CreateDebate


Debate Info

5
18
Yes it is, because... No it's not, because...
Debate Score:23
Arguments:26
Total Votes:23
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 Yes it is, because... (5)
 
 No it's not, because... (17)

Debate Creator

Mack(293) pic



Is it more rational to believe in a multiverse than to believe in a god(s)?

Is it any more rational to believe in the multiverse hypothesis than it is to believe in a god?
(If you answer: *"No it's not, because..."*, it could mean you think it is equally, or less rational to believe in a multiverse than to believe in a god)

It seems to me that a lot of arguments for the existence of a god would be entirely useless if the multiverse hypothesis is correct.  For example, the fine tuning idea (that our universe is so "perfect" for life that a god must have been involved in making it that way).  I also haven't heard of many alternatives to the multiverse hypothesis that could explain things like the apparent fine-tuning of the universe, which means that the two (a god or a multiverse) could somewhat be substitutes. 

The problem with the multiverse hypothesis is just that - it is just a hypothesis, and an unfalsifiable one at that.  This leads many to consider it unscientific, and on the same level as the god(s) hypothesis.  

Personally, I think it is only rational to withhold judgement on the multiverse hypothesis until evidence for its validity is provided.  I'd like to hear what you all think.

Keep it civil, etc, or I'll ban you.

Yes it is, because...

Side Score: 5
VS.

No it's not, because...

Side Score: 18
1 point

The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of possible universes, including the universe in which we live. Together, these universes comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that describe them.

Yes it is because the Left believes in the hypothetical as described by their beloved Wikipedia

Side: Yes it is, because...
1 point

You are not civil, I don't care if you ban me, you are a militant atheist and there is nothing civil about what you are doing here.

Side: Yes it is, because...
Mack(293) Disputed
1 point

A difference between you and me is that I am willing to engage in a polite debate, while you are not. Good riddance.

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

Just going by this website I have to say that the most irrational people believe in God and not a multiverse. So, I have to conclude that a belief in God is less rational.

Side: Yes it is, because...
marcusmoon(251) Disputed
1 point

What about those who believe in both? Do two unsupported and irrational beliefs in opposing explanations cancel each other out to make the person rational?

But seriously . . .

What I notice is that on this site there are lots of people (of diverse political or ideological camps) who are capable of impeccable logic/rationality, but who do not really seem to care whether there is actual verifiable physical evidence. They start with an assumption that their information is accurate (or impossible to verify or disprove), and then build an argument founded on the assumptions, and subsequently come to a valid (but not sound) conclusion.

By the same token, I notice that many people (of diverse political or ideological camps) on this site struggle with logic. Some even struggle against it. For them, actual evidence would be of no benefit.

I would be unable to predict which of these categories would have more believers in God than believers in multiverses.

Side: No it's not, because...
Cartman(18205) Disputed
1 point

You sound a lot like theist in this post. Hmmm.

Side: Yes it is, because...
1 point

I think that the multiverse theory should be treated the same way as God. It is unfalsifiable and lacks any empirical evidence. That doesn't mean it should be ignored. I think it's a good thing for scientists to theorize about, so long as it remains clear that it's just a hypothesis.

Side: No it's not, because...
Mack(293) Clarified
1 point

To clarify, I lack belief in a multiverse, and I lack belief in a god. I don't need to have an explanation to everything.

Side: Yes it is, because...
NowASaint(1274) Clarified Banned
1 point

Yes, it is very important that scientists spend a lot of time with things that can only be imagined and not observed in nature.

Side: Yes it is, because...
1 point

I don't believe its rational to believe in a god to start with and belief is merely a product of indoctrination , also I think a fair majority just say they believe in a god but are not in any way fully convinced .

The reason I make this bold claim is that if one takes the majority of the worlds population claim to believe in an all powerful god who watches over them surely if they really believed this they would act in ways that would at least attempt to please their god ?

I know I would if I totally believed in a god .

There is not and has not been one shred of evidence for a god or gods and i can never see that changing .

It's more rational to honestly say 'I don't know ' regarding the big questions but at least science continues to push forward and increase our knowledge about things we have limited knowledge on .

Get ready for possible attacks from some of our more vocal believers 😊👌

I recently listened to a talk regarding can something come from nothing ?

I also found this piece from The big think fascinating .....

Every Wednesday, Michio Kaku will be answering reader questions about physics and futuristic science. If you have a question for Dr. Kaku, just post it in the comments section below and check back on Wednesdays to see if he answers it.

Today, Dr. Kaku addresses a question posed by Brian Flatt.

"In Stephen Hawking’s new book The Grand Design, he says that because of the law of gravity, the universe can and will create itself out of nothing. But I thought that gravity was a function of mass, as per Einstein. How can you have gravity before mass and therefore how can gravity explain mass?"

Dr. Kaku: In Stephen's new book, he says that the Theory of Everything that Einstein spent 30 years of his life chasing is string theory (or its latest incarnation, M-theory).

In string theory, we have a multiverse of universes. Think of our universe as the surface of a soap bubble, which is expanding. We live on the skin of this bubble. But string theory predicts that there should be other bubbles out there, which can collide with other bubbles or even sprout or bud baby bubbles, as in a bubble bath.

But how can an entire universe come out of nothing? This apparently violates the conservation of matter and energy. But there is a simple answer.

Matter, of course, has positive energy. But gravity has negative energy. (For example, you have to add energy to the earth in order to tear it away from the sun. One separated far from the solar system, the earth then has zero gravitational energy. But this means that the original solar system had negative energy.)

If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free. It does not take net matter and energy to create entire universes. In this way, in the bubble bath, bubbles can collide, create baby bubbles, or simple pop into existence from nothing.

This gives us a startling picture of the big bang, that our universe was born perhaps from the collision of two universes (the big splat theory), or sprouted from a parent universe, or simply popped into existence out of nothing. So universes are being created all the time. (But Hawking goes one step farther and says that therefore here is no need of God, since God is not necessary to create the universe. I wouldn't go that far. See a previous blog entry on my attitude towards that.)

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

Thank you for your answer. I agree that it is irrational to believe in a god, partly for reasons you stated.

I had never heard about the negative energy thing, and also found the piece quite fascinating.

And yes, I knew exactly what I was getting into with this question and am prepared for the usual suspects to attack me. I've found it interesting in my short time on this website that the religious tend to be "more vocal" as you put it than the atheists, because atheists seem to be famed for being "more vocal" in the public eye. Most of the aggression from atheists I've seen here has only been in retaliation to the religious.

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

You're welcome Mack ; this site has the most aggressive and vocal believers I've yet come across the constant sniping at Atheists is annoying ,also they continuously tell us what they think we think instead of just asking .

Another two topics that causes absolute murder on here are Evolution and Abortion .

I will engage fairly with anyone and I always let them throw the first insult after that they expect to get it back with interest .

I don't know if you ever watch The Atheist Experience show from Texas it's very entertaining and the host Matt Delahunty is a terrific debater ; have a look at this piece arguing can something come from nothing it's very entertaining,

https://youtu.be/cDmQINlntJ4

Side: No it's not, because...
NowASaint(1274) Clarified Banned
1 point

You are religious, you think your mind is your god and you think it is better, stronger, and smarter than God who is God.

The atheists here, like you, cannot cease their insults as atheism is nothing but an insult and it cannot be expressed without insulting God and all who believe in Him.

Atheist are on the attack, they can't just walk away from a person who says God loves them and wants them to be saved from Hell. I can, and do, walk away after a while but the atheists are like monkeys (primates in their evolutionary delusion) and can't stop acting like wild animals riding the backs of Christians. You are one of them, you seem to have no purpose but to insult God and Christians. You come here attacking and then you cry "they will attack me". Boo hoo for you.

People like you are the worst, because you know how to frame the language well enough and feign sophistication and manners so that brutes who can't control their profanity admire you. Why don't you write some books? It worked for Dawkins the pedophilia condoning pervert......call it an attack, it's the truth. People like you and Dawkins are the worst because you are leading hordes to Hell with you and you will suffer extra punishment for teaching them your evil ways.

You can be saved by God the Savior, and that is what He and I both would prefer but you want to go your own way, don't you? You want to be separated from God forever, don't you? You don't want God to love you, do you?

Side: Yes it is, because...
1 point

Face it, theoretical physics is not science; it is just a religion with math.

In pseudo sciences & quasi-sciences like theoretical physics, and para-scientific fields like mathematics (particularly probability) the multiple universe concept is a model for discussing the potential results of alternate choices as the number of choices compound potential results, or as an untestable explanation for data sets that real scientists cannot explain.

In order to be actual science, there have to be testable hypotheses and experimentation with a control group and an experimental group.

We experience the universe that includes the actions and outcomes that actually happened. This is the control group. It is impossible to change a variable (such as Adolph Hitler being successful as a painter, or Fidel Castro being picked up by a major league baseball team) to see how that would have changed history, or what a universe that includes that event would look like. We are only in one universe, and can only take measurements from the universe we are in, so we cannot test the other universe to verify its existence or examine its properties.

Absolutely, cosmologists have observed galaxies on trajectories that indicate high-gravity points that are drawing mass toward themselves, but there is no test conducted to prove the following.

- The convergence is definitely the result of gravity, not some other force or causal event.

- If the convergence is the result of gravity, that it is the gravity of another universe touching/close to our own, not some supermassive but invisible (to the cosmologist) resident of our own universe.

This is where theoretical physics comes in and pretends that the testable hypothesis is unnecessary for science, and inserts "multiverse" as the untestable explanation in exactly the same way religious person would insert "god" as the untestable explanation.

The multiverse concept was part of the fantasy (NOT science fiction) genre in the 1960's & 1970's, by author's like Michael Moorcock, and in comics.

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

I agree with you that it can not be considered true science, for the reasons you give. I do think though, that theoretical physicists keep it clear that things like the multiverse are only hypotheses, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it is like a religion, except for when it is presented as a fact.

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

"Can a multiverse include a possible universe in which that universe is singular (i.e., not in a multiverse)?" is an analog to the question "Can an omnipotent god create a rock so heavy he cannot lift it?"

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

Well. Let me actually try to combine to two for fun. The passage of time for God is greatly different that for humans. Perhaps it's because God travels in the multiverse? Thoughts on that?

Seriously this is just a fun question.

Side: No it's not, because...
1 point

This does sound fun. If I were God, I would be entertained by a multiverse, or an infinite universe with all sorts of possibilities in different places, but would God even want this for entertainment? Would God need entertainment? Christian tradition says something along the lines of God creating humans for companionship, so maybe he would need entertainment, but would he still be God then? I don't know.

Side: No it's not, because...