Clearly much would depend on the being of God. For Christians we believe that God has revealed himself in Christ and revealed things about himself in scripture. So that's faith you will say and it is.Interbane wrote:Flann wrote:
The difference is that theists say that it is God who always existed not matter or energy.
That's what is commonly referred to as a distinction without a difference. As long as it qualifies as something instead of nothing, there is no difference. You open the door on a thousand impossible questions. Has god existed eternally? If so, then what did he do for an eternity before he turned the nothingness around him into something? Where is your evidence?
But what God did for eternity can only be known if he reveals this to us.What Judeo-Christian scriptures reveal is creation of angelic spiritual beings prior to our universe and a place where God dwells particularly called heaven. What this is like we don't really know beyond symbolic representations provided.
God is triune. And God may well have or may not have other creations we don't know about. It's seems as if you are implying that an eternal God would die of boredom but I don't see why such a being should have a problem with eternal existence even if we think it might be a problem.
And the same applies to any other concept of a transcendent God capable of creating our universe.
Your naturalistic hypotheses suppose eternally self creating universes/mutiverses. If this has been going on eternally then these universes must be infinite in number.
Andre Linde sums up his theory's implications; "Instead of a universe with a single of law of physics,eternal chaotic inflation predicts a self reproducing eternally existing multiverse where all possibilities can be realised."
If we attribute our universe with it's laws,cosmic order and life forms on our planet to the creative power of the mutiverse what is possible in these other infinitely innumerable other universes?
The mind boggles, and it is an act of faith for the naturalist to believe in such realities.
https://www.alumni.stanford.edu/get/pag ... e_id=32024 Can't get this link right.
Please google/ Stanford magazine; Worlds without end
http://www.daviddarling.info/encycloped ... ctheo.html
Appealing to nature instead of God doesn't make these naturalistic theories any less ridiculous. At least we know that there is one universe with a single set of laws and that's not wild speculation.Interbane wrote: Appealing to god instead of nature does not make this any less ridiculous.
Lee Smolin reckons the functional "purpose" of the multiverse is the endless manufacture of black holes. All else including life forms and intelligence in any of these myriad universes is an unintended byproduct of this mindless obsession with making black holes.
http://www.mysteriousuniverse.org/2014/ ... e-machine/Interbane wrote: With that said, Chaotic Inflation Theory and Smolin Selection. But this doesn't matter. All this does is give you something tangible to investigate for a reason to disbelieve.
It seems to give you something to investigate for a reason to disbelieve in God. After all it alleviates the real problem in our real universe of fine tuning.