The debate "There are other universes" was started by
November 1, 2019, 3:39 pm.
64 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 18 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
Allirix posted 2 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, diecinueve posted 6 arguments to the agreers part.
Grant65 posted 9 arguments, Nemiroff posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
diecinueve, DebatorOfFacts, Agrumentman, StarianaMusicINFP, Allirix, sssk, helpforr, meek, logan5689, noobem, Audrey23, Rayyan989, NoctaRavage, chelrasonjohn, Annie, carson, rohanpatel2301 and 47 visitors agree.
Tommyhj, jrardin12 and 16 visitors disagree.
there may very well be a creator god. science/logic cannot prove/disprove him. why limit him to only 1 universe? where in the bible does it say this is his only creation?
you know the germ theory of disease is also "just a theory." next time you get an infection, remember that all of modern medicine is based off "just theories".
quantum mechanics is based off repeated experimentation and evidence. it's predictions have never failed.
your colloquial use of the word theory in a science discussion betrays your ignorance of the subject. and assuming this isnt your first time discussing the issue (sorry for assuming), this is ignorance by choice.
it is perfectly fine to dispute a theory based on conflicting evidence. but to dismiss it based on the title of "theory" is absolute ignorance of the definition of the word in a scientific context.
please google the definition of scientific theory.
Really!? Quantum physics!? Another theory based on assumptions.
also, dark energy and quantum fluctuations have made us question some of our assumptions. normally matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed... but space seems to be able to do that under vacuum conditions... such as before the big bang.
that throws a monkey wrench into your entropy argument.
any guesses about the multiverse are just speculation. no definitive statements can be made about something we know nothing about.
the multiverse does not have to follow the same laws as our universe
I could say the same about the multiverse.
that is true for any closed system. we do not know if the universe is a closed system. you are assuming.
In order to decrease it had to have a beginning.
it doesn't say that, it says that entropy always increases
Because the Second Law of Thermodynamics says that everything had to have a beginning.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics says no.
it could also be that the universe has always existed
God did not come about on His own. He has always existed.
greater than the probability that God could come about on their own
Actually the physical laws follow God's command since He is the one that created them. In a world of natural processes what is the chance that natural laws could come about on their own?
it is more credible that as there are many planets and many galaxies there are also many multiverses, instead of believing in a god who does not follow physical laws
multiverse isnt science atm. just philosophical musings.
You cannot observe multiverse.
What are the scientific holes in the multiverse theories?
And I like them because the theories are based in mathematics and linked to astronomical observations. God is a good philosophical explanation. The Teleological arguments can even be convincing, but they're also full of holes. No one has all the answers
Is it really the best. I think that believing God created is way better than a flawed multiverse theory that has a ton of scientific holes in it. more holes than Swiss cheese.
Yeah. Few beliefs are based on rigorous proof and mountains of evidence though. We do what we can with the information we have.
I believe in a multiverse because it is one of the best explanations for a few metaphysical questions. It makes it easier to explain the fine tuning of the universe with the anthropic principle, and can be used to argue agaisnt determinism with its true randomness.
This belief is not based on science, but on faith in assumptions