God vs The Multiverse

Click here for God vs The Multiverse: a rational argument for the Existence of One God who intelligently designed one universe.

Sunday, September 2, 2012

God vs the multiverse (Part 22: Reality vs the fantasy)


We now come to the following question that may be bothering you: Is the idea of Abraham's God satisfying to a person?  The basic answer is yes and no. On an intellectual level, yes. On an emotional level, no.

If someone were to posit a complex god with parts, and then defend the idea by saying, "You are not allowed to ask questions; you just can't understand god.", we would be right to object that there is no rational justification for this taboo of thought.  If something is complex, then its essence is susceptible to being comprehended through a deeper understanding of its simpler parts.  This thought taboo is obviously an evasive maneuver that attempts to avoid the fact that a complex model of god is fatally flawed in an intellectually unsatisfying manner.

We think it is clear why this criticism does not apply to the God of Abraham.  The fact that you can not understand God on a deeper level, is due to the fact that He is Absolutely Simple and therefore irreducible.  You can know that He Exists and you can study what results from His actions, but you cannot know Him like you know complex entities.  This is not a thought taboo because you can comprehend why you can not understand the Essence of an Absolutely Simple Existence through anything simpler.

However, on an emotional level the God of Abraham is not the god that people desire. Throughout history, people have craved gods and invented gods to satisfy their primitive fantasies and quell their primal fears.  A person looks for meaning and protection in this scary world.  A person yearns for the love and security that his parents provided him as a youth.  When primitive man sees that reality does not adequately provide him with these needs, he creates imaginary gods in an attempt to satisfy these infantile longings.

What kinds of gods does primitive man create?  gods of his fantasy.  Many gods.  Physical gods.  gods he can see.  gods he can identify with.  gods that have parts.  gods that are complex.  gods with big brains.  gods he can understand like he understands ordinary objects.  In short, gods that are only real to his emotions, because these are the gods that satisfy his infantile wishes.

What kind of God is primitive man not interested in?  The God of Reality.  One God.  A Simple God. A nonphysical God.  A God which he can not visualize.  A God with no parts.  A God which he can not reduce to anything simpler.  One Simple Necessary Existence.  The God of Abraham does not correspond to the god of primitive man's infantile fantasies.  However, it should be clear that this is not a rational reason for rejecting the God of Abraham.

We can study the awesome intelligence manifest in the universe, and determine that it has an Intelligent Designer.  When we logically develop a satisfactory idea for this Designer, we arrive at the God of Abraham.  While there is no doubt that the idea of God is unsatisfying to someone's base emotions, a person is able to rise above their primitive fantasies and freely choose to believe in a true idea of God; an idea of God which is supported by the mind.  A Real God.

While the faith in false gods temporarily satisfies a person's emotions, it ultimately leads to a conflicted life that is founded on contradictions and falsehoods.  A person can not shut out their mind's voice that screams "this is absurd".  In contrast, the life of one who has conviction in the True God is real and harmonious.  A person has to use their rational mind to freely evaluate what is true, in order to lead a real life.  Our answer to scientists' question of post 15 "Are We Real?" is:  We are real because our God, the God of Abraham, is Real.

We agree with atheistic scientists that all other ideas of gods are false and imaginary, and should be abandoned as wishful thinking.  However, in their war against gods of fantasy, they have failed to realize that there is a one real idea of God which is supported by a real investigation into the one real universe.  They have failed to realize that all the questions which they ask against the gods of fantasy do not apply to the God of Reality. (See the first comment for an expansion on this theme.)

We do not mean to imply that the God of Abraham is emotionally unsatisfying to an emotionally mature individual.  The opposite is true.  The genuine recognition of the God of Abraham can have powerful and beneficial emotional consequences.  The recognition of the One Source for all the great wisdom and ordered complexity in the universe is awe-inspiring.  It creates a strong emotional pull that motivates one to try to understand as much as humanly possible about the Creator of the universe and His actions.  We will try to develop a deeper understanding of His complex actions in the next few posts.For a mature individual, this emotional experience can only be described as a powerful love for God.

We are presented with a free choice between the truth as presented by our minds, and the lies that our emotions desire.  We are presented with a free choice between the God of Reality and the gods of fantasy.  Choose well.

1 comment:

  1. Many scientists reject God as the explanation of fine tuning because we can not understand "God" any further. We would like to point out a mistake in methodology of thought, and an inconsistency, which are involved in this rejection.

    First, for the methodological point. The fine tuning of the universe points to an Intelligent Designer (Stage 1). While it is true that the only reasonable formulation for an Intelligent Designer is the One Simple God of Abraham, it is simply poor methodology to close off a legitimate explanation of an intelligent cause (the most natural explanation in fact) because you do not know how to pursue it further. There is difference between a logical contradiction in a theory, and a question about how to take a theory further.

    Just because you cannot push the solution to the point of ultimate understanding, where you can answer all your questions, does not mean that it is not correct. What guarantee do we have that the ultimate explanation is fully understandable to man, especially if the human mind is purely a result of evolutionary processes, as atheistic scientists maintain? Proper thinking demands that we take the proper logical step in pursuing a problem, despite the fact that we may not be able to go any further.

    Just to be perfectly clear, we are not saying this about the God of Abraham. We can understand why it makes no sense to try to go further. We are just saying that even if scientists are ignorant of the proper idea of God, they still should say that there is an intelligent cause for the universe, but that they just can't know anything further about it without speculating.

    Now for the inconsistency. Many atheists reject God because it does not allow us to go any further. We do not know anything about God's Essence, and therefore they prefer the "elegant" complex multiverse theory. However, we do not know anything about the multiverses either! Nor do we know anything about the metaphysical random number generator that multiverse theory demands to explain fine tuning. As we have no way of observing, studying, or even confirming the existence of any universe outside of ours, we have no real way of gaining knowledge of the multiverse without resorting to total speculation. Why do atheists not reject the multiverse theory because of this very same flaw?

    This point is evidenced by the numerous, entirely different theories and models of the multiverse. There is the eternally inflating Swiss cheese multiverse (eternal chaotic inflation); the black hole/big bang multiverse (Smolin's favorite); the infinitely oscillating big bang/big crunch multiverse; Carroll's chicken/egg multiverse; the list goes on. There are as many multiverse theories as Greek gods on Mt. Olympus, except now they are being described in the language of mathematics. (A language not well understood by most people, so they can get away with it much more easily.)

    Our main point is that even scientists agree that you should not reject a theory just because you do not know how to go further and how to gain more knowledge. To totally ignore the possibility of an Intelligent Designer or to simply reject His existence with a superficial question is a serious error and inconsistency.

    Despite the fact that the fools of the world have invented many false gods of fantasy, scientists should not turn away from the natural solution for the fine tuning, and from the search for a satisfactory theory of the God of Reality. It is unfortunate that today's scientists have closed off the path to the intellectually satisfying explanation of the One Simple God of Reality, and have chosen the intellectually unsatisfying explanation of the infinity complex multiverse of fantasy.

    ReplyDelete

In the words of Agur bin-Yakeh: "We welcome all comments, questions, contributions, and critiques - but if you insist on posting anonymously, PLEASE use a pseudonym rather than posting as "Anonymous," since this makes it much easier to carry on a normal discussion. Thank you!"