Religious implications of an infinite multiverse

[Jobar]

An exchange in the thread 120 Reasons to Reject Christianity started me thinking about this.

Let me rephrase. Do you accept that if the existence of multiple universes (supernatural realms) is true, then one of those could feasibly be an afterlife destination? Death as a wormhole? The 'soul' as a quantum phenomenon?

Why do you try to equate "multiple universes" with "supernatural realms"? However many universes there may be, it's most probable that they're all entirely natural, based on what we know of our own universe. An "afterlife destination"? A "soul"? These are things we have no knowledge of the existence of, and which are entirely speculative. They are, I'll admit, "possibilities", but only in the way angels, djinn and demons are "possibilities".

It made me think about something I wrote only a couple of days after my father died, back in 2012.

Something happened today which I want to get down while the memory of it is fresh. After finalizing the arrangements with the funeral home, my family adjourned to the home place to plan, and discuss, and go through the many thousand pictures to pick out a reasonable number for a slide show at the memorial service. My sister had ridden over with one of my brothers, and asked to ride back with me; knowing my unbelief, she asked what I thought about death, and what was become of the father we knew.

I told her that, as far as we know for certain, the patterns of his consciousness were dispersed when his brain shut down- that there is no soul, no 'life after death'. And that his physical body would go back to the ongoing cycle of carbon and other elements which was the reason for his (and our) being in the first place.

But I also told her that possibly-but-not-definitely, the way we experience reality- the flowing series of moments which is time, ever changing and unstoppable- is not the most basic nature of existence. That our experience may be analogous to the scanning of a CD by the read/write laser- a temporal evocation of something that could conceivably be eternal. That what we sense as momentary and limited, may instead be only one aspect of something never-ending, and infinite.

More; I told her that, if the universe/multiverse is indeed infinite- and we have good scientific/mathematical reasons to suspect it is- that not just this one 'version' of our father exists; every possible variation on the theme of 'John M. Barnes' is played out, somewhere/somewhen. And that's true for each and every one of us.

I told her that, to me, such a view of the universe is so incredibly vaster, more wondrous, more awesome than the little tinkertoy world that the preachers talk about.

Still, it seems to me that if the universe/multiverse is indeed infinite, it raises questions that are validly religious in nature.

My own view, as many are aware, is that all reality is in a sense singular- but that monism is comprised of 'infinite variety in infinite combinations'. And although it's nothing like the Creator/Ruler of the monotheistic faiths, that monism might perhaps be fairly labeled 'God'. (For more on my views see this debate from 2010.)

I quite agree with C. Mucius that souls and all other 'supernatural' entities and concepts are entirely conjectural. I would go further and say that there may be no non-self-contradictory way to define 'supernatural'. But if reality is boundless, can we still defend strong atheism, and say that nothing god-like (or soul-like) exists, in some far reach of infinite universes and dimensions?

 

[phands]

I disagree. If there are multiple universes, then they are all natural. No need for sky fairies.

 

[Jobar]

Einstein posited that all reference frames in the universe are equivalent; possibly the same is true for any multiversal reference frame, and thus nothing can be said to be 'supernatural'. As I said, the word may well be meaningless, an 'unreal reality'. But we are a long way from being able to demonstrate that is true. Thus my own preference for weak atheism ('all we know indicates that there are no gods') over strong atheism ('gods are nonexistent, period'.)

 

[steve_bank]

If you are of a literal Abrams believe there are limited choices.

God winked into existence from nothing without a cause.

God always was and always will be. Our Universe exists as long as god, he she it, wills it.

 

[WAB]

Spinoza's definition and "proof" of God is interesting, and perhaps might be of some interest, particularly since Jobar mentioned monism. I put "proof" in quotes because I don't feel there's any actual proof; but at least it offers a little more than Anselm's "proof".

2.1 God or Nature

“On God” begins with some deceptively simple definitions of terms that would be familiar to any seventeenth century philosopher. “By substance I understand what is in itself and is conceived through itself”; “By attribute I understand what the intellect perceives of a substance, as constituting its essence”; “By God I understand a being absolutely infinite, i.e., a substance consisting of an infinity of attributes, of which each one expresses an eternal and infinite essence.” The definitions of Part One are, in effect, simply clear concepts that ground the rest of his system. They are followed by a number of axioms that, he assumes, will be regarded as obvious and unproblematic by the philosophically informed (“Whatever is, is either in itself or in another”; “From a given determinate cause the effect follows necessarily”). From these, the first proposition necessarily follows, and every subsequent proposition can be demonstrated using only what precedes it. (References to the Ethics will be by part (I–V), proposition (p), definition (d), scholium (s) and corollary (c).)

In propositions one through fifteen of Part One, Spinoza presents the basic elements of his picture of God. God is the infinite, necessarily existing (that is, uncaused), unique substance of the universe. There is only one substance in the universe; it is God; and everything else that is, is in God.

Proposition 1: A substance is prior in nature to its affections.

Proposition 2: Two substances having different attributes have nothing in common with one another. (In other words, if two substances differ in nature, then they have nothing in common).

Proposition 3: If things have nothing in common with one another, one of them cannot be the cause of the other.

Proposition 4: Two or more distinct things are distinguished from one another, either by a difference in the attributes [i.e., the natures or essences] of the substances or by a difference in their affections [i.e., their accidental properties].

Proposition 5: In nature, there cannot be two or more substances of the same nature or attribute.

Proposition 6: One substance cannot be produced by another substance.

Proposition 7: It pertains to the nature of a substance to exist.

Proposition 8: Every substance is necessarily infinite.

Proposition 9: The more reality or being each thing has, the more attributes belong to it.

Proposition 10: Each attribute of a substance must be conceived through itself.

Proposition 11: God, or a substance consisting of infinite attributes, each of which expresses eternal and infinite essence, necessarily exists. (The proof of this proposition consists simply in the classic “ontological proof for God’s existence”. Spinoza writes that “if you deny this, conceive, if you can, that God does not exist. Therefore, by axiom 7 [‘If a thing can be conceived as not existing, its essence does not involve existence’], his essence does not involve existence. But this, by proposition 7, is absurd. Therefore, God necessarily exists, q.e.d.”)

Proposition 12: No attribute of a substance can be truly conceived from which it follows that the substance can be divided.

Proposition 13: A substance which is absolutely infinite is indivisible.

Proposition 14: Except God, no substance can be or be conceived.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatu


Spinoza has been called by turns a closet atheist, a deist, a pantheist, etc. An atheist he was not, and vehemently rejected accusations of atheism. You'd have to go to his letters to see how riled up he could get about that. He would go on for pages explaining and defending his position to critics and friends.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

But if reality is boundless, can we still defend strong atheism, and say that nothing god-like (or soul-like) exists, in some far reach of infinite universes and dimensions?

Well, the implication there is that such things could exist elsewhere, just not here. That doesn't really do humans any good.

Also the implication is that, because of an infinite realm of possibilities, it is therefore a certainty that there exists at least one universe where the Abrahamic god existed. Ok, but then that equally means there are universes--an infinite amount of them, no less--where no such god exists. What does it mean to say Universe 7983321 was created by Jehovah, but 89, 3323455, 2019305322, 5032, 49494955, 3, and 3040402020202023030303 were not?

If "God" does not encompass ALL--including all possible realities/universes/realms whatever--then it's a small caps "god" which is really just a natural individual with certain abilities that others find impressive. Arnold Schwarzenegger might fall under such a description, but do we really want to accept that as anything substantive?

Much like panspermia, the introduction of infinite universes/realms just shifts the question to some other origin and we're still left with ex nihilo and the assertion of necessary primacy.

 

[steve_bank]

Proof positive that atheists can be just as wacky, irrational, and lost in endless quasi-theology.

 

[Sarpedon]

I find that religious people have enough trouble with the proven vastness of our one universe.

Like for example, in a universe 90 billion light years accross (visible universe only!) what significance is that stupid hill in Jerusalem? They get mad when asked that.

 

[abaddon]

There is often, probably always, a lack of anything substantive to religious language.

People want to say "I think that's special" so they yank out some religious verbiage to convey it because of an ancient association of "awesome" and "wondrous" with religion.

"Godlike" means nothing but impressive. So if someone sees something as impressive, why not describe the impressiveness? That way there's more clarity, and no reliance on ancient emotional associations to a word like "God" to convey how impressive the "godlike" whatever is.

"Soul-like" means "like an immaterial person". An appeal to other realms or universes doesn't make it possible. It has to be a coherent concept first.

"Validly religious in nature". It's not clear to me how "religious" isn't always a problem of vague language and muddled conceptions.

 

[bilby]

There are no 'religious implications' of any secular fact. Religions will take or leave whatever facts suit their founders and practitioners, and any resemblance to actual reality is purely coincidental.

No matter how big the universe (or multiverse, or multiverses) might turn out to be, religions will remain fictions that have little or no actual grounding in fact, and exactly zero need for facts with which to ground themselves.

No matter how big reality is, it's not big enough for the concept of faith to become coherent. If a religion were to hold, or to arrive at, a set of beliefs that were completely and demonstrably consistent with reality (don't hold your breath), then it would nevertheless be impossible to demonstrate the truth of their claims, without resorting to a set of observations and theories that would render belief needless. Any sufficiently accurate religion would become indistinguishable from the science with which its tenets were proven, and we would have no need to call it 'religion'.

Religions hold in common the logically flawed epistemology that truth can be arrived at by faith. In the vanishingly improbable case that a religion were to be testably and demonstrably true, faith would become irrelevant, and it would no longer be a religion.

In an infinite multiverse, all possible things must occur. But gods are not possible things - unless they are so limited and local as to be unworthy of the name.

 

[Lion IRC]

An exchange in the thread 120 Reasons to Reject Christianity started me thinking about this.

It made me think about something I wrote only a couple of days after my father died, back in 2012.

Something happened today which I want to get down while the memory of it is fresh. After finalizing the arrangements with the funeral home, my family adjourned to the home place to plan, and discuss, and go through the many thousand pictures to pick out a reasonable number for a slide show at the memorial service. My sister had ridden over with one of my brothers, and asked to ride back with me; knowing my unbelief, she asked what I thought about death, and what was become of the father we knew.

I told her that, as far as we know for certain, the patterns of his consciousness were dispersed when his brain shut down- that there is no soul, no 'life after death'. And that his physical body would go back to the ongoing cycle of carbon and other elements which was the reason for his (and our) being in the first place.

But I also told her that possibly-but-not-definitely, the way we experience reality- the flowing series of moments which is time, ever changing and unstoppable- is not the most basic nature of existence. That our experience may be analogous to the scanning of a CD by the read/write laser- a temporal evocation of something that could conceivably be eternal. That what we sense as momentary and limited, may instead be only one aspect of something never-ending, and infinite.

More; I told her that, if the universe/multiverse is indeed infinite- and we have good scientific/mathematical reasons to suspect it is- that not just this one 'version' of our father exists; every possible variation on the theme of 'John M. Barnes' is played out, somewhere/somewhen. And that's true for each and every one of us.

I told her that, to me, such a view of the universe is so incredibly vaster, more wondrous, more awesome than the little tinkertoy world that the preachers talk about.

Still, it seems to me that if the universe/multiverse is indeed infinite, it raises questions that are validly religious in nature.

My own view, as many are aware, is that all reality is in a sense singular- but that monism is comprised of 'infinite variety in infinite combinations'. And although it's nothing like the Creator/Ruler of the monotheistic faiths, that monism might perhaps be fairly labeled 'God'. (For more on my views see this debate from 2010.)

I quite agree with C. Mucius that souls and all other 'supernatural' entities and concepts are entirely conjectural. I would go further and say that there may be no non-self-contradictory way to define 'supernatural'. But if reality is boundless, can we still defend strong atheism, and say that nothing god-like (or soul-like) exists, in some far reach of infinite universes and dimensions?

The point is that if anything previously considered 'supernatural' is discovered to be natural, this is not a debunking of religion. What religion calls an Angel, science would have no trouble contemplating as an extra-terrestrial higher life form.

If that super-advanced higher life form was able to apparently use its mind perhaps to perform 'angelic' tasks we could neither do nor understand, would we disbelieve our own eyes? (because miracles are impossible and angels aren't real - right?)

Why is the likely/probable existence of extra-terrestrial life taken for granted but a capital "H" Higher Being is scoffed at so quickly? Why is heaven controversial but parallel universes/multiverse are acceptable as a purely secular concept? Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

 

[Sarpedon]

Because we've seen how life can arise on one planet, so there's no reason to think it can't do so again.

Most reasonable people DO discount the idea that the Earth has been visited by super-advanced aliens with powers bordering on the supernatural. You are mistaking their commonness in popular culture for widespread 'belief.' If you are interested, we can discuss the economics of interstellar space travel.

Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

Because there's evidence for one, and evidence against the other

 

[abaddon]

What religion calls an Angel, science would have no trouble contemplating as an extra-terrestrial higher life form.

An angel is "a spiritual being believed to act as an attendant, agent, or messenger of God". If the ET isn't that, it cannot rightly be called an angel. Religion is debunked if it cannot describe anything accurately but relies on defunct concepts from ancient mythological/metaphysical systems.

If an ET life form is encountered, we'd no longer just be speculating about it but observing it and presumably communicating. We might ask for its own self-description. That possibility puts it in an entirely different category from angels, whom we cannot observe or communicate with.

If that super-advanced higher life form was able to apparently use its mind perhaps to perform 'angelic' tasks we could neither do nor understand, would we disbelieve our own eyes? (because miracles are impossible and angels aren't real - right?)

No, obviously an explanation would be sought. It'd be a ridiculous to respond with 'I can't understand so therefore there's something "angelic" happening here'.

Why is the likely/probable existence of extra-terrestrial life taken for granted but a capital "H" Higher Being is scoffed at so quickly? Why is heaven controversial but parallel universes/multiverse are acceptable as a purely secular concept? Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

Gods and angels are already as fully explained as anyone can explain on the evidence presented.

You're putting the indemonstrable into the same category with the as-yet-unknown, to say 'you speculate the mysteries of nature but not the mysteries of religion and that's close-minded'. But gods and angels are not mysterious. That people tell narratives about them but cannot demonstrate them means their origin is known: the imagination. Where they reside is known: in fables and myths. Extra-terrestrials are in the as-yet-unknown category, not in the category known-but-indemonstrable with the angels. They're not based on "people of old have told the story". Instead their probability is based on how the universe is observed to be.

 

[atrib]

The point is that if anything previously considered 'supernatural' is discovered to be natural, this is not a debunking of religion. What religion calls an Angel, science would have no trouble contemplating as an extra-terrestrial higher life form.

If that super-advanced higher life form was able to apparently use its mind perhaps to perform 'angelic' tasks we could neither do nor understand, would we disbelieve our own eyes? (because miracles are impossible and angels aren't real - right?)

True. We are only beginning to understand the rules of our own visible universe, and it is possible that extra-terrestrial entities exist that have technology that would be considered supernatural by our own current knowledge.

Why is the likely/probable existence of extra-terrestrial life taken for granted but a capital "H" Higher Being is scoffed at so quickly? Why is heaven controversial but parallel universes/multiverse are acceptable as a purely secular concept? Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

It is possible that extra-terrestrial organisms with technologies and life forms far in excess of our own modest understanding exist, but that does not imply that the supernatural claims of the Bible are true. The claims of the Bible have to be evaluated based on the evidence and the facts available to us today, not based on something that might hypothetically be possible. And we know that the Bible is wrong about many of its claims, like humans coming from Adam and Eve, the Noah flood etc., so it appears very unlikely that the underlying message of the Bible regarding the existence of a very specific god is true. There may very well be creatures we would consider godlike out there, but they are almost certainly nothing like the god described in the Bible.

 

[Tigers!]

I find that religious people have enough trouble with the proven vastness of our one universe.

Like for example, in a universe 90 billion light years accross (visible universe only!) what significance is that stupid hill in Jerusalem? They get mad when asked that.

I do not know why some should get mad when asked that.

Significance is in the eye of the beholder. If the creator thinks that a hill in Jerusalem has significance that is their decision not mine or yours.

 

[Sarpedon]

The point is that there's no reason to think the creator puts any significance in that place. If you actually bother to read the bible, it is quite clear that took place as a result of a power grab by the clergy during a civil war. You conveniently ignore that a clear directive from the creator is absent; all we have is the word of the priests, and their concerns are obviously shortsighted and self-interested.

The problem with all religion is that it is all very human and earth-centric. It is clear that the universe we live in is not. Many religious people find such thinking uncomfortable, and try not to do it. They go on declaring that a piece of cloth is special, a hill is special, sacrificing an animal is important, and ignoring that there is a storm on Jupiter that could swallow our entire planet, and that it rains diamonds on Neptune.

 

[Jobar]

No matter how big reality is, it's not big enough for the concept of faith to become coherent. If a religion were to hold, or to arrive at, a set of beliefs that were completely and demonstrably consistent with reality (don't hold your breath), then it would nevertheless be impossible to demonstrate the truth of their claims, without resorting to a set of observations and theories that would render belief needless. Any sufficiently accurate religion would become indistinguishable from the science with which its tenets were proven, and we would have no need to call it 'religion'.

Religions hold in common the logically flawed epistemology that truth can be arrived at by faith. In the vanishingly improbable case that a religion were to be testably and demonstrably true, faith would become irrelevant, and it would no longer be a religion.

In an infinite multiverse, all possible things must occur. But gods are not possible things - unless they are so limited and local as to be unworthy of the name.

Well said, all that- I would add that given our own motedom, we probably can never be sure if reality is infinite, or not. (Well, maybe some brilliant mathematician will one day formulate a Theory of Everything which includes a proof that we definitely live in an infinite multiverse; but I cheerfully admit that I only *suspect* we do.)

Others might quibble and say that there may be 'limited and local' beings that are still so puissant as to rate the title 'god'; but I certainly agree that no omnimax God, of the Abrahamic model, would qualify.

What does it mean to say Universe 7983321 was created by Jehovah, but 89, 3323455, 2019305322, 5032, 49494955, 3, and 3040402020202023030303 were not?

A good many science fiction stories written on that theme; Heinlein and Jack L. Chalker come to mind.

The point is that if anything previously considered 'supernatural' is discovered to be natural, this is not a debunking of religion. What religion calls an Angel, science would have no trouble contemplating as an extra-terrestrial higher life form.

If that super-advanced higher life form was able to apparently use its mind perhaps to perform 'angelic' tasks we could neither do nor understand, would we disbelieve our own eyes? (because miracles are impossible and angels aren't real - right?)

Why is the likely/probable existence of extra-terrestrial life taken for granted but a capital "H" Higher Being is scoffed at so quickly? Why is heaven controversial but parallel universes/multiverse are acceptable as a purely secular concept? Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

Sarpedon, abaddon, and atrib give good answers. I might mention that I once asked on Christian Forums, what would it do to the faith of Christians if it could be shown that Jesus was a 'super-advanced life form' who, when his incomprehensible tasks on Earth were done, beamed back up to the mother ship, and zoomed off to bring 'salvation' to the next developing intelligent race further along the galactic arm? Would they still worship, if they knew all that was true?

Never did get an answer. Not a single one.

 

[Lion IRC]

Jesus IS a 'super-advanced life form'.

"In my Father's house are many mansions..."
"And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring..."

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

The point is that if anything previously considered 'supernatural' is discovered to be natural, this is not a debunking of religion. What religion calls an Angel, science would have no trouble contemplating as an extra-terrestrial higher life form.

If that super-advanced higher life form was able to apparently use its mind perhaps to perform 'angelic' tasks we could neither do nor understand, would we disbelieve our own eyes? (because miracles are impossible and angels aren't real - right?)

Why is the likely/probable existence of extra-terrestrial life taken for granted but a capital "H" Higher Being is scoffed at so quickly? Why is heaven controversial but parallel universes/multiverse are acceptable as a purely secular concept? Why is dark energy plausible but discarnate consciousness labelled... religion?

This is a wonderful example of how religion is only language, certainly all Abrahamic religions. Dark energy is the holy spirit communicating to us and higher intelligence is an angel. Really.

Religious folk are really worshiping idealized constructs of themselves and their thoughts. Trees are fine, religious people need to pretend Treebeard is real.

The universe is damn impressive. It makes me feel very small and very large at the same time, and certainly tells me I am immortal. If one day someone shows me their god, we can talk about that too.

 

[steve_bank]

Simple. God works in mysterious ways.