So your conclusion is that the act of creation can be explained without God?
Nature created itself? Is self existent?
Do you accept it when cosmologists assume the universe is self existent and propose ideas such as the multiverse? I would question the basic assumptions.
That’s what I am doing with evolution too.
How could you possibly think that is what @Chris_Falter believes? Did you forget that he is a Christian that affirms Gods Providence and the doctrine of creation?
Are you trying intentionally to misrepresente him?
I don’t think he believes that. I am asking a question to understand his position better.
That’s why there is clarification of the question with the example of assumptions about the universe being self existent. (As seen in the idea of the multiverse).
No.
Then don’t say nonsense like this:
Give me a break @Ashwin_s. Of course he does not think Nature created itself and is self-existant.
He is point out the inconsistency you have in your objections about evolution.
Again you are misunderstanding.
I am telling him that I am consistent in objecting to assumptions that I disagree with. Like the example I gave with the multiverse.
Meaning that I would object to an idea like the multiverse because it assumes the universe is self existent while I wouldn’t bother with covalent bonds.
Similarly, the inherent assumption in evolution is that life moved from single celled organisms to complexity purely through natural processes.what is objectionable for questioning that assumption and pointing out that it’s based on a philosophical premise?
I’m not sure either preclude God. Multiverse proposals certainly can’t.
However the proposals wouldn’t be required unless one assumes the universe is self existent.
Hugh Ross and Jeff Zweerink of Reasons to Believe have written extensively about how the multiverse hypothesis is completely consistent with God’s activity and character as depicted in the Bible. Here is just one example:
So Ross and Zweerink have no quibble with the multiverse hypothesis. I trust their knowledge of astrophysics, so I agree with them.
Best,
Chris
Did you get the wrong article?
What is attached is a polemic against the concept of the multiverse showing how it has no explanatory power because it can be used to explain anything, even obviously ridiculous propositions.
The paper gives one good reason the concept of the multiverse is not good science.
And yet religious physicists can and do work on proposals like the multiverse.
Similarly, there are any number of physicians who believe God can answer prayers and heal but nonetheless treat patients using the best scientific knowledge available.
I’m certain that there are any number of biases and preconceptions/worldviews that can steer a person’s research. But in the end… 1) It’s impossible to ever rule out God and 2) It’s the data and results that point to the proximate causes.
By the way… Hugh Ross recently wrote a blog citing a paper which he believes provides data that is better explained through creation models than evolution. You might find it interesting.
I agree. However I was giving my reasons for why I am skeptical about concepts like evolution, the multiverse etc while not being skeptical about concepts such as the covalent bond. This was in response to a question by @Chris_Falter.
Some subjects are more prone to be influenced by philosophical biases than others in science imo.
Especially those that involve a lot of extrapolation int deep time, long distances etc.
You say some silly things. The multiverse is a prediction based on models of the universe we see.
Where do we see models of the universe?
Are you talking about a set of possible universes?
There are base assumptions involved in making this prediction right?
There are models of this universe, invented to explain aspects of this universe we observe, which predict other universes as a byproduct. These models were not invented to predict other universes, they were only invented to explain features of our own observed universe.
You are talking about inflation?
You wouldn’t get multiverses without the assumption that some kind of matter gave rise to the universe. It’s this assumption I am questioning.
I’m not a cosmologist, you’ll have to take that up with them.
It gives a polemic against the many worlds version of the multiverse hypothesis, but not against all versions.
You made the below claims and linked to the article.
The article in the link does not even come close to saying what you claim it does.
That’s the point I was making.
I respectfully disagree with Ross’ analysis.
In any stochastic process with two different kinds of evidence that are both imperfectly sampled, you would expect contra Ross at least a small degree of divergence between the models. If the divergence had been far greater than observed between paleontology and genetic phylogenies, one might wonder whether they were produced by the same process. That is not the case with the Silvestro-Warnock data.
Moreover, I have no way to evaluate Ross’ claims about how a creationist model would treat such divergences differently than an evolutionary model, because I have to buy his book to see what he says.
Best
Chris
P.S. I do recall that one of the predictions of his Testable Model was that no crossbreeding would be found between H Sapiens and H Neandertalis.
At the same time, I appreciate Ross’ willingness to build a testable model. This gives him a unique place in the ID camp.