Atheism Intelligent Design Multiverse

Michael Egnor on why the multiverse is just a way of evading reality

Spread the love

Let’s look at fine-tuning in terms of what “tuning” and “fine” mean:

The fact that the universe is tuned — that is, the fact there is any consistency at all in the laws of physics — demonstrates God’s existence. This is Aquinas’ Fifth Way, which is the proof from design. St. Thomas used the example of arrows. If we were to see arrows flying through the air, one after another, and noted that they consistently tended to land at or near a specific spot, we would correctly infer that they were shot by an archer (rather than, say, blown by the wind). Any consistency in nature implies a Mind that draws consistency out of chaos. A targeted arrow implies an archer. Note that this is not an argument from complexity. The simplest consistency in nature — a pencil falls down and not up, winter is colder than summer — demonstrates God’s existence.

The second thing that fine-tuning tells us is exemplified by fine. Fine refers to the accuracy of the laws of nature, which reveals the Archer’s purposes. By observing the precision of targeting of the shot arrows, we can discern the Archer’s motives. If the arrows are merely flying into an open field, we may infer that the archer is just testing his bow. If the arrows are consistently hitting a bulls-eye target, we may infer that the archer is practicing his accuracy. If the arrows are hitting animals in the forest, we may infer that the archer is hunting. If the arrows are hitting soldiers encircling the area, we may infer that the archer is defending from an invasion.

The tuning of nature points to God, and the fineness of His tuning points to His purpose. The anthropic fine-tuning of our universe tells us that we are God’s purpose in creation.

Michael Egnor, “Multiverse myth frees atheists from real science” at Evolution News and Science Today

See also, from Michael Egnor: We don’t live in a multiverse because the concept makes no sense. Michael Egnor: Neurologist Steven Novella and philosopher Philip Goff, both atheists, agree that there are many universes besides the one we live in. Atheists use the multiverse concept to counter the fact that our universe appears fine-tuned to allow life like ours. But is it a valid concept?

13 Replies to “Michael Egnor on why the multiverse is just a way of evading reality

  1. 1
    Seversky says:

    Given that there are many natural dangers to the existence of life on this little planet and that the overwhelming majority of the rest of this Universe appears to be totally hostile to life such as ours, I would say it’s stretching credulity to claim that it was created specifically for us.

  2. 2
    ET says:

    The science and evidence point to this being a universe designed for scientific discovery. In that sense it was created just for us observers.

  3. 3
    Querius says:

    Seversky,

    Ok, you’ve made an assertion about stretching credulity. Can you support it with some logic or data?

    Why can’t a reasonable person draw the opposite conclusion as yours? Or, for example, why not invoke the anthropic principle to defend your position in this case?

    -Q

  4. 4
    Concealed Citizen says:

    Something tells me Seversky is a “glass half empty” kinda guy.

    The thing is, earth, it’s construction and equipping is an “embarrassment of riches” despite the “hostility” of the universe at large.

    Maybe this can help:

    https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0895260654/qid=1101166057/sr=8-1/ref=pd_csp_1/104-6603785-3908716?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

  5. 5
    BobRyan says:

    We know close to nothing about the universe. To say it is hostile is based on very limited data from our speck in the cosmos. Out little speck is hostile, but that is all we can say with any certainty.

  6. 6

    For Sev @1:

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    Funny that the Bible ‘predicts’ that the earth, (out of all the planets and stars in the universe), was specifically created and intended by God, since the beginning of creation, to be ‘inhabited’

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

    And yet Seversky somehow finds the fact that the earth is, as far as we know, the only planet with the capacity to host life to be “stretching credulity to claim that it (the universe) was created specifically for us.”

    So, let me get this straight, if the universe were teaming with life, I imagine that Seversky would rightly say, ‘Hey, life is everywhere in the universe so obviously the universe was not created specifically for us”. And yet since, as far as we know, earth is the only planet capable of supporting life, Seversky’s argument now becomes it is “stretching credulity to claim that it (the universe) was created specifically for us.”

    Seversky argument, as usual for his arguments for atheism, simply makes no logical sense. It’s literally a “Heads I win, Tails you lose” type of argument.

    Regardless of Seversky’s seemingly endless ability to explain away evidence that contradicts his atheistic worldview, the scientific evidence itself, (evidence that indicates that the earth, and man were indeed purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation), is becoming far stronger than it was just a few short decades ago. And thus the evidence itself is becoming far harder for atheists such as Seversky to try to ‘explain away’ with logically contradictory argumentation.

    The most fascinating piece of evidence indicating that the earth was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, (CMBR), itself.

    Specifically, there are anomalies found in the CMBR data that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth,

    Here is an excellent clip from the documentary “The Principle” that explains, in an easy to understand manner, how these ‘anomalies’ that line up with the earth and solar system were found, (via the ‘averaging out’ of the tiny temperature variations in the CMBR data.

    Cosmic Microwave Background (CMBR) Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation, Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134?

    These ‘anomalies’ in the CMBR data, and the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe, combine in order to give as a proper X, Y, and Z axis in order to reveal that the earth does indeed have a ‘privileged’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with a illustration) explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

    Illustration with X, Y, and Z axis superimposed on the universe
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png

    Thus, contrary to the presumption of atheists, far from the temperature variations in the CMBR, and the large scale structures in the universe, being a product of random quantum fluctuations, (as atheists presuppose in their inflation model),,,, far from that, both the temperature variations of the CMBR and the large scale structures of the universe reveal teleology, (i.e. a goal directed purpose, a plan, a reason), that specifically included the earth and solar system from the creation of the universe itself. ,,, The earth, from what our best science can now tell us, is not just some random cosmic fluke as atheists had presupposed in their inflation model.

    Moreover, via work done by Robin Collins, we now know that the light coming from the CMBR is specifically tuned so that it might be discovered by intelligent observers such as ourselves.

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Examples of fine – tuning for discoverability.,,,,
    The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    …the intensity of CMB depends on the photon to baryon ratio, (??b), which is the ratio of the average number of photons per unit volume of space to the average number of baryons (protons plus neutrons) per unit volume. At present this ratio is approximately a billion to one (10^9) , but it could be anywhere from one to infinity; it traces back to the degree of asymmetry in matter and anti – matter right after the beginning of the universe – for approximately every billion particles of antimatter, there was a billion and one particles of matter.,,,
    The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.?According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)?It is easy to see that this prediction could have been disconfirmed. In fact, when I first made the calculations in the fall of 2011, I made a mistake and thought I had refuted this thesis since those calculations showed the intensity of the CMB maximizes at a value different than the photon – baryon ratio in our universe. So, not only does the DLO lead us to expect this ratio, but it provides an ultimate explanation for why it has this value,,, This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Another piece of evidence that indicates that man was intended by God since then beginning of creation comes from looking at the ‘geometric mean’ of then universe.

    in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that ““So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, Dr. William Demski (and company), in the following graph, give a more precise figure, (than Dr. Turok’s figure), of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Another piece of evidence that indicates that man was purposely intended by God since the beginning of creation comes from what is termed the ‘anthropic inequality’

    Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
    Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93011.html

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Life and Earth History Reveal God’s Miraculous Preparation for Humans – Hugh Ross, PhD – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2Y496NYnm8

    Michael Denton’s paper, “Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis” certainly deserves an honorable mention also.

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1?

    Dr. Michael Denton Interview
    Excerpt Question 14:
    14. Q: ,,,you also detail that nature isn’t fine-tuned for just any kind of life, but life specifically like human life. Would you expound on this for our readers??A: there are certain elements of the fine-tuning which are clearly for advanced being like ourselves.?We are warm-blooded, terrestrial aerobes; we use oxidation to get energy, we’re warm-blooded and we breathe air. We get our oxygen from the air. First of all, a warm-blooded organism needs to maintain a constant temperature. To do that we are massively assisted by the high specific heat of water, which buffers our body against rapid changes in temperature. In getting rid of excess heat, we utilize the evaporative cooling of water. That’s why dog’s pant, we sweat, etc. Warm-blooded organisms have to get rid of excess heat, and the evaporative cooling of water is the only way you’ve really got to get rid of heat when the temperature reaches close to body temperature. When it’s hot you can’t radiate off body heat to the environment.
    These critical thermal properties are obviously of great utility to air breathing, warm-blooded organisms like our self. But what relevance do they have to an extremophile living in the deep ocean, or a cold-blooded fish living in the sea? It’s obvious that these are elements of fitness in nature which seem to be of great and specific utility to beings like us, and very little utility to a lot of other organisms. Of course it is the case that they are playing a role in maintaining the constancy of global climate, the physical and chemical constancy of the hydrosphere and so forth. No doubt the evaporative cooling of water plays a big role in climatic amelioration; it transfers heat from the tropics to the higher latitudes and this is of utility for all life on earth. But definitely water’s thermal properties seem particularly fit for advanced organisms of biology close to our own.?And even the freezing of water from the top down rather than the bottom up, which conserves large bodies of fresh water on the earth, is again relevant to large organisms. Bacterial cells can withstand quite well periodically freezing. And for unicellular organisms living in the hot sub surface rocks its pretty well irrelevant. In other words the top down freezing and the consequent preservation of liquid water is of much more utility for a large organism, but of far less relevance for microbial life.?
    Or consider the generation and utilization of oxygen. We use oxygen, but many organisms don’t use oxygen; for a lot of organisms it’s a poison. So how do we get our oxygen?
    When we look at the conditions in the universe for photosynthesis, we find a magical collusion between of all sorts of different elements of fitness. First of all the atmospheric gases let through visual light which has got the right energy for biochemistry, for photosynthesis. And what are the gases in the atmosphere that let through the light? Well, carbon dioxide, water vapor, oxygen, and nitrogen. And what are the basic reactants which are involved in photosynthesis? Well, oxygen, water, and CO2. The same compounds that let through the light are also the main ‘players’ in photosynthesis.?And then you might wonder what about the harmful radiations? UV, Gamma rays, microwaves?
    Well to begin with the sun only puts out most of its electromagnetic radian energy in the visual region (light) and near infrared (heat) and puts out very little in the dangerous regions (UV’s, gamma rays, X-rays etc.). And wonder on wonder, the atmospheric gases absorb all these harmful radiations. And so on and on and on, one anthropocentric biofriendly coincidence after another. And what provides the necessary warmth for photosynthesis, indeed for all life on earth. What keeps the average temperature of the earth above freezing? Well water vapor and carbon dioxide. If it wasn’t for water vapor and CO2 in the atmosphere the temperature of the earth would be -33 centigrade.?Now when you consider all these factors necessary for the generation of oxygen via photosynthesis knowing that not all organisms use oxygen implying that all these coincidences are irrelevant to the vast majority of all species (most of the biomass on the planet may well be anaerobic unicellular life occupying the hot deep biosphere in the sub surface rocks) never use oxygen, its clear that the special fitness of nature for oxygen utilization is for us.
    http://successfulstudent.org/d.....interview/

    Privileged Species – How the cosmos is designed for human life – video (2015)
    https://youtu.be/VoI2ms5UHWg

    Thus in conclusion, while Seversky is apparently stuck with logically contradictory arguments to try argue, that although the earth appears to be special in its ability to support human life, that God would not create the earth with the specific purpose of being inhabited by life, and being inhabited by human life in particular, the Christian, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the scientific evidence itself to argue that the earth, and humans on it, were indeed specifically, and purposely, intended by God since the beginning of creation. Just as the Bible itself predicted thousands of years ago.

    Genesis 1:1-3
    In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
    And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light.

    Isaiah 45:18
    “For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD; and there is none else.”

  9. 9
    rigby says:

    I’m not arguing with Egnor but I was always under the impression that a measurement can be accurate and imprecise or be precise and inaccurate or be both accurate and precise or neither. In other words accuracy and precision are not the same thing.

  10. 10
    RavenT says:

    Comment 1 is just variation of “head I win, tail you lose”

    If the universe is friendly for life, then claim:
    life is not special after all.
    If the universe is not friendly for life, then claim: nah, it is not convincing that the universe is designed specifically for us in it.

  11. 11
    JVL says:

    Rigby: In other words accuracy and precision are not the same thing.

    Correct, at least according to the way the terms are used by engineers.

  12. 12
    rigby says:

    The reason I bring up the precision thing is that some time ago there was a link here to Hossenfelder arguing against fine tuning because she said, if I understand her, that the constants had a probability of 1. But in my mind, saying the probability is one is like saying the numbers are accurate. To me, it is the precision of the numbers that need explaining—or in other words, their _fine_ tuning.

  13. 13
    Querius says:

    Rigby,

    Great point regarding the implications of accuracy versus precision in fine tuning!

    Hmmm. The constants now have a probability of 1. What probabilities they once had in the past, say during the initial inflationary period(s), is anyone’s guess.

    Just sayin’.

    -Q

Leave a Reply