible that I won't be me?  I suppose that answers the teleportation question whether Spock is still Spock after being reassembled lol.

Well, to that I would have to wonder what it is, then, that exactly makes ME.  If not my atomic makeup and environment, then what?

If causality is not infinite, then it must have a beginning and therefore causeless, which doesn't make any sense.  How do we escape the ridiculous?

Loaded question is loaded. Truths that are incredibly hard to believe because they defy intuition are not meant to be escaped, but rather accepted as truths regardless.

That said, under certain views such as eternalism, causality may just be an illusion. At the metaphysical level, no change is really happening. All connections that are perceived as causal are really connections in the same way movie frames are connected to one another in a movie roll or in the same way USA is connected to Canada.

I agree that causality is an illusion; just didn't want to let the cat out of the bag yet.  Kudos!

So if causality doesn't exist, then where did the universe come from and what's our relationship to it?

[GrandizerII]

What's your logical argument in defense of that?

I posted the link originally that contain Nietzsche's line of thinking.  The only opposing argument has been invalidated by the fact that such an apparatus could not exist with the precision necessary in order to avoid the inevitable consequence of eternal return.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_re...g_argument

This is an interesting read, as well, which explains the logic involved: http://theorangeduck.com/page/infinity-doesnt-exist

My bad. I unintentionally took your quote out of context then. I'll check the links soon. Just want to respond to the next points first.

Are you saying that even if I come back with the same dna and have all the same environmental influences in exactly the same way, that it's still possible that I won't be me?  I suppose that answers the teleportation question whether Spock is still Spock after being reassembled lol.

Who comes back again? You're already presuming it's you "coming back" instead of "someone else" coming into existence with the same DNA you had.

Well, to that I would have to wonder what it is, then, that exactly makes ME.  If not my atomic makeup and environment, then what?

That's what got Tim Urban from Wait But Why site all confused. Search for Wait But Why and the article about the self. That was one of the best reads I've ever enjoyed on the concept.

Personally, I think the self is an illusion as well, at the end of the day. But this is fun to think about nevertheless.

I agree that causality is an illusion; just didn't want to let the cat out of the bag yet.  Kudos!

So if causality doesn't exist, then where did the universe come from and what's our relationship to it?

What you're referring to "universe", I like to call "cosmos" to avoid equivocation with local universe.

In my current view (subject to change in light of better logic and/or confronting evidence), the cosmos has always been ("frozen" reality). And we are each (with our infinite time instances) part of various frozen "time moments" that comprise this frozen reality. We're not beyond the cosmos; we're confined to it.