/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

The multiverse theory isn't an explanation at all. It assumes that there is an unobservable physical mechanism that creates new universes that never breaks down. EVERY physical organized structure eventually breaks down under the current laws of science, so this is far-fetched faith.

>>599200

Is he disprove you with science or science fiction? Because it looks like the latter.

> lately I was in a debate with an atheist over the existence of God

There's your problem.

>>599200

>multiverse was a better explanation for our universe than God

See >>599224. When an atheist says this, he's arguing out of bad faith. He doesn't want to have a genuine Socratic pursuit of the truth, he just wants to shit on your faith and justify his lack of faith by doing so.

>>599200

Tell him that God created those multiverses and get a good laugh at his expense.

The multiverse theory, as I understand it at least, doesn't answer the question of the first cause by itself. The theory states that there's an infinite number of universes containing every possible scenario. Say when you wake up in the morning in one universe you go to the bathroom, while in another universe you instead piss out the window that same morning, while in yet another you spontaneously combust as you wake up etc. The thing is all of these universes are dependent on the universes where you wake up in the morning which are in turn dependent on the universes where you went to sleep the night before and so on. If we keep going backwards with this there still has to be a first action that the first "generation", so to speak, of infinite parallel universes are based on. Again, this is just how I understand the theory, which could be all wrong. I never looked too deeply into it because it sounded like pop-sci clickbait.

If there are unilmited universes that exist then that means in one of them an omnipotent God exists that can destroy all the other universes leaving just his left.

GAYTHEISTS BTFO

>>599261

All it is is a pleasant framework for them to hang their disbelief on. There is, in fact there can be no material basis for it at all.

>there's a multitude of universes

>one created the other

>due to the cause and effect law we have to assume there's a begining since every effect has a cause

>St. Thomas Aquinas is still right

>>599200

Literally I'm an aerospace engineer and I used to get excited by these pop-sci theories about the universe, but the more you look into it the more obvious it becomes these people are just rebelling against God and relying on unfalsifiable, unobservable theories just like me. Only with, the theories follow Christian apogetics and give purpose to my life, the atheist arguing against me never act like true atheists. If they did they would kill themselves over the futility of it all

I don't really understand how the multiverse theory goes against God. I mean, God never said that it was true but at the same time, I don't see how it goes against God. If the multiverse theory is true then you should be able to pray to God to take you to a parallel universe where certain conditions are true. At the simplest level, you could flip a coin, place the coin in a jar and pray to God that you enter a universe where the coin had landed on the opposite side but yeah, you should be able to go down alternate branches from a past point in what you perceive as a linear flow of time. I myself vividly remember as a child, praying to God for Tomb Raider 2 and waking up in the morning with the disc lying on the middle of my floor (unfortunately, I didn't pray for a memory card). It might be possible to pray to God to work as a pastor in some kind of alternate fantasy Universe. I like the idea of being a Christian Magical Girl personally. If it was by God's will, I'd definitely become one. I think my preferred power would be sand-manipulation like Crocodile from One Piece or Gaara from Naruto. I'd love to Christianise the masses in such a world and defeat blasphemous, heinous Magical Girls in the name of God.

How does the multiverse theory even comment on anything regarding the Universe's origins?

Also, I've frequently come upon the notion that Christ is a 5th dimensional being. Is that blasphemous?

>>599200

It's not per se impossible, but it doesn't solve anything, since none of the at least Thomistic proofs of God I know requires our particular universe to be the only one.

If it's true, the only thing we would have to do is just move back the date of Creation to the date of creation of whichever of the universes in the Multiverse was first created (there would have to be a first not for, as far as I know, mathematical or scientific reasons, but because it's doctrine of faith that God created the world and it wasn't here for infinite amount of time; I don't think there is any formal, logical proof of this).

The multiverse theory explains nothing. What natural mechanism created the infinite number of universes? Is there one uber-universe, which created all the others, and is therefore a perfect universe like Plato's forms?

This theory is the kind of foolish "vain babblings" only a highly educated "doctor of the law" could come up with.

1 Corinthians 1:20

Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

>>599452

>Is there one uber-universe, which created all the others, and is therefore a perfect universe like Plato's forms?

And if so, what natural mechanism created this uber-universe?

Science falsely so called indeed.

Is there a single clue that tells us that multiverse theory is true, or is it 100% sci-fi? Because I don't think I ever saw any.

>>599468

Its merely a hypothesis prominent amongst atheistic scientists mainly

I'm a brainlet, so vid related may or may not be relevant.

>>599414

>Also, I've frequently come upon the notion that Christ is a 5th dimensional being. Is that blasphemous?

You could certainly make the argument that Christ operates in more dimensions than we do, but it's probably unwise to put a finite number on it. We ultimately can't know how many dimensions He operates in, so it would be blasphemous if you got the number wrong.

What if you said 5 and it was actually 6?

You could make it not blasphemous by saying Christ is a >3 dimensional being.

>>599200

The Multiverse theory, like God, is both unprovable and unfalsifiable atm

There's nothing really stopping it from being true, but nothing that says it definitively is either

>>602119

>like God

>What is the Resurrection and Ascension of Christ

This is absolute state of agnostics.

>>602143

To most people stuff that happened 2000 years and 200 quadrillion billion years are just as alien and unprovable.

God freely creates, he has no responsibility to tell you whats his business

>>599200

>Hello brothers, lately I was in a debate with an atheist over the existence of God and on the topic of the universes’ origin he came out and said that the multiverse was a better explanation for our universe than God. How do we convince him?

It should be self-evident the existence of a multi-verse and multiple dimensions should lend support for the existence of a Creator, of course it's not proof but it should at least tip one's meter towards accepting that. I grew up being taught all there was, was the Big Bang and the Universe was all we had (hence the word, Universe). Growing up with this made it very difficult to be a Christian in my opinion, but this whole multi-verse and multi-dimension concept by the scientific community actually made me more of a Christian.

who created the multiverses and the laws they each obey ?

God.

>>599265

this. blow their mind and watch question their whole world view because infinite possibilities means there's God in the multiverse

Every Planck unit of time, 10^80 universes are created, each requiring lots of energy?

Too much.

Even quantum fluctuations oscilations needed for the Big Bang create way more energy than random virtual particles could generate(yes, quantum phenomena could become macroscale at one point during low-energy conditions, but still)