Dan S,
By its very definition, that part of the multiverse that is outside our universe could not be directly observed. Whether its existence is supported or rejected indirectly through recognised physical theories, the jury is still out. I don’t have the mathematical knowledge to follow these discussions, and I sincerely doubt you do. I just know it is irrelevant to my faith whether God created just our universe or a whole multiverse of universes.

All I wanted to say was that the concept of multiverse is within the realm of what science can study (like gravity or aether, one an accepted phenomenon, the other rejected). We cannot convincingly argue about these things if we have only a superficial understanding of what contemporary physics is about, the same as one cannot convincingly argue about religious models of reality if one has only a superficial understanding of what a 21st century educated e.g. Christian believes.

pelican
>>I am in no way claiming atheists are better than believers<<
I know, therefore I appreciate your contributions here. Unfortunately, there are some who think that those who do not subscribe to their moral code are less moral, while others think that those who do not share their world view - e.g. because they have a different understanding of the terms “God“, “existence”, “evidence” - are less reasonable, rational, even logical. The debate becomes pointless indeed, if these attributes get kidnapped by one side, if people think that only their own world-view - be it theist or atheist - is moral or rational.

>> better with truth and honesty than with supersititious belief <<
Not a very fortunate formulation. Imagine the reaction I would get if I wrote “I do not argue with stupid atheists“, the exact meaning of which is that I do not argue with those atheists who are stupid (and I have known quite a few of them!). People would probably interpret it that I think all atheists are stupid. So I hope you did not mean that ALL religious beliefs are superstitions and stand in opposition to truth and honesty. (ctd)

(ctd)
>> If there is a God and one day he appeared I might change my mind<<
This sounds like the Doubting Thomas in the narrative that became part of what defines Christianity. However, pronounced in 21st century - if you don’t mind me putting it this way - it sounds like “I do not believe photons exist until I can see them and touch them with my own hand”. Of course, whatever you would be touching, it won’t be what physicists call photons. You have to know some physics to understand the reasons why scientists believe photons exits while e.g. phlogiston does not. The same about what/whom we call God.

oliver,
This time I must agree with your interpretation of (a part of) the Scripture. As for Carl Sagan, Christians believe - or should believe: remember my reference to Christians prone to Schadenfreude - that it is not for us to decide whether God accepted him as one of the creations “to His image“ or discarded him (into non-existence: this is how I interpret “eternal hell”) as an unavoidable byproduct or catalyst in His process of Creation. Sagan, Dawkins and the likes have informed and inspired my own world-view that is built around my faith, so I may hope that they belong to the first category, but as I am saying this is not for me to be concerned with.

Another thing that we believe is that God gave us free will (seen from our “frame of reference” whatever else an outsider neurobiologist might see) and hence does not force “eternal life” on anybody: those who wish their self to cease to exist when they die - usually atheists - will probably be granted their wish.

Dan, I don't believe I actually endorsed the 'many worlds' or 'infinite timelines' theories.
The point of my post was that I believed the words 'Cosmos' and 'Universe' had slightly different definitions. I thought Sagan's famouse phrase:"the Cosmos is all that is, that ever was or ever will be" endorsed my interpretation that the word 'Cosmos' was more encompassing; A cosmos could contain a universe, but a universe could not contain a cosmos.
As the proud owner of the full set of Cosmos discs, I investigated (quickly) and found George was probably right; Sagan does seem to use the words interchangeably, without any clear distinction.
Of course I am aware that Sagan was an atheist, George, and would not have included God in his Universe/Cosmos. My point of a philosophical all encompassing Cosmos, ie existing before the big bang of this universe, and encompassing all possible universes, would -by definition- include God (or be God), -if such a creature exists.

George,
My point, and it’s a pretty simple one, is that science can only deal with that which can be observed.

You admit that other universes cannot be directly observed but still want to argue that the concept of the multiverse falls within the realm of science.

Perhaps these other universes can be indirectly observed. What an interesting thought! If I only had the mathematical prowess, I might be able to keep up with this line of thinking.

What is easier to understand, the existence of a multiverse, or the propensity of some who claim to be educated and scientifically literate to blur the line between real science and philosophical conjecture?

What was the real motivation for those pushing for the existence of a multiverse beyond the realisation that the real universe we see and observe is quite marvellous though singularly exceptional?

But following on from your last post, you are welcome to try and define your minimum education levels required in the 21st Century to qualify to discuss such musings.

>>because they have a different understanding of the terms “God“, “existence”, “evidence” - are less reasonable, rational, even logical.

george, some understandings of the terms "god, "existence", and "evidence" in fact are less reasonable, less rational and less logical.

i'm not claiming all the rationality for we non-religious folk. but i don't see established churches or common christian belief as strong on reasonableness.

is it really true that 54% of australians "believe in the resurrection"? what do they mean by this belief? i would suggest that most christians believe this in a literal rose-from-the-dead manner, rather than a spiritual or metaphorical manner. you don't agree? or you regard such a literal belief as reasonable?

George
As an atheist I see religious belief as superstitious but unlike your interpretation I don't equate superstition with stupidity nor with good vs evil. And I accept that believers don't see their worldview as superstitious. Some atheists are superstitious, they may throw salt over their shoulder or in Ireland they touch the Blarney stone. Superstition is bound up in many cultures.

Dictionary.com defines superstition as:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=superstition

George I cannot accept your analogy with photons. When given a statement produced as fact (such as the existence of God) I make reasoned arguments in my mind that tell me that the probability is low. There is no research or peer review by scientists or previous evidence produced, only historical documentation going back to the time of Jesus Christ that purports to be the written word of God.

As a former science student (who moved into politics), I have to entertain that if a God/Angel appeared in front of me then I would have to re-evaluate my world view. I don't expect this will occur but who knows.

I certainly can believe in something I cannot see. Bacteria, viruses and other micro-organisms are not visible to the naked eye only under a microscope. Prior to microscopes the existence of micro-organism was but a hypothesis but not yet proven. I am also willing to concede there may be ghosts although I have never seen one but logically I could imagine that once a person has passed away, there may be some energy or matter that could linger for a time. Maybe in the future this matter will be proved or disproved one way or the other. There are still many things we do not know.

Contrary to what many Christians believe, Science has not disproven the existence of God, only that it has not been substantiated or proven. There is at this time no evidence of an external force that is known as God. Obviously, if God does not exist the theory will never be substantiated.

Ctd...