tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post3220027130905664669..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: Genesis in the multiverseRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-75692467119156739222012-12-12T11:58:39.415-05:002012-12-12T11:58:39.415-05:00Yes, as I explained to him in a subsequent reply, ...Yes, as I explained to him in a subsequent reply, <br /><br />"A standard way to harmonize the chronology of Gen 1 with Gen 2 is to view Gen 1 as a global creation account, describing the creation of the whole world, whereas Gen 2 is a local creation account, describing the creation of the Garden. Gen 1 is general whereas Gen 2 is specific to the Garden. Gen 2 takes Gen 1 for granted, but zooms in on the preparations for man. These are not separate creation accounts, but complementary accounts. My second question doesn't really depend on how we harmonize Gen 1 with Gen 2. But since you brought it up, I thought I'd mention that."stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-65837887033802258762012-12-12T09:10:30.213-05:002012-12-12T09:10:30.213-05:00though if one takes it too literally, one part con...<i>though if one takes it too literally, one part contradicts another part</i><br /><br />Funny how otherwise-brilliant men can say stupid things. Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-59629157061372676232012-12-11T23:07:46.008-05:002012-12-11T23:07:46.008-05:00That's not the argument. At the risk of repeat...That's not the argument. At the risk of repeating myself (in different words), here's the argument:<br /><br />(i) There is massive direct empirical evidence for quantum mechanics; (ii) Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics (including later refinements thereof) is far and away the simplest interpretation of quantum mechanics (i.e. requiring the fewest supplementary assumptions); ergo, there is indirect evidence for the multiverse via (i) and (ii). <br /><br />Now, my own argument doesn't require me to defend the many-worlds interpretation. It's sufficient for my argument that this interpretation has impeccable scientific credentials, and it carries with it the further implication (confirmed for me by an expert in quantum cosmology) that there is a parallel world in some corner of the multiverse which approximates Gen 1-2, taken literally. stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16547070544928321788noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-56045223954149768182012-12-11T19:27:27.850-05:002012-12-11T19:27:27.850-05:00"I suppose the first reason [we should believ...<i>"I suppose the first reason [we should believe it] is that the theory which predicts them is the simplest interpretation of quantum theory, and we believe quantum theory because of its enormous experimental success: it really has been the most successful physical theory in history"</i><br /><br />What enormous experimental success is there for the evidence of multiple universes?Truth Unites... and Divideshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08891402278361538353noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-11119247191097798122012-12-11T17:47:28.339-05:002012-12-11T17:47:28.339-05:00Your physicist friend has not properly assessed th...Your physicist friend has not properly assessed the joint likelihood of Genesis 1-2 existing in universes of the multiverse and it being true ("literally" true, if you like).<br /><br />In other words, given the nature of God, and given that God has revealed Genesis 1-2, the likelihood that we are experiencing a particular segment of the multiverse in which Genesis 1-2 is historically true is much higher.<br /><br />Moreover, if the multiverse exists and if God even only possibly exists, then God certainly exists (in one multiverse and therefore in all). And for the reasons explained by TAG, it's the God of Scripture.<br /><br />That provides a rather crude dove-tailing of the evidential, classical, and "presuppositional" techniques.<br /><br />-TurreitnFan Turretinfanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01802277110253897379noreply@blogger.com