Can all atheists please stop the physicists from talking about the possible existence of a multi-verse! A multi-verse is neither verifiable nor falsifiable. That makes it BAD SCIENCE! Please start with Alan Guth. Thank you.
Well it isn't bad science as of now. The Christian concept of a creator is verifiable but not falsifiable. The concept of a multiverse is verifiable, but we don't know yet whether the universe has limits, therefore we don't know whether the concept is falsifiable. Science requires falsifiability.
what is your definition of falsifiable? how can we test it? there seems to be a desire among some to the term so that string theory and multiverse can qualify as theories. (most would tell you multiverse is not a theory right now because we don't have a test for it.) sean carroll recently wrote this... it which he suggested we should retire the idea. http://www.preposterousuniverse.com/blog/2014/01/14/what-scientific-ideas-are-ready-for-retirement/ Modern physics stretches into realms far removed from everyday experience, and sometimes the connection to experiment becomes tenuous at best. String theory and other approaches to quantum gravity involve phenomena that are likely to manifest themselves only at energies enormously higher than anything we have access to here on Earth. The cosmological multiverse and the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics posit other realms that are impossible for us to access directly. Some scientists, leaning on Popper, have suggested that these theories are non-scientific because they are not falsifiable. The truth is the opposite. Whether or not we can observe them directly, the entities involved in these theories are either real or they are not. Refusing to contemplate their possible existence on the grounds of some a priori principle, even though they might play a crucial role in how the world works, is as non-scientific as it gets. --- However, if you think about it, the same objection would hold true for the Deist idea of a Creator who set the universe in motion.
You might benefit from looking up the standard definitions of Deity, Agnosticism, and Atheisim. If, to you, for example, your belief in "a spirit" is inseparable from belief in a supernatural deity, then by the standard definitions, you are a theist. However, while the definition of spirit can incorporate and embody the religious concept of a holy spirit or supernatural deity, it often does not. It is pointless to discuss such matters without first agreeing on definitions.
Exactly, one should take him for his words. Einstein's "God" is clearly not a deity. I concluded, based on his words rather then his proclamation that he was not an atheist, that he was, in fact, an atheist. Of course I am using the standard definition of atheist. But of course our opinions differ.
really? we might benefit from a dictionary. you might benefit from looking up the phrase "pseudo intellectual". hereI will help: http://www.learnersdictionary.com/definition/pseudo-intellectual once again in the pursuit of asserting your superiority you missed the quintessence of the issue. ---- Its not Einstein's use the word spirit... its his statement that the universe can not have laws of nature without a Lawgiver... in modern terms it would be tunings without a Tuner.
- infinity...and beyond... -1 more Standing by your comment is fine but doesn't make it any more correct. The only certainty to do with not having belief is that there is no belief. Further questions of certainty are irrelevant. To be susceptible to any idea in the way you suggest is not an open mind, but one where your brains have fallen out. Arguing from incredulity that way is simply keeping the closed mind which you criticize. Scientifically, according to the laws of nature, something from nothing is unavoidable.