We should be able to make a distinction between "Hey, I think I know about airplanes, let's build one!" and "Hey, I saw this new theoretical wing design pop up on the Aerodynamics wiki! Could this change air travel one day?"
If I might make a different analogy: we have awoken to find ourselves
on a plane that is already in flight. There is no pilot around, but a few of the other passengers have, through careful experimentation, figured out how a few switches in the cockpit function, and maybe have a few guesses at what is keeping the plane aloft, but no one’s mastered the controls. We can either sit down, saying we don’t know how the plane flies (or even what principles are keeping it aloft), or we can get in the cockpit and use what little we know to the best we can. Our actions might doom us all, but our inaction certainly will.
Further, on what grounds do you assume that, in a multiverse, there would be a permeable boundary between constituent universes?
Because if there is ever a way to prove that the multiverse exists, then there would have to be some way to observe it either directly or indirectly, yes? If we can observe something, it tends to mean that interactions with it are possible. Thus if we can every prove it, we can use it. Probably.
Additionally, the multiverse has been used to explain where dark energy/matter are. They’re in another universe that is effecting ours.
If we can’t observe, then it is a moot point all together. The multiverse might be there but we have no way of knowing, so no means of interaction, and no reason to even pursue interactions. We can't prove its there, after all.
But I must apologize. When someone says something is impossible, my first instinct is to start imagining ways that they are wrong. In this case it was a bit of a bird-walk.
I'm not immediately aware of the specific "theological implication" to which you are referring.
It is that the universe seems to have required "fine tuning" to exist as it does. If I am recalling correctly, given the range of variables that effected the start of the universe (and everything since), there is somewhere around 10
1000 possible outcomes, with only a handful producing one anywhere like ours (the vast majority should produce universes that fail to start, or ones that start but never develop).
Of course, there is the analogy of the intelligent puddle that attempts to address this oddity. If the universe didn't happen to produce life, we wouldn't be around to realize that it didn't. This is like a puddle that imagines the hole it inhabits was created just for it, because it fits it so well. The problem with that analogy is, while it legitimately urges us to be cautious, there truly are some puddles that find themselves in holes that were created just for them. We tend to call these puddles “swimming pools.”
The statistics seem to imply that our universe, being like it is, is significant; the P value is ridiculously low. However, with an n=1, the statistics are also ridiculously shaky and no reasonable conclusion can be drawn. But it is enough to allow reasonably-intelligent people to continue to believe in a divine origin of the universe. Even if it isn’t true, it gives enough room for it to be supposed.
Which is why the multiverse is such an attractive concept to some scientists. Instead of a single roll of the dice producing a livable universe against unimaginable odds, there were an unimaginable number of dice rolls to overcome these odds, once again seemingly removing even the faintest whiff of the divine. And of course, a cyclical brane model for the multiverse would indicate that not only is there one multiverse, but that multiverses keep getting created again and again and again, not only allowing for our universe to exist, but essentially necessitating it (a non-cyclical brane model would still have multiple multiverses, but those would be of a finite number). But... then we start getting the problem of Boltzmann brains. Totally improbable things become reality when given enough chances; indeed, the improbable should outnumber the probable, so it would actually be more likely that we popped into existence as-is a few seconds ago with memories of a developing world (that never actually existed), rather than the universe as we know it developing on its own.
Ah, philosophy, is there anything it can’t suppose is false on a whim?
That said, I now have to swing the pendulum back and say that the cyclic model (aka the Oscillating Universe) doesn't hold water under scrutiny either, and for good reason.
One of the great advantages of the cyclic model, however, is that we don't have the problem of what caused the big bang. As soon as all matter and energy gets recompressed into a geometric point, it explodes again. Without that, we have the problem of all the matter and energy in the universe existing in a "cosmic egg" for an infinite amount of "time" before the big bang. What caused it to change? Is change even possible before the big bang? Is time even possible? Is “is” even possible?!
To note, theories regarding the multiverse also tend to have this advantage.
The big crunch under a cyclical model, if it happened, could be very efficient if it would be drawing in everything that was expelled beforehand. One might suppose that some energy or matter would escape the big crunch; that is certainly a possibility, but space isn't a constant. As the universe contracts, space too would be contracting, so anything that was too far away would be drawn back in as well, just because the space between it and this super black hole (I will call it... the Omega Hole) would shrink. Now I know that this goes in the face of what that article you linked to claimed, so I will admit that I am very likely overlooking something. This MIT professor seems to assume that
something is being lost with every "bounce" of the universe. Given my limited knowledge of the topic, I am unable to identify what would be lost, where it would go, or why it wouldn't be retrieved.
The answer to the beginning of the universe may well be as the BioLogos foundation notes:
The common sense assumption that everything must have a cause or a reason to be as it is also suffers from what is called the fallacy of composition. This fallacy comes about when we assume that properties of the parts apply to the whole. For example, just because every member of the human race has a mother, we cannot infer that the human race itself has a mother. Similarly, a collection of spherical things would not itself have to be spherical. In discussions about the origins of the universe, we would say that just because every individual part of the universe has a cause, that does not mean that the entire universe has a cause.
As a side note, even if there was a failed big crunch, things wouldn't end in a black hole; even that would evaporate eventually. Heat Death for the win!
I will have to presume that there is no mind/body dichotomy, and that the totality of our awareness is locked into something physical just as sure as our computer hard drives can be turned off and still contain our Word documents when some juice is injected back into them.
Oddly enough, zombies have been used by philosophers to explore that very possibility (well…
p-zombies). I'm not going anywhere with that comment, I just found it random-yet-interesting enough to be worth sharing.
Additionally, while I generally accept the Christian belief that Jesus is the only means of salvation, I also reject the notion that only those exposed to one of the gospels (or in general someone who has heard the name “Jesus”) will make it to heaven.
Admittedly I am little surprised that you believe Jesus is the only means to salvation, in some form or another. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
First, allow me to establish this stance in the common form and then explain how I differ. However, I must stress that these comments are from "inside" a religion, which means that certain religious concepts are assumed to be correct. Thus I must ask the read to suspend disbelief to a degree for a little while.
A basic Christian tenant is the need for salvation. Some believe that this is due to original sin, though I reject such a notion on scriptural grounds as well as rational ones (which, in the context of religion, may be an oxymoron, but as I said, “suspension of disbelief”). For me, salvation is necessitated due to individual "sins," with sin being defined as essentially "that which turns away from God." Anywho, that isn’t particularly important for the present. While it is possible for a human to live in a sinless manner, it tends to be incredibly unlikely (happening somewhere around 2 or 3 times, as recorded in the bible at least). A crime committed is a crime that must be atoned for, which is why I tend to reject the notion that if you are "just a good person" you'll go to heaven. "Good" is the baseline, that which is required. Something needs to atone for the deficit created by crimes. Jesus then, in some manner, satisfies that need.
This is one of those points where Christianity comes across as a hindrance to critical thinking; Christians don't know exactly why Jesus' time on earth and death were needed. Why couldn't God just wave his hand and forgive everyone? Why was pain and suffering needed? Individual Christians sometimes have personal answers to these questions, but there isn't a universally or even widely accepted dogma to this effect. There are indeed a great number of Christians who can't give you an answer at all. My particular answer involves time travel (more or less). But be that as it may, the belief goes on in that while other sacrifices might alleviate a little bit of culpability, there is really only one that does the job fully and eternally. Thus, in order to completely atone for sins (those in the present, future, or past) one would need to accept Jesus' sacrifice.
Why it doesn't count regardless of if someone accepts it or not is a very simple matter, but one that often gets brought up so allow me to address it. If I give you a thousand dollars, you can't very well spend it if you don't first accept it. Like that, like this.
This generally leads a great many Christians to the belief that one has to hear the literal gospel as contained in the Christian bible and specifically "accept Jesus Christ as their lord and savior" for God to cut them in on the deal. This is supported by particular interpretations of various bible verses, such as when Jesus claims that he is "the way, the truth, and the light; no one comes to the father except through" him.
I find this stance to often be a stumbling block for a lot of people. Darwin rebelled against his earlier Christian faith because he could not tolerate the belief that a good God would send good people to hell just because they didn't happen to pray a special prayer. Indeed, this stance does cause a problem: what of people who have never been exposed to Christian religion (either because they lived before Jesus, or they live in a part of the world that hasn't been exposed to it yet)? If one accepts a strict stance on this topic, one must generally believe that God condemns them through no fault of their own, which is against the common-but-not-universal Christian belief in free will.
Now my own stance on this matter is largely summarized in the Chronicles of Narnia. Names aren’t important but intent is key. Anyone who earnestly seeks for the divine will find a connection to God and the will be sort of “grandfathered” into the salvation that Jesus provides. Now this isn't just me being an apostate without cause; particular interpretations of scripture support this stance (for example, it is stated the Jewish patriarchs are saved, even though they had no idea who Jesus was; they were quite literally "grandfathered in." Likewise, Jesus states that anyone who seeks for him will find him, in a non-literal but still meaningful sense. And others). One might suppose that if an ethereal connection is all that is necessary, then an exact connection through the gospels is extraneous and could be done away with. I reject such an assumption based on detailed knowledge being better and more useful than merely a working understanding. See above regarding my airplane analogy. I’m a big proponent of using what you have but adjusting your thinking on the fly.
But the effective end result is that while I get to believe that Christianity is "right," I am not required to believe that all non-Christians are damned for all time. Though, this is such a convenient stance that I have often wondered if it is nothing more than wishful thinking. So far my theological pursuits seem to uphold it, but as I said, my beliefs are constantly evolving.
