The KGB Oracle Forums General Public Discussion (SPECIAL ACCESS) KGB Political Debate Central Make JetStar a believer... A Challenge

While I respect your vision Derid, I do not agree or make sense to me that free will is related to god or our need to see a greater entity as a creator of everything.

So I take that because I believe somehow in the theory of Parallel worlds

According to the scientific theory of the multiverse there are many worlds or universes alongside ours. Some of these universes, in terms of physical laws, can be found next to ours and others 'further away' in the sense that they are ruled by other laws of nature. A multiverse may consists of many parallel universes. Our universe and our earth is part of only one of many parallel universes in a larger multiverse. Famous statements are: "there are many universes, our universe is just one of many", "the theory that all possibilities that can happen do happen in another quantum reality," depending on our choices there are an infinite number of realities, though existing in another quantum reality", "there may be hundreds or thousands of these worlds / universes existing in the same time / space continuum", "same planet, different dimension". Another word used for parallel worlds or parallel universes are alternative realities.

Parallel worlds in science
For decades now, in the scientific world, people try to make a so called "unified theory" or "theory of everything" that can explain everything. In 1957, Hugh Everett III developed his Many-worlds interpretation to solve various problems that arise during scientific experiments and to explain certain phenomena that occur in quantum mechanics. Quantum mechanics deals with the study of the smallest particles that the material "reality" is made of. In the many worlds theory every possible outcome of a particular event creates a new branch in a parallel universe. The idea of the many universes and even many multiverses was then taken up by many other scientists and has become a serious part of modern science. The Russian-American theoretical physicist Andrei Linde came up with the theory of the "bubble universe" where new universes are formed as bubbles from a multiverse or where one bubble creates (branches of from) another one. In this theory our universe is a bubble in an ocean of millions of bubbles. The most recent theory is based on the M-theory and represents a comprehensive description of different string theories. In M-theory, new universes are formed by collisions of cosmic membranes in a eleven dimensional space where each universe can have its own physical laws. There are also other variations on the string theory which lead to a theory of multiple universes.


We have instilled this primitive concept of God, on the creation of everything, which in my view there is no argument that I can connect it to something else if not pure belief, but not the philosophy of free will, because even this free will can be a reflection of the different decisions possible in infinite universes.

Yes, but we as observers are only observing one path. The locus of consciousness so to speak. At least this is generally the case for most people. In other words, there may be many realities but humans typically perceive only one at a time.

Besides, I specifically stated that the free will logic cannot prove God exists. Only that God CAN exist.

Under the God+Free will scenario, I interpret man being created in Gods image as a reference to the fact that both are observers of reality that are on some level observing from outside of Einsteinian relativity, ergo both have an ability to create. Create in this sense would be to alter the course of predestination.

But like I said, I cannot prove that God exists. Only that he can exist, and that popularly held objections to God existing are easily overcome. Many other theories could be held up as valid pending further examination.

I refute the argument of God as creator related to the free will of man, with all respect but not because the prove thing, while your statment seems beautiful, I cannot understand the logic or philosophy tied thing.

And it´s possible to be "religious" man and do not believe in God.

"The refutation of the notion of a supreme God or a prime mover is seen as a key distinction between Buddhism and other religions, In Buddhism, the focus is primarily on the effect the belief in theories of creation and a creator have on the human mind."

I´m not budist, but I believe in certain precepts of it, as the same go to Christianity, Hinduism and other religions. And we are so tied to the root, that must be a god and single entity creater of everything that we will always create arguments to that view.

I would to ask you a question, what are the consequences to you, of not believing in God as creator? I know I should not ask that because you already said the free will argument.

Hmm, maybe language barrier - but I do not think you are understanding me.

But, consequences of not believing in God.. there arent any. At least, no theoretical consequences are related to my argument.

But I am not arguing that free will exists because of God. I am arguing that if free will exists, God can also exist. There is an important difference there.

Also if God exists, who created God, is possibly that nobody created God? if so is also possibly that nobody create man and all things that exists?

Does this matter? I do not think so, only to humans that want control or influency another human with religious arguments..

Also I´m not saying that religion is a bad thing, with or without religion man would kill the same or more people that was killed because "God".

Religion is good because it teach good preceipts, and give us hope to our lives, if there is a God, or Pantheon of Gods, of there is no God as our mind think of it, does not matter to me.

I take it those are rhetorical questions?

Anyhow, my arguments have little to do with religion, other than debunking a couple things that have been occasionally taught by them.

All I recommend is looking at it logically, and am simply trying to provide some examples. I am not stumping for any particular religion or belief.

Science does not disprove religion, religion cannot countermand science. That is all. No need to assume there is any other meaning behind it, I am saying - and ONLY saying, precisely what I say.

edit. :D, Jetstar where are you.. you were the one that asked so join the discussion!

Derid, I think I understood what you were trying to pass in that first message, I was just trying to get more discussion about that.

Just watching :-)

To Jets point, if God is both benevolent and omnipotent.

He is both but doesn't have to be both at the same time.


More riddles Jet. I love riddles.