Would Multiple Universes Undermine God? | Episode 608 | Closer To Truth

[@ashley_brown6106]

I think that the idea that God has been creating multiple universes not only simutaneously to creating ours, but also for the whole of eternity BEFORE He created our universe, is one of the most mind boggling thoughts that only glorify God all the most. The more universes God created and will create, the better His magnificence and glory is revealed!

[@leopalce311]

The Manifold wisdom of God!!

[@niranjansaikia9379]

I am streaming with you Robbert.. in this journey of closer to truth..thanks a lot ..

[@dannymartin4686]

Robert implores people to think for themselves. Be an independent thinker. Don’t become sheep. And for that, we should thank him.

[@roblovestar9159]

I love how apologist Collins claims that the multi-verse just shows god's infinite creativity (and, it must be noted, inefficiency). But so much for us being central to god's design; not only not central in this universe, but absent in almost all others.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

How do you know life is "absent in all others?" In fact, there may be an infinite set of life-sustaining universes along with an infinite set of non-life sustaining universes. The infinite sets may be equal or there may be even more life-sustaining universes than there are non-life universes. Are you making the assumption that there is only one life-sustaining universe out of all universes? Of course, no one has ever proven (nor is it clear how one could prove) that there are multiple universes so we are simply making that assumption as well.

[@ingenuity168]

Theists are adjusting their ideas of God to newer and newer facts about the universe discovered by scientists. They are hijackers of facts.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

@@ingenuity168 There are no facts about infinite universes. Science relies on facts and evidence. Theories must be proven before they are considered to be "facts". As I said there is no proof of these universes. One could say that scientists are getting desperate to come up with an unprovable theory to argue against how fine-tuning may not be true. (I am not saying that, but just pointing out that it could be said.)

[@joshheter1517]

“Apologist Collins” has two PhDs... one in physics and one in philosophy (both from top-rated programs) along with dozens of peer-reviews publications... I’m sure his CV isn’t as impressive as Rob’s, but that has to count for something.

[@TheTruthseeker1231]

@@joshheter1517 Wow! 2 PhDs. I am awed by such intelligence.

[@wilbback8589]

WE are not insignificant! WE are the GODS! The most GIFTED!!!

[@Darth69906]

Robin Collins point was beyond nonsense, the length theists will go to fit the latest scientific knowledge into their beliefs is beyond belief

[@joshheter1517]

Jason Geddes KZbin commenters was beyond nonsense, the lengths atheists will go to ignore the latest scientific knowledge to maintain their skepticism is beyond belief. See how easy that is?

[@nedmoore3697]

Meanwhile, the “magic” hypothesis of unprovable, untestable and unknowable infinite universes along with infinite possibilities makes everything, literally, possible, according to atheists - except for the existence of God. Hmmm. How....convenient

[@ingenuity168]

I agree. Theists are full of bull.

[@nedmoore3697]

@Evan Burns Please show me these “multiverses”. In fact just a few hundred will do. The mechanism that generates all those highly varied universes...also created itself? Eh? Please describe how that works. Don’t forget to provide evidence / proof.

[@joshheter1517]

@Evan Burns “Please provide evidence for your hypothesis... ... no, not *that* evidence! ... no, not *that* evidence, either! ... geez, what a dummy!”

[@Gjermund-Sivertsen]

Multiple universes or not? God or not? Maybe we won’t ever find out. Let’s stay honest and not assume anything. A god- hypothesis multi-universe hypothesis. It is all they are: hypotheses. Until we know, let’s explore, but not pretend that we know the unknowns.

[@garybala000]

Would multiple universes undermine God? Shhhh let me ask the Multiverse Maker.

[@pekkar4460]

But Multiple universes would undermine humans. We might not be special in our universe but multiple universe would make us even less special.

[@artbell1]

Nah, the creative energy is present in all dimensions of space and time, including the multiverse. We think so small.

[@artbell1]

@@pekkar4460 Look into biocentrism. You may think differently. We are cocreators.

[@kootdirker2448]

@@pekkar4460 we are not special we only wish so

[@OpenSecretsMomAnon]

Favorite channel lately

[@williamsteveling8321]

I think the big problem isn't whether or not there's a god. That's almost immaterial if you think it through. A deeper question is whether or not a god would be intelligent, or even alive by any definition we would use. An infinitely old being just creating universes might be intelligent or not, but arguably wouldn't need to start out as an intelligent being. Consider: God (or gods, whatever), throwing things at a wall and seeing what sticks. Maybe learning, maybe not, but eventually hitting on one or more variants that give rise to complexity. Then you get to the questions around a personal god(s), and there are multiple ways to look at it. Is Earth special? Well, that's still something we can't answer, but as far as we know (assuming complexity IS interesting) we might be in the most interesting class of phenomena in this kind of universe. Nothing more complex than higher-order brains is known to exist. But given the horrifically intense competitive nature of a world like ours, suffering and predation apparently don't bother this god or pantheon of such. But there's just as much a chance that "god", even if a sentient being, died long ago, being a scientist or philosopher in an originating universe who conducted an experiment that led to us. Not omni-anything, just some person (or something like what we think of as a person) who decided to flip a switch on a machine, maybe spitting out millions of random attempts. Either way, odds are we can never know.

[@thomasridley8675]

Well, since we can never know. Our imagination can run wild. Everyone thinks it's their version. Which I find says more about our desire too feel special than it does about reality itself.

[@Seanus32]

In a sense, we all have our own private universes and that most certainly doesn't undermine God. 'We have just one world but we live in different ones' (Brothers in Arms, Dire Straits)

[@johnjeffreys6440]

Some people don't believe in things they can't see, until someone shows them proof, like atoms and molecules and gases etc. Then they get the credit and we find their names in history books because of their faith in their beliefs. But like Jesus said to Thomas, "you believe because you have seen, but blessed are those who believe and have not seen. God has nothing to prove, and needs no approval.

[@SanderSmit77]

The mind of the intelligent seeks knowledge, But the mouth of fools feeds on folly. - Proverbs 15:14

[@MrDorbel]

We find the names of those who discovered atoms and molecules in the history books, because they made discoveries that could be tested by others. Their "faith in their beliefs" (whatever that may mean) has nothing to do with it. What Jesus said to Thomas, (assuming that you can have any knowledge of what two people who may or may not have existed said to each other) is also nonsense. There is nothing blessed about believing things for which you have no evidence! That's gullibility, not a virtue.

[@johnjeffreys6440]

@@MrDorbel What about believing you can or can't accomplish something. If you never believed you could accomplish something, you'd never try to accomplish it. What if there were no "others" to test your beliefs? Would you just curl up in a ball and admit defeat? There doesn't have to be anything blessed about believing in something to yield a benefit. It can be worldly. You're using disbelief for scripture as a means to strengthen your opinion, when scripture is irrelevant.

[@MrDorbel]

@@johnjeffreys6440 Believing that one can or can't accomplish something doesn't mean that it is true. It may or may not be. Personally, I have no interest in asking others to test my beliefs. I don't, it is true, believe scripture in the sense that I accept it as a truth statement. It has no bearing on the strength, or otherwise, of my opinion, on any subject. I agree that for most purposes, scripture is irrelevant!

[@cbernar699]

You can't minimize God, of course he can follow everything in creation. He made it, he is it

[@AtheistCook]

Ha ha ha..

[@suatustel746]

Yes he also created Cretins as well!!!

[@rezamahan7109]

I'm very grateful for your insightful videos :)

[@charlenehardin1157]

With the 'multi verse' concept, I am wondering how a dividing line would exist between universes, in which the laws from say this universe concerning 'fine tuning' or any other constant, would not also be the same as the laws in the neighboring universe, assuming there is one.

[@SMC01ful]

The multiverse, rather than making me disbelieve, makes me think there's some incredible stuff out there. I am neither a theist nor an atheist. I don't think anyone's wrong, or anyone's right.

[@artbell1]

haha Well, some are right and some are wrong. We just don't know who's who yet!

[@PadraigG8]

"The vast number of them are lifeless and ugly!" I would ask Robert how he knows that. There's no empirical way to actually OBSERVE any of these universe or test how they're physicals laws compare with ours. For all we know, they're ALL fine-tuned for conscious life, and even the ones that aren't might serve some other function. The problem with the multiverse argument against fine-tuning is that it relies on a whole bunch of premises that aren't really demonstrable.

[@jbw53191]

Excellent video! I would like to believe that there are other universes even MORE finely-tuned than this one -- Where the laws of physics are infinitely more elegant. Perhaps that's what heaven consists of.

[@frankkockritz5441]

You mistake fine tuning of constants with the laws of physics. They are two separate topics altogether.

[@rafay9398]

One of the best episodes. Similar to (Testing God) episode

[@richard--s]

Who created the environment in which God exists? God? Some Uber God? If so, who created the environment in which the Uber God exists? ... That just postpones the question why there is a habitable world, a universe with habitable world(s). But I still think, there is more than we can see or test. But I have no explanation.

[@artbell1]

Bravo! Somebody that is honest enough to admit that he really has no explanation. It just may be beyond our human ability to even comprehend or describe. Do you know of Samadhi?

[@robertogarcia9770]

God doesn’t creat universes for is own artistic pleasure, but for us to discover the inner God in owerselfs! The biggest mistake we do when we think of God, is to think of im as we are and not as he is!

[@theoskeptomai2535]

And how did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists?

[@Burevestnik9M730]

Why there is a multiverse fine-tuned to spawn a fine-tuned universe I answered 4 years ago. It has been estimated that the “string landscape” contains 10 power of 500 different possible universes (this is the total number of all possible options in the world no matter how minuscule they are). For all practical purposes, that number is infinite. But in that vast number of universes, only our universe (and maybe handful of others, but for all practical purposes, only our universe) is perfect. This stems from the two theorems of general topology, which is another theoretical framework that explains multiverse: Theorem 1: In the class of generally ordered topological spaces, weakly perfect spaces are one and the only real generalization of perfectness. Theorem 2: The existence of weakly perfect spaces that are not perfect is almost a rule.

[@artbell1]

Theoretically. When do you think string theory will be proven?

[@Burevestnik9M730]

@@artbell1 It's not string theory but general A-topology. Both theorems have been proven.

[@torbjrnsivertstl3548]

The «Many Universe Theory» and the «Many Worlds Theory» is like extra dimensions on the macroscopic level, right? If we use the quantum mechanics on the macroscopic level it becomes absurd. That’s the point with Schrødinger’s cat and the Many World Theory seems more absurd. Schrødinger’s cat is an experiment we can imagine, but we are not able to do it. There are experiments that show quantum effect on the macroscopic level, that’s how we know it, like the doble slit experiment. Bell’s theorem can be shown by three polarizing filters, it’s very fascinating. The conclusion is that quantum mechanics is complete. But what about life? Animals. Humans. What about our free will? Many educated people think of it in two ways, somehow you have a free will, somehow not, with regards to their theories and then it seems like the question is if it is consistent with their theories. Then it may turn out like the traditional question, is there something wrong with you or with their theories? The square of a wave-function may have two peaks A and B, where it is likely that the particle may be. But it can’t be in the middle between A and B. If it was like this on the macroscopic level, when you want to travel from A1 to B1 and back, suddenly you are at A1 then on B1 and the on A1, but in the meanwhile you were not in the middle between A1 and B1. In the many world theory you are both in A1 and B1 at the same time, but it has become different worlds, when you mean you are in A1, you are also in B1 but are not quite aware of it. When you mean you are in B1, you also are in A1, but you are not aware of it. But is this the way quantum mechanics is shown on macroscopic level? What if you imagine that you are the elementary particle? You refer to the wave function and obeys it, you can be in A or B and it is more like you are in both A and B at the same time. An interaction from the macroscopic level is like when somebody open the box and looked at the cat. But at the microscopic level there must have been another elementary particle with its wavefunction that interacts with your wavefunction. Then you made a choice, let’s say A. So how could this quantum effect possibly be shown at the macroscopic level? That we are free to choose! Of course we have a free will and in my opinion it is not very fruitful to discuss it. But what is fruitful is to learn to know what are the good choices. Then the many world theory may be interesting as a theory, but in the way that at the very present time we can choose between different world to go in to. And the valuable point to you is that you can make a god choice to get a good future. God is almighty and good, he created something good and he saw that it was good (Genesis1). He still create and makes good choices. He has showed that Jesus is his only (firstborn) Son, he is his chosen one. If we also choose him, we also make a good choice.

[@justinsavatdy]

thumbs up for the effort in explanation

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Better to look for God in consciousness than physical nature / universe through science

[@BugRib]

Consciousness is the only supernatural thing known to exist. At least I think it's supernatural (for lack of a better term).

[@PovertyEntertainmentOfficial]

Physical "Nature" is Consciousness... Vise versa... 2 are One.

[@artbell1]

OK, please tell me how to look for God in consciousness. I'm ready to start!!!

[@artbell1]

@@PovertyEntertainmentOfficial Does that include rocks?

[@PovertyEntertainmentOfficial]

@@artbell1 absolutely rocks. Why do you think crystals carry energy. And no not just the hippy good vibes crystals. Protons Neutrons Electrons simple building blocks of carbon base life forms.

[@justinsavatdy]

I enjoy this channel

[@jasonemryss]

I'd like to see Dr Kuhn pontificate more....

[@artbell1]

Why do humans have a fixation on thinking that God is some human like persona???

[@-JSLAK]

I think its just a figure of speech to refer to god as "he". God has no gender, or "he" could if "he" wanted to. But god is more of a spiritual entity, the idea of god really goes beyond human comprehension.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

I think many people base their views of a God with "human like" attributes because of the stories in the Bible and the ancient belief that mankind is "made in the image of God." Also... if God desires some type of relationship with us, how could it be possible unless God himself has some "human like" characteristics? I don't think God wanted to create "robots." As the robot in LOST IN SPACE said " Does not compute."

[@leonardobrien]

God's more like a can of baked beans

[@artbell1]

@@leonardobrien with bacon?

[@artbell1]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 maybe the bible is biased. Maybe god is a dog.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

It's impossible to undermine an omnipotent being.

[@nahCmeR]

I’m sure Shroud could out play him.

[@infinitemonkey917]

Which is why one doesn't exist.

[@alecalbarran-wick7113]

Through God all things are possible

[@infinitemonkey917]

@@alecalbarran-wick7113 The person who dies of cancer despite earnest prayer for healing might disagree.

[@somethingyousaid5059]

@@alecalbarran-wick7113 that's exactly the problem. Through God my pain is possible. Through God my fear is possible. Through God my depression is possible. Through God my illness is possible. Through God my suicide is possible. Theoretically God would be the ultimate source for all problems (including mine). Not Satan. Not Adam or Eve. Not my biological parents. Just God.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

"It's incredible how insignificant we are." I think this statement certainly undermines a belief in God.

[@triggerhappy1yearold]

It’s also an argument for how significant we are

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@triggerhappy1yearold What do you mean?

[@triggerhappy1yearold]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 objectively speaking this vastly increases our uniqueness

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

@@triggerhappy1yearold I still don't understand what you are trying to say. If the person said that we humans are "insignificant", how does that increase "our uniqueness" ? It seems like a contradiction to me.

[@artbell1]

@@johnbrzykcy3076 lot of that going on! haha Remember, it's all just "wibbly, wobbly timey-wimey stuff"

[@RJ_Ehlert]

If one were to posit the existence of a God in the way many human cultures have imagined, that God would care about human behavior, choices, and morality. However, as social scientists, we know that things you never choose, (your parents, your DNA, your economic social class, your nationality, the time period you were born in, your gender, your race, etc, etc, etc), have a profound effect on your life and your ability to make meaningful informed choices. If we were to look at multiverse theory, down to the idea that every micro-decision every conscious being makes, branches off into a new world, one for each choice you made, in that sense a multiverse would give a perfect representation of a person in every single scenario they could have ever lived in. The idea of a multiverse, where every version of you that could exist, did in fact exist, would be a natural way for an all knowing God to fairly judge your behavior, choices, and morality, as an aggregate of all the different yous to ever have existed.

[@hckytwn3192]

Great video, but I was hoping for a stronger argument from the theists tbh. They never really addressed the actual challenge in my opinion. “Infinite universes need fine tuning too” - No, that’s the point, they don’t. They can have any set of properties and rules at their inception, as they’re infinite. “Infinite universes actually makes sense as God is infinite.” - Ok, sure... but that completely avoids the question of fine tuning (i.e. we don’t need god for a “finely tuned” universe.) Multiple Universes doesn’t disprove God, it just takes an argument for his existence away. “You still need God to make the multiverse.” - Again, this avoids the fine-tune question and instead goes to the ‘something from nothing’ question (which is answered by quantum mechanics and logic... but that’s another argument altogether).

[@BugRib]

Good points! 👍

[@artbell1]

Well, we don't even know if infinite universes is even a real thing. If they do exist, they would have a relationship to all other universes because each is a derivative of another.

[@Deist1]

Can I ask what you mean by the question of why there is something rather than nothing is “answered by quantum mechanics and logic”?

[@Deist1]

@Hckytwn

[@hckytwn3192]

@@Deist1 sure… so, logically speaking the “something from nothing” problem seems like a paradox, right? But when we see a paradox, the first thing we should do is check our assumptions. At the root of this paradox is our assumption of cause and effect (i.e. we need a “first cause”). But if we start with absolute “nothingness” then there truly is *nothing* …no cause and effect, no laws, no logic, no restrictions. But what then defines if something is possible or not? Those very restrictions. So what would prevent something, anything, from happening in pure nothingness? Nothing. Therefore a state of absolute nothingness is actually a state of infinite possibility-or in other words “nothingness” is impossible and possibility is fundamental. This might seem crazy, but it’s exactly what quantum mechanics shows us. The Quantum Wave Function, Virtual particles and Feynman Diagrams are great examples of this-our current reality is comprised of, and affected by, *all* possibilities. Specifically, QM tells us if something can happen, it eventually will. (And actually things that *can’t* happen still do, but immediately revert/annihilate due to the restrictions of our natural laws.) And so to bring this back full circle, QM also tells us that all we need to kick off the entire universe is the smallest of quantum fluctuations (which “nothingness” can’t hope to stop). And with one comes many more, resulting in the multiverse.

[@jensklausen2449]

There may be an intelligent force of life all places in the universe where a living human with a brain can be conscious and operate normally. That could be in all places where the physical body in principle can be kept alive with technology. In empty space and on all planets and stars. So maybe in that way, by extension, that the whole universe is alive. In all places. Maybe the blind randomness without any purpose or goal in current quantum theory does not exist in the universes selected by living beings among the many in the many worlds interpretation. We could maybe not have evolved in a universe where our DNA was not designed and the difference between our intelligence an current AI could be that we are always learning from "noise" and "quantum noise" in the environment and current AI is not, since current AI is designed not to be influenced by noise in the environment at all. Current AI can be superior in tasks that are completely described by rules like chess and go. But can't be superior in tasks where the rules are not fully described, like in nearly all menial jobs. Everything starts with a question and current AI does not know when the questions it askes enters into a domain of diminishing returns. Maybe there are many higher and lower universes or realms and the physical universe may be an intersection of many of them and higher Gods or God may knit this intersection together with what beings in it want and what many other beings, mostly not in this intersection want. Maybe all the universe are filled with a life field, not static like a formula, but dynamic and alive and capable of knowing when questions asked enters into a domain of diminishing returns. Maybe that is the case for all universes created by God or Gods or at least those which has intuitively gifted intelligence distributed all over them? Intelligence capable of knowing when questions asked enters into domains of diminishing returns. And that is a type of intelligence that can do much more than current AI. What could current AI do alone? Nothing.

[@artbell1]

Oh, I see. You make perfect sense to me! It's "wibbly, wobbly timey-wimey stuff".

[@captainzappbrannagan]

No.

[@sallymcpeak4430]

Would you mind to list some other channels you like to watch? Your information and thoughts are incredible so i know you must have some incredible channels you enjoy. Please share with me. Thank you so much for your comment too! I love all of this kind of information on this topic and beyond, but i do not know how to further my knowledge with websites or channels that are credible.

[@artbell1]

@@sallymcpeak4430 Dr. Who

[@jensklausen2449]

@@sallymcpeak4430 CTMU Radio kzbin.infofeatured Institute of Noetic Sciences. Claim to have proven interaction between mind and matter kzbin.info Garry Kasparov: Chess, Deep Blue, AI, and Putin | Lex Fridman Podcast #46 kzbin.info/www/bejne/boO5kmOKfbyIjdk Intelligent Design 3.0 by Stephen C. Meyer kzbin.info/www/bejne/mqfac5R6bZJjZtk And many more

[@philippemartin6081]

Hi, Mr Lawrence it's a interesting topic, I will star waching in a bit. Thank. Sincères amitiés Philippe Martin 😎

[@rudy8278]

To consolidate my comments below: Does the idea of a multiverse negate the traditional idea of God, or does that idea of God need to be expanded? Are we in a new Copernican moment in history? Perhaps the Absolute that underlies everything that is is amused with our youthful questioning. Consider this analogy: a mature oak tree drops tens of thousands of acorns. How many become mature oaks? How many universes are spawned by the Grounds of Being? How many become successful universes that harbor intelligent life? As above, so below? And, is the oak's dropping of acorns an intentional creative act, or are the acorns produced and dropped just by its nature? Further, if the Absolute is Eternal, was there ever a first universe? Will there ever be a last? We have an Eternity to find out.

[@theonetruemorty4078]

It doesn't take a multiverse to undermine the biblical notion of god, just basic intelligence. God is simply the collective computational hologram of the entirety of our species. It is the thing we seek to physically manifest in our search for an AGI that will save us from ourselves. God isn't a memory, it's a premonition. From the first sharpened stick, the first chiseled flint, we were set on this path and will see it through to its end, whatever that might be.

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Would help to understand multiple universes better and how bring about fine tuning.

[@TheFith67]

It all boils down to a belief in a God of order, and a belief in a God of chance IMO.

[@deepaktripathi4417]

"I'm dying God to exist" Me too

[@thomasmclain6888]

Some scientists seem to be abandoning the scientific method in favor of absurd speculation.

[@kootdirker2448]

Make yourself grow to immeasurable immensity, outleap all body, outstrip all time, become eternity, and you will understand your Creator. Having conceived that nothing is impossible to you, consider yourself immortal and able to understand everything, all art, all learning, the temper of every living thing. Go higher than every height and lower than every depth. Collect in yourself the sensations of all that has been made, of fire and water, dry and wet; be everything at once, on land, in the sea, in heaven; be not yet born, be in the womb, be young, old, dead, beyond death. And when you have understood all these things at once - times, places, things, qualities, quantities - then you can understand your Creator . This was once mentioned by someone much more intelligent than i am No god of any religion can be this Creator

[@teddypreston5525]

This is a question I never ask myself!!! Never consider this theory to be of any intrinsic value per se other than mental gymnastics. What would be the value {or purpose} in multi Universes? If thing occur just because. . . reminds me of the small freckle child wanting a toy just because! It doesn't make sense from the point of view of a creator. It still wouldn't be part of these creations anyway. Separate and without purpose. Not HIS style!

[@0The0Web0]

I somehow ended up thinking if god exists, it's a child, just playing around

[@Itsmeomg75]

I’m not a Astrophysicist or a Theoretical-physicist, but why do we need to focus on a Multi or Omniverse when we have our own Universe we still have trouble explaining. We still don’t have the capability of exploring our own Solar System let alone our Milk Way for other life. To me, it’s hard to questions God’s theory of evolution without understanding our own species here in Earth.

[@jesseburstrom5920]

Some ideas are stressful and not practical to think of since they lead to anguish and stops normal senses to rule. Is multiple universes less stressful than say the idea it is not possible to have full perfect evolutionary world maybe in any possible universe? Like it is an chase towards existence even energy like chasing the tail of snake. We exist then in that idea as a complex building. One problem is why then is particles same all over the place. Sounds distressing as well.

[@gr33nDestiny]

Oh man what a great question, perfect you went to Swinburne, yes he’s annoying but I need to thank him for explaining his point of view. Some people have strong convictions I guess (I’m dying for god to exist too, I think I’m very similar that why I watch) If the or when universe ends, would you be up for another life? (No need to answer) but would that make reincarnation ok in your book?

[@Ekam-Sat]

Not to burst anybody’s bubble but the first gentleman does not realise that the drop is the ocean and that the ocean is the drop.

[@threedogsandacamper503]

Seems that this would be a matter of faith, which is independent of physical concepts...

[@tedgrant2]

Consider the lilies of the field. They don't work or go shopping ! And the same goes for you. God will provide all you need, honest. Donate now. I need the money ! (Matthew 6:28)

[@jamesruscheinski8602]

Not see that multiple universes exist, that multiple universes determine fine tuning. Could be other universes also fine tuned if exist, and that physical nature tends towards fine tuning because of God's presence.

[@kenrickbenjamin1608]

In quantum Mechanics there's the many worlds theory, not the many Universe theory. As quantum Mechanics is probabilistic, so is the answer to the Universe's beginning.

[@barnabyrt1012]

The problem is that according to that way of reasoning you would need infinite universes ¿is that possible? Because if you're thinking about an infinite number, that's an oximoron.

[@Realquestfortruth]

If everything can and must happen, which means zero and infinity simultaneously may exist, then there is no need for God, existence is only a relative term. It is all relativity between zero and infinity, thus zero and infinty itself are relative and ironically the same.

[@cvsree]

Multiverse is within God so, answer is no.

[@Mtmonaghan]

Things must show up as meaningful to us to exist. Things present for us because we are time. A car shows up as what it is for us because we will use it to go to work on Monday, a future possibility, and we use it in a manner that we learned from historical shared practices, a past “ for this”. So things in the present show up as what they are, what we take them to be, because we are not entirely in the present, we are not a thing. Our being is mystical, more fantastic than anything in the universe. Love your fellow man, do not use him/her as a thing, as a means to an ends, they are world creators.

[@mdwoods100]

I imagine a previous universe where AI reached the ability to become eternal and multiuniversal. Our creator may very have started out as a PC. ;)

[@nahCmeR]

We are doing the exact same thing with video games. Not on that level yet though of course.

[@ViralYoutubeHits]

No he is not

[@sallymcpeak4430]

I have always thought that to be true. It freaks me out but i do believe it:)

[@radostinangelov9193]

Let's say if our universe is expanding how the scientists says, so there must be a ''empty space'' that is expanding into it and if that's the truth so that ''empty space'' we talking about should be ''infinity'' and the universe itself will be like a close to invisible dot in that ''infinity'' field and that field should be full those small dots we call universe. Or if there is nothing beyond our universe so the universe itself is infinity and not just 13.7billions years old-wide.

[@thomasridley8675]

What has always bothered me about the gods. There is never an end game. What is the point. Just because we are here doesn't mean it was on purpose.

[@David.C.Velasquez]

Not to side with the apologist, but the fine tuning argument is an artifact of anthropic thinking. Even in these " ugly inefficient" universes, there could surely be possible other modes of process, life or otherwise. 'God" is the infinite endless multi,multi... multiverse, itself. Eternally nested like black hole matroshka.

[@alanderson9711]

Some people are content to believe while others need to Know. The leaps in logic to suggest a god are without merit and suggest a predisposition towards the need to believe in a creator. Let’s stick with Science, logic and common sense in the 21st Century.

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

You said "Let's stick with Science, logic and common sense..." and I pretty much agree but I'd also like to add the disciplines of philosophy, history, nature, etc. By the way, why do you say "without merit..." ?

[@andrewthomas2999]

I would love to ask: From what foundation do you ascribe to your consciousness when thinking of God? If it’s purely biblical: then I’m afraid you will always be lost in either your acceptance of such a God... and the atheistic minded when therefore when thinking of such a God (although rightly to debunk it) the atheist is equally Mistaken in thinking the bible and its God are to be read as physical and historical. Seek the esoteric teachings of the religions: not the misinterpreted and corrupted exoteric words of said religions. For Christianity and Catholicism: I would recommend Anna Kingsford’s esoteric Christianity teachings and Max Heindel’s Rosicrucianism teachings. For example: the birth, baptism, crucifixion, burial, resurrection, ascension etc, are initiations in consciousness for every Soul. Christ is a centre of consciousness in us all to be developed and lived.

[@jdc7923]

Why are these other hypothetical places called other "universes", rather than different sorts of regions in one extremely (or infinitely) large universe?

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

If we adopt the Berkeleyan concept of God - a concept that suggests that our one particular universe is the literal MIND of God, then yes, there most certainly could exist an infinite number of other universes. We just need to give up the notion of there existing only ONE God. And that's because it can then be understood that each of the other universes are the minds of other like beings. They would all be completely separate and autonomous dimensions of reality unto themselves, just as our own minds are separate and autonomous relative to each other here on earth ("as below, so above"). In other words, the owners and Creators of the other universes are of the same "species of being" as the owner and Creator of this universe. In fact, I suggest that our own minds are each imbued with the potential of being able to create our own universe out of the fabric of our very own being (out of the holographic-like mental fabric of our own minds), just as the Creator of this one has done. We are simply existing in an "embryonic" context at this moment (i.e., the "seed-like" embryos of God). However, that will change at the moment of our physical death when we (our minds/souls) will be born-out of these bodies and thus awaken into the higher context of reality where our Creator and our ultimate form will finally be revealed to us. This should shine a whole new light on the Biblical passage: "...Let *US* make man in *OUR* image..." _______

[@artbell1]

That's all fine and good but it's all opinion and belief.

[@anikettripathi7991]

Concept of multiple and infinite universe mean universe/world of each and everyone is different ,different people, different activities, and different relationships. More rational for poetry and philosophy not for scientific rationale.

[@rudy8278]

What is the non-contingent ground of Being? One universe or an infinite number.

[@rudy8278]

PS If God is an artist in Being, multiple universes provide many canvases.

[@Erik0914]

There is more evidence and experience for God than multiple universes other than the math could work. God's purpose is love and he wants to have beings to love. While many of those beings may not be lovable, the essence of love is better defined and experienced by those being loved and in return love God.

[@alanderson9711]

If your premise were true then why are 99% of scientists atheists. Use your common sense to dispel the archaic beliefs in demons and gods, and other religious nonsense. You’re too old for it.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

How did you come to conclude that this god you've mentioned exists? Is your conclusion based on any personal observation?

[@johnbrzykcy3076]

Hey Erik... I pretty much agree with you. Your views seem to parallel the words and example of Jesus the Christ, who was the supreme example of love.

[@sadia_5738]

8:19-10:00

[@ashley_brown6106]

If you were an infinite being would you limit yourself to only 1 creation? Obviously not!!

[@ndindamule3134]

To me it seem the multiverse can't really be proved with evidence it's just that both the belief in God and the multiverse required faith

[@mainers9618]

No amount of science can undermine the faith of god believers.

[@jake8200]

I find it rather fascinating how strong religion can resonate in peoples brains. You have intelligent people studying physics at prestigious universities where they are exposed to information that often conflicts heavily with their beliefs but somehow they manage to perform this complex form of mental gymnastics in order to justify it. Just one mans musing.

[@joshheter1517]

I find it rather fascinating how strong atheism can resonate in people’s brains. You have intelligent people commenting on a KZbin channel where they are often exposed to information which conflicts with their beliefs but somehow they manager to perform complex mental gymnastics just to maintain their beliefs. Just one man’s musing. See how easy that is?

[@joshheter1517]

@Ψ Oh, is that what I’m doing?

[@jake8200]

@@joshheter1517 making the assumption that atheism and religion are interchangeable in this sentence. Probably something people with Sepia tint avatars of themselves on KZbin assume.

[@joshheter1517]

@@jake8200 With the lack of substance in your original post, they are very much interchangeable. Which is... of course... the point.

[@thomasridley8675]

Simple answer : it really doesn't say anything either way. Although, no god has yet to be shown too have any credibility at all.

[@weme11]

Yeah God had to get creadibility from such insignificance creature. Sigh.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@weme11 Or man needed the gods too validate it's own existence.

[@weme11]

@@thomasridley8675 If there was more than one God then the gods would destroy one another.

[@thomasridley8675]

@@weme11 Well, we seem too have had quite a few gods. Each one is without a doubt the one true and only god. You can't go ten feet without tripping over the damn things. Each selling their own reality.

[@weme11]

@@thomasridley8675 God was always The One and will ever be only One. The other gods you are talking never existed. We made them up. If you want to solve the puzle, I just ask you to name the different gods you are talking about, and describe how he introduce himself to the people.

[@alecalbarran-wick7113]

So God has always existed, right? Wouldn't it make more sense to assume that the multiverse has always existed? Instead of taking the extra step in assuming that a God that had no beginning created everything. Maybe the primary essence in which everything is created out of had no beginning and has no end.

[@drtak4512]

Well indeed it's the same thing add to that intelligence / conciousness and you have god.

[@roberthumphreys5594]

The notion of God is undermined by more than multiverse theory...

[@atonioioane6032]

If The All Mighty God eyes are ten thousand times the brightest of of our sun, then, the term multi-universe is the limited of man understanding.

[@willyh.r.1216]

Of course not, we just need to readjust God'attributes, as done in the past.

[@stinkertoy4310]

I'm trying to understand a universe where somehow 2+2=7? Is that what you’re saying is possible? Multiple universes, and we haven’t even settled on how many dimensions there are!? Science focused on how, religion on WHY, both trying to solve.

[@colinmatthews7442]

I’d love to see Robert ask these questions of people from cultures others than the western ones. Love to see him ask Jaggi Vasudev or Sri M any of these questions. The series is lopsided towards western ideology.

[@artbell1]

Yes, all of western culture views man as separate from nature and natural laws. Have you read the Upanishads? Have you meditated?

[@colinmatthews7442]

Yes my friend, I started doing yoga practices several years ago, mainly to still the mind and contemplate what is. I discovered Vedanta after a profound experience. Perhaps Vedanta found me. What the practices reveal coincide with what I discovered that day. I have not as of yet read the upanishads personally, but I find myself constantly listening to beautiful lectures on them. Perhaps it is time to read them myself. I find myself coming back to check out these western views from time to time. To see if they’re getting any closer to discovering what is. I haven’t seen much progress. Still riddled with religious authorities who believe there is god, and atheists who believe there isn’t. Neither one wants to say “I don’t know”.

[@artbell1]

@@colinmatthews7442 Fantastic! It's difficult to find anybody that begins to understand this stuff! I was meditating to learn how to relax so I could fall asleep after work. I worked third shift and when I came home I was too wound up to sleep. I found a dick sutphen guided meditation tape and used it. I did not know it at the time but it utilized pranamya techniques. In short order, I became pretty good at it and could attain a deep, black, bodyless state that was like floating in an infinite black void. It was at that point that the things described in the Upanishads began to happen. It's too much to describe here but in short, it was so startling and profound that it had a huge impact on me and my life and how I experience it. It was like being cast into a vast swirling sea of white light and all the energy of the universe! It showed me things later that I discovered related to Atman and Brahman. There is so much more! What I experienced is described in the Upanishads as Samadhi. Sri Chinmoy knew. I can tell by his descriptions. I wish we could set and talk! I'm getting old and haven't found anybody that has the concept of a non-collapsed quantum state and what that would be like. It is Samadhi! Practice Pranayama and rein in the horses of the five senses. Quiesce the "observer". Reveal the quantum ocean of creation....the eternal illumination, Brahman!!! The Upanishads tell us how!!!

[@artbell1]

@@colinmatthews7442 This is directly tied to ETHER Physics too...the physics of Tesla. Not the car company.

[@artbell1]

The physics of the Hindu vimanas is also the physics of Tesla and Die Glocke. Tesla was very interested in the ancient Hindu texts. So were the Nazis. For very good reason! It's all ETHER physics!!! Samadhi shows you ETHER physics.

[@russellgehue5084]

The concept of multiple universes is logically untenable, for when we speak of “The Universe”, we mean “all that exists” taken collectively to be a thing in its own right. If we accept the premise that other Universes exist, then they fall squarely within the defining relation “all that exists” and so belong to The Universe. If they do not fall within the defining relation “all that exists”, then they are nonexistent.

[@artbell1]

We don't really know the situation and the universe doesn't care at all about your definitions. Somewhere on the other side of the world a person exists. You have never met him and you do not even know of him, but he exists non the less. The creation is like that. Your knowledge of it is limited to less than a grain of sand. Relax. There is NOTHING you can do about it! I would recommend reading the Upanishads. They were very wise.

[@russellgehue5084]

@@artbell1 While I agree wholeheartedly with most of what you say, our ability to understand one another is dependent upon our using terms in a conventionally prescribed manner, for as the Eighteenth Century Scottish philosopher and theologian Thomas Reid once wrote: “There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words.”

[@artbell1]

@@russellgehue5084 Sure, I agree with that but to describe the universe ,which we don not understand,with preconceived notions, with no way of proving their validity, is not a good choice of examples. You are using absolute terms to describe something that has not even been defined. Clearly defined meanings of all terms is necessary for not only good communication but good understanding of a subject. In cosmology, there are galaxies and it is presumed all galaxies reside in a universe. "The Universe" does not denote all that exists! There could be other universes that contain huge numbers of galaxies as does ours, and the multiverse is made up of multiple universes. Some think that a new universe is born at each event and that the result of all probabilities exists. Another theory is that each black hole produces another volume of space time, another universe! I personally think that is what is happening.

[@artbell1]

Oh...that last one is the bubble universe theory.

[@russellgehue5084]

@@artbell1 First let me say that I have made no attempt to describe the Universe, I have merely stated what is meant by the term “Universe”, for is the function of the sciences to describe the Universe, not metaphysics. After consulting the primary definition of the term “Universe” in all the major English dictionaries, I am at a loss as to why you might object to my definition. For example, the Cambridge Dictionary defines the term “universe” as: “ everything that exists, especially all physical matter, including all the stars, planets, galaxies, etc. in space:”, while the the Oxford Dictionary offers the following definition: “ All existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.” Exactly how, in you opinion, does my original definition not comport with these and other conventional meanings of the term?

[@JohnSmith-un1zj]

I fucking love this channel

[@kaileric3246]

Would a chef that creates random recipes be considered creative or good? No, churning out random combinations is not creativity because it is completely mindless, and it is not good because the majority of recipes would be lethal or taste horrible. A random universe generator would be a stupid, mindless entity.

[@Mystic0Dreamer]

Russell Stannard has basically argued against the Biblical God. Because he argued that theology cannot be carved in stone or defined by some texts from the past. However, the Biblical texts actually demand that this must indeed be the case. So to argue for an ever-evolving nature of theology, he must reject the Biblical God as having no more credibility than Greek Mythology.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

According to certain interpretations of quantum mechanics, without the presence of consciousness to instigate the collapse of the wavefunction, then reality - (i.e., three-dimensional phenomena suspended in a spatial dimension) - will not take form, and will only exist as spread-out waves (or fields) of some kind of superpositioned patterns of information. In which case, I challenge anyone reading this to not only try to describe a universe that doesn't contain any three-dimensional features (as in no suns or planets), but to also explain how such a creature qualifies for the title of "universe"? _______

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

@Evan Burns Please explain why you say it is not true.

[@artbell1]

You just described the state of Samadhi! Read the Upanishads! At the deepest levels of meditation, when the horses of the five sense have been reined in, Brahman, the eternal illumination is revealed. Reining in the horses of the five senses is shutting down the part of our consciousness that is involved in the "observation" of the raw energetic quantum wave that is the foundation of creation!!! When the mental machinery is shut down, the infinite, timeless quantum ocean of creation is revealed! It is the Akashic record! It transcends all of space and time and IS the energetic dimension of time! It's also know as th eternal illumination or Brahman. It's an experience of incredible light and energy and is really beyond description. THIS is what the ancient Hindu masters had discovered!!! This is also what the Kabbalists are about. The practices in the secret chamber are ALWAYS about the meditation!!! You could become a bal shem like Jesus!!! It shows you things. We can see into the future. There is no arrow of time in the quantum realm. Read the Upanishads. Meditate. Rein in the horses of the five senses. Achieve Samadhi and experience Brahman!

[@artbell1]

BTW....one of the most intelligent responses I have ever seen!! Just think of the quantum state of things as the raw state of creation a Planck instant before the collapse into a physical/fixed in space and time particle. THAT is the metaphysical ACT OF CREATION! www.therichest.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/31862.gif The entire universe is in a state of superpositon, two states at once! All subatomic particles have a wave/particle duality! During Samadhi, we can access the pre collapse state of creation! The quantum realm universe, Brahman! Abraham's people were from India. Abraham is a variation of Brahman. Jewish mystics have meditational practices very similar to Hindus and their Sefirot system is basically the same as the hindu chakra concept. That is why the Kabbalah and Hindu metaphysical principles are so similar. Remember. It's ALWAYS about the meditation. This is the secret to all of the mystery schools. This is what happens in private. This is why Hindu masters and Christian monks would retreat into solitude and meditate. The goal is what the Hindus call Samadhi. It has different names but it's the same experience. Thaumaturgy is creation from emanation. The act of influencing the quantum wave collapse in order to manifest changes in physical reality....miracles. Practice pranayama...that's what the Upanishads say to do and that is how I stumbled into Samadhi. The Upanishads are like the how to handbook of Samadhi!!! Read what Schopenhauer said about the Upanishads.

[@TheUltimateSeeds]

​@@artbell1 Excellent observations, artbell1, however, I suggest that the "...raw energetic quantum wave that is the foundation of creation..." would be nothing more than a nebulous, informationally-based substance that would have no reason for existing were in not for the existence of the five senses of consciousness.... In other words, loosely similar to how a laser shines-in and explicates three-dimensional phenomena from the patterns of information imbued within the photographic plate of a laser hologram,... ...likewise it is the merging of the five senses of consciousness with the informational underpinning of the universe that explicates what we call "reality" (again, three-dimensional phenomena suspended in a spatial dimension) from the patterns of quantum information. And my point is that "Samadhi" may indeed allow one to become aware of the existence of this deeper level of reality - (a deeper level of reality that suggests a state of interpenetrating "oneness" of all *material* phenomena). Nevertheless, it must be further understood that neither consciousness nor the informational underpinning of reality (what you are calling "Brahman") could exist in any meaningful context independent of each other. _______

[@defenderofwisdom]

Uugh the questions being asked are fine but the answers... A lot of presuppositions. For example an answer will be like "why wouldn't God do that?" Or "God seems to select for people through evolution so his mindset would select for our universe from a multiverse?" But if scientists had discovered a cheesyverse instead of a multiverse they could have issued the same response, "well why wouldn't God make a cheesyverse?" Or if we found all life came from a story they would suppose "well God made all these kinds of people make stories why wouldn't he have made the storybook?" It's painfully easy to defend the god of the multiverse by supposing God is magically free to design a multiverse, whereas particulars arising from arrays of chaos need no more explanation than an explanation of what drives differentiation... "For the pleasure of god" is a colour of an answer.

[@barnabyrt1012]

Where do the laws come from?

[@jeffneptune2922]

Why do so many very smart people try to anthropomorphize God? There my be domains of knowledge and realms of reality forever cut off from human comprehension no matter how far we advance as a species. I don't see the multiverse as a undermining the possibility of God. At this time, the multiverse is very speculative despite it's popularity. Many astrophysicist accept it because they see no other solution to the incredible "fine tuning" problem.

[@artbell1]

Exactly. We don't even know enough to make judgements about the creation. We can't account for 95% of the mass of the universe or what causes gravity. It's been a long time now that we've had gravity and yet we don't understand it. We can't manipulate it. We are slaves to it. Maybe we are just too stupid to see the real picture? (not me...I think I have it figured out! haha)

[@roblovestar9159]

Stannard: "Theology advances just as much as science". That is the biggest belly laugh I've had in awhile. Tell me one advance theology has made in the last 2,000 years. (Other than producing more sects and religions with competing and contradictory claims.)

[@assasin1992m]

Theologic thought advances faster and further than scientific thought, as it is not bound by physical reality and its laws, much in the same way mathematics transcends physics.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@assasin1992m Theologic thought isn't bound by physical reality because it does deal with physical reality. Theologic thought deals with fictional deities reigning over mythological realms.

[@assasin1992m]

​@@theoskeptomai2535Every civilization have independently of each other and without exception constructed these mythic realms, don't you find that weird and worth investigating? In fact if you look deeper into theology, you will quickly realize that it is highly non-trivial, dealing with entire mental structures and formation rules of civilisations.

[@theoskeptomai2535]

@@assasin1992m I do not find it weird. And this phenomenon of creating gods has been investigated. It is the nature of man to want answers, and when answers are not attainable, then imagining the volition of gods become a substitute explanation. The classic "god of the gaps" explanation holds until a more reasonable and natural explanation is discovered.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

Multiple Universes = meaningless idiocy

[@suatustel746]

Nothing less than your narcisstic capricious vain glorious God..

[@Nissenov]

Yeah I know. Just like multible planets. Multible suns. Multible galaxies Etc. The earth is flat and space is fake, wake up sheeple! 🤪 🤭😂🤣

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

@@suatustel746 My God? You mean infinitely creative God who created such an idiotic (evil) world full of all kinds of maniacs, murderers, serial rapists, pedophiles, religious leaders, and other groups of various idiotic imbeciles?

[@suatustel746]

@@odiupickusclone-1526 you must include parasites viruses microbes bacteria germs, diseases, l never approved such a God, but balance needed to be struck between the death and life, but some theologians might say its improbable built a world on a rose tinted window, athmosperhic conditions a necessary vessel facet to world existence, plus kids dying from cancer is part and parcel throughout human viccitudes otherwise will be inept to think we all gonna live the same age and die from the same cause life must be unpredictable otherwise would be trite and bland, if you see my point of view.

[@odiupickusclone-1526]

@@suatustel746 When i ask people to try to desribe eternal life i actually want to point out the following : No one can fathom eternity as such, that is something completely out of our reach because it can't be just continuation of our earthly lives, it must be something completely different, and that is the problem, not just philosophically but emotionally as well...If we (our souls) are going to be transffered to some other dimension which we can't envision (in any sensible way), then in all probability we are going to be completely tranformed so that we wont even "remember" who we were, or that we existed in some other form in some completely different realm of reality...And if that is the case then even if there was some other realm of reality in which we could "continue" our lives the death would still be the final word (at least as far as we (as human beings) are concerned)....And that is the core of the problem of evil...In another words, had God been ALL GOOD he would have created perfect (the best) world (alleged biblical paradise, allegedly lost due to some alleged idiotic, senseless human fault), instead of this one (the worst), as simple as that...

[@danielgonzaleznader7387]

When was this video recorded? What year?

[@cripplingautism5785]

2010

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

To come to a conclusion that the universe is fine tuned because all the constants are so specific is a nonsensical argument. Theists keep repeating that the numbers are so extremely specific. It's like winning a lottery and claiming that the chance is very small to win that precise number. Anyone who would have won that lottery would have won that amount. To calculate the chance you need to know how many possible outcomes there are. Ultimately it might be possible that non of the constants could have been any differently than they argument cannot ever proof god.

[@joshheter1517]

If you think this sort of objection hasn’t been raised before... and addressed many many times already... please read more books.

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

@@joshheter1517 Than stop making silly arguments just because you cannot distinguish between the invisible and the non-existent. But if you're so erudite please refute it for me.

[@joshheter1517]

@@Carlos-fl6ch Yeah... it’s pretty clear that you are taking these issues terribly serious. They are “silly” after all, as you put it. If you’d like to know, I’ll link to an article you can read my guess is however, you don’t want to know. You want to continue making insulting KZbin comments. www.reasonablefaith.org/images/uploads/The_Teleological_Argument_and_the_Anthropic_Principle.pdf

[@Carlos-fl6ch]

@@joshheter1517 Hmmm, seems your easily offended than. Just because I say that the fine tuning argument is nonsensical you're insulted. Wow. Also your making assumptions about me based on nothing. That's true nonsense. If I make an argument and you don't.agree just refute it with argumentation. Don't be offended because someone is unconvinced.by bad arguments. It's funny how you bring up WLC. Basically all his arguments have been destroyed on numerous occasions. But for the fine-tuning I just have to refer to Sean Carroll destroying his fine tuning argument bit by bit piece by piece. Suppose you need to read both sides my friend.

[@joshheter1517]

@@Carlos-fl6ch I’m not offended... not in the least. Which one of us is making assumptions exactly? I just look for signs of people who aren’t worth interacting with... people who are dogmatically dismissive of ideas with which they disagree. Again, I’m not offended, there’s just no utility in engaging. Have a nice day, Carlos.

[@genesky61]

You will like what Emanuel Swedenborg has to say about you being you as you move on.

[@jthonn]

Science is science, spiritual is spiritual, the two just don't mix well. Far as all the universes and being so vast doesn't mean there is no God. All that could be small to him. This does not mean that each civilization had Jesus, they may not all need a messiah, and may be totally different than us. That may be why everything is so far away that we can't reach them. As scientist, we will keep digging till we find more answers, and the more we dig, the more questions emerge, and the more we will find. It could be endless. I don't think size matters when it comes to God. Just my opinion. Everything is speculation at this point anyway.

[@mitosengesetze4371]

God could Clone himself. To listen to all this stuff. Imagine he is infinitely big. So his universes would be a grain of sand for him. Boom

[@nahCmeR]

Doubt any god has any physical body. Not even needed. He would t need more copy’s of himself to listen to this, he already knows it all, pointless.

[@paulbrocklehurst7253]

Ah yes! Magical thinking offers endless unsupportable claims no one can disprove! (But if I were to claim that there are mermaids somewhere under the sea can you prove there are none?) *Yes or no?*

[@mitosengesetze4371]

@@nahCmeR I think of him as a experimentimeur of an artcase

[@charliec244]

Occam's razor. If there are infinite universes, why would it not be possible there infinite number of God. Why can we not expect that God is nature itself. God is the system and we are merely the players that is living in it. However, i'm skeptics towards religion and the nature of humans

[@paulbrocklehurst7253]

@@charliec244 *Occam's razor. If there are infinite universes, why would it not be possible there infinite number of God.* > Asking _'why wouldn't it be possible?'_ simply shifting the burden of evidence. Possibilities have to be justified by the claimant before skeptics are required to debunk such claims. If you are in any doubt about that tell me if it makes sense for me to claim it's possible that mermaids exist somewhere under the sea & in the next breath ask if skeptics can prove it's not possible. if it's a demonstrable possibility I have to show that it is & until I can any attempt to turn the tables on anyone skeptical about my claim oought to be seen for what it is: reticence to _-show-_- rather than simply -_-claim-__ that it _could_ be somehow possible which if you think about it could be claimed about absolutely anything no matter _how_ ludicrous it may be. *Why can we not expect that God is nature itself.* > Because _by definition_ a god is a supernatural being not a natural one like you or me & neither you nor I can create a _cosmos_ can we? *God is the system and we are merely the players that is living in it.* > But there's no good reason to believe that claim otherwise you'd supply something that can be independently verified but you can't & nobody else can either. This is not an insigificant flaw in all claims made about any god pf any kind. *However, i'm skeptics towards religion and the nature of humans* And so you should be but do you dare take one more step into self skepticism & point out something that would challenge the reliability of your suggestions that the cosmos itself could also be god or aren't you willing to challenge your _own_ beliefs only other people's because you're special & can't _possibly_ make any errors of judgement yourself so that question doesn't need answering?

[@mehdibaghbadran3182]

Multiverse = multiverse worlds

[@lchmann65]

Discussion in the english language, GOD is omnipotent to the human race and include all living organism. GOD, with or without "religion" is still omnipotent universally since the "beginning" as we know it. Irrespective of single universe or multiple universes, GOD is omnipotent and universal itself. GOD, if related to the belief of religions, is subject to debate till the cows come home within this earthly universe. So in conclusion, multiple universes, if science could ever prove they exist, will still not undermine GOD. Religion with GOD may undermine GOD - atheism may also undermine GOD, be that single or multiple universes found to exist. In the context of the english language, GOD may be the shorten word for GOOD. Be GOOD human beings. Cheers!

[@spheriscope]

No and yes. God exists in infinite universes and doesn't in infinite others. In infinite universes there is no life. In infinite universes life just happens by chance and what is made of it by will. In infinite universes God is like the conductor bound by the laws of nature, which is more mysterious, as is written in scripture and is much like ourselves.

[@cam553]

So, basically if there is a god, it’s the god of Einstein or Spinoza. An indifferent creator, and certainly not a personal abrahamic god concerned with the deeds of men.

[@norrispulliam7810]

It's seems to me the muti-verse concept is the secular version of the God of the gaps argument. Since the universe persents itself in ways which are incongruent with the know laws of physics it is necessary to postulate a senario where given enough possible universes anything can and will emerge from them including us and even the need for are wish that there be a primordial cause for everything E.G a God. this is simply kicking the can farther down the road and not Closer to truth no pun intended.

[@Dion_Mustard]

my argument against the god of religion is this... the planet has existed for billions of years..humans evolved much later than that...dinosaurs & other animals lived for billions of years before humanity so if god existed why would he make it so that humans - the very creatures who have the mental ability to worship him - evolved much later in the planet's evolutionary structure? surely a god of miracles & majesty would not need an evolutionary structure? now I know some would argue that the holy texts consider the earth merely thousands of years old, and that dinosaurs don't come into that equation, but we now know evolution is fact. and i just don't believe evolution and god go in hand in hand. they contradict each other. saying that, if man had never created religion, we might have become more accepting of the notion of a higher consciousness or intelligent design but sadly we have had fables bashed into our brains since day one.

[@ayushawasthi1690]

Nothing undermines Idiots. That's a law.

[@chrisose]

Reality undermines the childish notion of god/gods.

[@artbell1]

Our understand of "reality" is so limited that we have no real justification to claim that we know what reality is, let alone if god is a childish notion. The most important power we can have is to be honest with ourselves and we are woefully ignorant of how this all pieces together. Hell, science can't account for 95% of the mass of the universe and they don't even know what causes GRAVITY!!! How can the speed of light be constant at all points of measurement even while in motion??? At the quantum level, the creation springs from a quantum probability wave upon observation. Explain that shi* to me! haha HUBRIS is one of human kind's greatest flaws!!! Is god a childish notion? I tend to think not, but I don't even know know enough to decide. I can't even define the creation. Some say it's a hologram. But hey...everybody's entitled to their opinion.