XPost: alt.talk.creationism, alt.atheism   
   From: Barry@saymyname.com   
      
   On Fri, 18 Nov 2016 17:02:54 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   wrote:   
      
   >On 15/11/2016 5:34 PM, Lucifer Morningstar wrote:   
   >> On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 13:18:04 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>   
   >> wrote:   
   >>   
   >>> There is some theatrical basis for the multiverse found   
   >>> in the expansion of the  universe.   
   >>> Also in the interpretation of quantium  mechanics. But   
   >>> there is no direct empirical evidence for other universes.   
   >>   
   >> That's true. The multiverse idea was made up by someone   
   >> who wants an explanation and who has no concept of science.   
   >>   
   >Then I suppose these people have no concept of science because   
   >they are proponents of the multiverse concept:   
   >   
   >Stephen Hawking, Brian Greene, Max Tegmark, Alan Guth, Andrei Linde,   
   >Michio Kaku, David Deutsch, Leonard Susskind, Alexander Vilenkin   
   >Yasunori Nomura, Raj Pathria, Laura Mersini-Houghton, Neil deGrasse   
   >Tyson, and Sean Carroll.   
   >   
   >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse   
      
   From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse   
      
   Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of   
   scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts   
   to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode   
   public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of   
   fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a   
   philosophical rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be   
   falsified.   
      
   Arguments against multiverse theories   
      
   In his 2003 New York Times opinion piece, A Brief History of the   
   Multiverse, the author and cosmologist Paul Davies offered a variety   
   of arguments that multiverse theories are non-scientific :   
      
       For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be   
   tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some   
   regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes,   
   but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that   
   there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a   
   limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on   
   faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme   
   multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological   
   discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to   
   explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as   
   invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in   
   scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of   
   faith.   
      
   --   
   I call shenanigans on all theistic religions   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)