Truth in science
Atheist myths debunked - the 'Multiverse
ATHEISM - THE NEW MYTHOLOGY.
The so-called M theory or Multiverse.
An atheist idea which has become popular in the last few years, and is being enthusiastically promoted by the secular media is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes - they call this the 'Multiverse'.
So is it credible?
An infinite number of universes, is just another unscientific, atheist myth, invented in order to get around the law of cause and effect, and the fact that the universe screams order and purpose. However, like all other atheist attempts to evade logic and natural law, the ‘multiverse’ concept is full of flaws and doomed to failure. It may sound plausible to those who are not willing to think for themselves, and are easily bamboozled by pronouncements that are claimed to be 'scientific', but it doesn’t stand up to any close scrutiny.
Firstly,
there is no evidence whatsoever for any other universe than this one.
Secondly,
a ‘multiverse’ is just as in need of a non-contingent, first cause as this single universe. Atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause by saying that the multiverse (and this universe) arose from ‘nothing’. Then they tell us we mustn’t think that idea is as crazy as it seems, because the ‘nothing’, they call nothing, wasn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
Confusing or what?
So why do atheists refer to SOMETHING (space and time) which clearly isn’t NOTHING - as nothing?
The answer is simple … smoke and mirrors.
They know that people can accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO thing) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
So for atheists to say the universe or multiverse came from nothing is a device to avoid explaining what caused that which existed before the universe.
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies.
In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds. The confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate.
The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Therefore, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing, but a definite SOMETHING, and an integral part of the material realm. Which means, like all material things, – space cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent. So atheists are back to square one with the major problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what caused it (space) to exist?
Thirdly,
an infinite number of universes is logically and scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.
Why?
Because, if the infinite universes were all different, all with different natural laws and constants, they could not begin to exist.
If you believe in the big bang (as atheists do), you believe that this universe was only able to come into existence through the big bang because it had the right natural laws or physical constants. If gravity or the speed of light had been different in this universe, there could not have been a big bang, or the coalescence of matter into cosmic bodies.
In other words, with different natural laws, THIS universe could not have come into existence. So, with an infinite number of universes, all allegedly popping into existence in big bang-like scenarios from the nothing that is really something - most would NOT have similar, physical constants and laws to our universe. Therefore most would not be viable, and would not be capable of originating in a big bang-like scenario.
Indeed, the idea that the infinite number of universe are all different, is an essential part of atheism's multiverse scenario. If they all have laws the same as our universe, then the atheist idea that out of an infinite number of universes one must be well ordered, by sheer chance, is null and void.
So it is back to the drawing board.
The multiverse myth is a dead duck, logically and scientifically.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
Atheist myths debunked - the 'Multiverse
ATHEISM - THE NEW MYTHOLOGY.
The so-called M theory or Multiverse.
An atheist idea which has become popular in the last few years, and is being enthusiastically promoted by the secular media is the idea that our universe is just one of an infinite number of universes - they call this the 'Multiverse'.
So is it credible?
An infinite number of universes, is just another unscientific, atheist myth, invented in order to get around the law of cause and effect, and the fact that the universe screams order and purpose. However, like all other atheist attempts to evade logic and natural law, the ‘multiverse’ concept is full of flaws and doomed to failure. It may sound plausible to those who are not willing to think for themselves, and are easily bamboozled by pronouncements that are claimed to be 'scientific', but it doesn’t stand up to any close scrutiny.
Firstly,
there is no evidence whatsoever for any other universe than this one.
Secondly,
a ‘multiverse’ is just as in need of a non-contingent, first cause as this single universe. Atheists try to get round the problem of a first cause by saying that the multiverse (and this universe) arose from ‘nothing’. Then they tell us we mustn’t think that idea is as crazy as it seems, because the ‘nothing’, they call nothing, wasn’t really nothing, but ‘something’, i.e. space/time.
Confusing or what?
So why do atheists refer to SOMETHING (space and time) which clearly isn’t NOTHING - as nothing?
The answer is simple … smoke and mirrors.
They know that people can accept the idea of an eternal nothingness, because ‘nothing’ in its true sense of the word (meaning NO thing) doesn’t need a first cause. It simply means non-existence of everything.
And that which doesn’t exist, doesn’t need a cause.
So for atheists to say the universe or multiverse came from nothing is a device to avoid explaining what caused that which existed before the universe.
However, the atheist’s ‘nothing’ actually turns out to be part of the material realm.
The atheist’s nothing is … ‘space’, and space is NOT nothing. Space is the medium which is around and between cosmic bodies.
In our universe, there is no such thing as empty space, even though it may look empty. We know that ‘space’ contains light, radio waves, gravitational forces, cosmic rays etc. Space is an integral part of the material universe, and is just as dependant on a first cause as the cosmic bodies it surrounds. The confusion between ‘space’ and ‘nothing’ is deliberate.
The space/time that atheists refer to as ‘nothing’ in their “UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING” scenario, apparently also contains energy and gravity.
Therefore, the atheist ‘nothing’ turns out to be - not nothing, but a definite SOMETHING, and an integral part of the material realm. Which means, like all material things, – space cannot be non-contingent or eternally self-existent. So atheists are back to square one with the major problem of explaining a 'natural' first cause, because they still need to explain what caused it (space) to exist?
Thirdly,
an infinite number of universes is logically and scientifically IMPOSSIBLE.
Why?
Because, if the infinite universes were all different, all with different natural laws and constants, they could not begin to exist.
If you believe in the big bang (as atheists do), you believe that this universe was only able to come into existence through the big bang because it had the right natural laws or physical constants. If gravity or the speed of light had been different in this universe, there could not have been a big bang, or the coalescence of matter into cosmic bodies.
In other words, with different natural laws, THIS universe could not have come into existence. So, with an infinite number of universes, all allegedly popping into existence in big bang-like scenarios from the nothing that is really something - most would NOT have similar, physical constants and laws to our universe. Therefore most would not be viable, and would not be capable of originating in a big bang-like scenario.
Indeed, the idea that the infinite number of universe are all different, is an essential part of atheism's multiverse scenario. If they all have laws the same as our universe, then the atheist idea that out of an infinite number of universes one must be well ordered, by sheer chance, is null and void.
So it is back to the drawing board.
The multiverse myth is a dead duck, logically and scientifically.
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang's Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang's predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."