This is what I was about to post when the site when down...
_________________________________
Hello Root,
I'll begin with one of the points that came later in the post since it is relevant to the remainder of the post.
The way I see it, atheists will go to long winded ridiculous and far-fetched explanations to avoid the most obvious answer - that there is a Creator. They will hypothesize the existence of all sorts of imaginary things, but when it comes to their Creator they reject the notion with arrogance because it entails a change in their lifestyle.
Because we don't fully understand many issues, does not necesitate by default the notion that God must therefore be true.
Based on what we know from our universe, we are left with only one logical possibility - that the universe was conciously created by an independent entity. Even with your multiverse idea, it doesn't change anything. We simply trace our way back through the multiverse coming to the original. If you claim that it extends for infinite, that's illogical because then an infinite number of steps precede the birth of our universe, and an infinite number of steps cannot be crossed. So when you get to the original universe, you still have to explain where it came from and in the end, your left with no other choice but to admit the existence of this concious independent entity. Once you've done that, you proceed logically and learn how to discover and come in contact with this independent entity.
However, science makes the prediction that our universe IS NOT a single entity.
Not true. Science makes no such prediction, and in fact has no authority to make such a prediction. As soon as such a prediction is made, it is immediately beyond the realm of science, and it enters speculation and fiction. Just because some atheist scientists may have speculated about a multiverse, do not confuse that with
science predicting a multiverse.
As for a religous belief, you need not make such predictions because it's not actually based upon anything but ignorance.
This is a fallacious argument. On one hand you falsely attribute speculation of certain atheists to 'science' when these speculations have no basis in science. On the other hand, you arrogantly label religious beliefs as 'ignorance' and 'baseless' when in reality they actually have a foundation in fact, unlike some of your hypotheses. Once it becomes apparent to someone that there is a Concious and independent entity that created our universe, it also becomes logically apparent that such an entity is in control of its creation, and the design observed in nature is the consequence of the order and energy infused in our universe. An entity that made the concious choice to spawn our universe from nothing and had the power to do so, is certainly not unaware or removed from it.
67:14 How could it be that He who has created [all] should not know [all]? Yea, He alone is unfathomable [in His wisdom], aware!
It becomes incumbent on any human being who arrives at this realization to make the journey to discover the true path in coming to know this independent entity.
Secondly, you forget to take into account the scientific theories of Quantum Physicists which approach the model of God, such as the massless lightcone being of the Many Worlds Interpretation, described as transcending time and space and being in control of them.
We do not know yet, so that proves "God" did it!
That is not the assertiong being made here. The assertion being made is that based on what we
do know, a denial of God has no basis in fact. Instead, it is apparent that this denial and the desperate far-fetched speculation that follows serve only to escape the admission that there is a divine power at work behind the universe. No matter what idea or hypothesis you come up with, it doesn't negate the need for there to have been an external cause which conciously brought about the universe from nothing.
The only certainty here is nothing is certain! Equally then they certainly could not intervene in mans affairs.
That's illogical. The one that initially infused energy and matter in creation certainly has the ability to add to it, to subtract it, etc. Such a being is fully capable of altering the universe at will.
Secondly, it is illogical that such a concious powerful being would have created this universe aimlessly.
23:16-17. And [know that] We have not created the heavens and the earth and all that is between them in mere idle play: [for,] had We willed to indulge in a pastime, We would indeed have produced it from within Ourselves - if such had been Our will at all!
Thus, when one learns that the universe has purpose, he/she must discover that purpose and re-direct their lifestyle accordingly. Just as in science we search for a theory that comprehensively addresses all the facts, similarly, when examining groups claiming to know God, we must examine each theory to see which is the most logical and comprehensive.
No, it's not a blend. Being in a simulation test model is a reasonable and equal assumption to God within a closed universe.
Perhaps I should ask specifically what you mean by 'simulation test model'.
if it does not necessarily "go" anywhere, why do you have such a problem with our universe not necessarily coming from "anywhere". that makes no sense to me at all and was part of the original post.
The two are not alike. On what hand, it is logically impossible for our universe to arise spontaneously from nothing. On the other hand, the whole reason why black holes have the most gravity is
because of the large amount of matter that is absorbed into the black hole.
Finally, may I ask a question. What prediction do you make.
1. Closed single universe.
2. Multiverses.
First of all, I see both as inconsequential to the obvious existence of God. Second, I do believe in dimensions beyond our observable universe, such as heaven and hell. But, as for the notion of a multiverse where independent 'universes' are formed through blackholes, I do not accept it as it does not agree with what we know from science (eg. law of entropy/SLoT).
Regards
I appreciate it.
:thumbs_up