Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

_{Mario Lopez

November 10, 2008

Intelligent Design, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

by Tim Folger

Discover

published online November 10, 2008

A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I’ve come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde’s office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.

Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn’t exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe’s life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can’t dismiss them all as mere accidents.

“We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says.

Comments

Thanks for responding, hazel. "First of all, I accept that the universe had a cause. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what is that cause? One possibility is that that cause is a divine being - a God, but that is not the only possibility. For instance, the universe could be an effect of the properties of some kind of “larger” impersonal state or dimension of which we have no knowledge. I don’t think there is any reason to think that a divine being is the logically necessary explanation." That's really an argument from ignorance. We can discover some characteristics of this first cause from the evidence presented earlier (namely, the Cosmological Argument). The first cause must be: - Self-existent, timless, nonspatial, and immaterial; without limits or infinite. - Unimaginably powerful - Supremely intelligent to design the universe with such precision (see the Teleological Argument) - Personal, in order to convert a state of nothingness into the time-space material universe. Those are all qualities that theists routinely ascribe to God. "(Let me note for completeness that I understand the argument that ultimately we must have a cause that did not have a beginning - an uncaused cause - in order to avoid the infinite regress problem. However, again, there is no reason that eternal state has to be a being.)" There is also no reason to posit an unknown and possibly unknowable, unseen, immaterial "force" either. "Your second argument is the Teleological Argument: 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a designer. Here my objections are more fundamental: I don’t accept the truth of the first premise: “1. Every design had a designer.” As is common with many philosophical arguments, if you embed your conclusion in your premises you can in fact erroneously appear to logically reach the desired conclusion. Let me explain here." This reminds me of what Richard Dawkins wrote: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Dawkins flatly denies that human life or anything else has been designed. In other words, he refuses to allow observation to interfere with his conclusions. This is very strange for a man who believes in the supremacy of science, which is based on observation. If I see something that appears to be designed, hazel, it is completely logical for me to infer that, in fact, it has been designed. "Let’s start by asking what is a “design”? If design means “something that has interacting parts that work well with each other,” or something like that, then how do you know that your premise is true?" The dictionary definition of design is as follows: 1. To conceive or fashion in the mind; invent. 2. To formulate a plan for; devise. 3. To plan out in systematic, usually graphic form. 3. To create or contrive for a particular purpose or effect. 4. To have as a goal or purpose; intend. That is the definition I use for design in my everyday life. The burden of proof rests on those who claim natural causes, undirected and random, can produce something akin to Mount Rushmore (which was obviously designed). I accept that natural forces caused the Rocky Mountains and the Grand Canyon; I do not accept that natural forces alone caused the universe to come into being. "If in fact the universe arose out some impersonal state of principles or some higher dimension or in some way other than being consciously and willfully designed by a divine being, then in fact the statement that every design has a designer is false." You have absolutely no scientific or philosophical proof of this impersonal state of principles that could have created the universe. How is it that my statement is wrong when I offer proof of my arguments and you offer only arguments from ignorance? "Your premise is assuming exactly what you are trying to prove, and so the Teleological Argument fails." Actually, it doesn't, and many scientists have admitted as much. "And last, you write, “Taking into consideration all this, and contrasting it with the multiverse theory, …” Let me make it clear, if it isn’t already, that I am not contrasting theism to the multiverse hypothesis. I am making the separate point that whatever cause there is of our universe, it is not necessarily a divine being." Blind allegiance to ideology, whether atheism or naturalism, is bad philosophy and bad science. Dawkins admitted that his commitment to naturalism and materialism is "...a philosophical commitment to a real explanation as opposed to a complete lack of an explanation." Stating that an impersonal set of principles which are undetectable empirically and which may or may not exist is a complete lack of an explanation. The observational and forensic evidence points to an intelligent creator.Barb_{November 19, 2008
November
11
Nov
19
19
2008
05:45 AM
5
05
45
AM
PDT}

I am sorry this is so long but I have been traveling for weeks and have only occasionally looked at what is happening here. I find many of the arguments presented here to be illogical or at best missing the point. Someone once said the greatest mystery of all is existence. Why does anything exist. Someone else recently said to conceive of "nothingness" is really an exercise in futility. We cannot conceive of just what that means. Even in our universe each three dimensional coordinate seems to have something there if nothing else, a position that can be occupied by some particle or another at any given time (and one aspect of dark energy is that it seems to be uniformly spread over the universe but this is an aside and not meant to bring up a discussion of dark energy). In essence, lack of existence is a mystery for which our minds can not really comprehend as well as why does anything exist is also a mystery. We know there is existence but why seems to be beyond our capabilities. The current cliché argument against a God is the infinite regress argument of who created God. Theologians solved/dealt with this problem of the infinite regress argument against a God by postulating an eternal being without a cause. They admitted that such a being defied logic and understanding as we know it but because existence was a given, such a being had to exist. Nothing else made sense. In other words, the fact that there was existence and logic led to an illogical or unexplainable concept. Now the argument comes down to "do you believe in such a being?", admitting that its existence is a mystery or "do you somehow say well it is not proven and waive it off?" and essentially say that existence is a mystery but we do not want to assent to the logic that there must be an eternal being. This seems to satisfy a lot of people but it is really a non sequitur for their core beliefs. Religious people generally believe this eternal being has certain characteristics and capabilities and argue amongst themselves as to the detailed nature of that being and its motives. Those who want to say they do not believe in such a being, go their merry way because they have nothing to add to the debate on the nature of the being since they essentially deny this being's existence. That doesn't prevent them from having philosophical discussions but they represent two separate camps. For those who deny or don't believe in an eternal being that had no first cause, they have to come up with a consistent network or reasoning to justify whatever position they have. One of those anomalies that has to be covered is the incredible fine tuning of the universe we live in. Religious people don't have to deal with this since this eternal being designed the world and as such did the fine tuning. But for those who deny the eternal being, the logic is sticky. Our finely tuned universe contains several basic forces or concentrations if changed by extremely little amounts would send the universe into chaos of little if any order. In fact it is hard to conceive of any other parameters that would give rise to a universe with any complex order at all. Given that there seems to be no reason that such a universe as ours should exist by chance, those who deny the eternal being have come up with some really shallow answers to address our universe's existence. One of these is multi-verses, but this concept has some really interesting contradictions. Is our finely tuned universe just one of an almost infinitely large number of universes and are we just the lucky ones? This is a fatuous argument to further the objectives of those who do not accept the eternal non caused being as the creator/designer of our universe. Those who do not believe in the eternal non caused being hypothesize an almost infinite number of universes to deal with the fine tuning problem. But the almost infinite number of universes must contain a subset of almost infinite number of finely tuned universes. In this set there must exist an almost infinite sub set of these fine tuned universes that will give rise to an intelligence of immense proportions that could fathom the nature of the endless number of universes and should be able to control them. So to all practical purposes these beings/intelligences would be identical/similar in nature to the eternal being proposed by the religious people. So the multi-verse people actually propose an infinite number of God like intelligences that should be able to meddle in our existence if so inclined and must be according to the current scientific paradigm, super natural. In other words, multi-verse proponents propose not just one God but an infinite number of them. Anything less that an almost infinite number of such beings would be illogical. So those who propose a multi-verse existence but deny the existence of a massive intelligence are best illogical and most likely disingenuous. Either way the religious people have their God and those who deny His existence are at best trying to throw a monkey wrench into the gears.jerry_{November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
08:08 PM
8
08
08
PM
PDT}

hazel, "You say that “We have considerable ideas about what minds are capable of - we can look at our technology, our history, and so on.” First, I’ll point out that we know what minds AND bodies working together are capable of - we have no idea if minds without bodies exist, nor whether, if they do, they could have any causal efficacy." First - no, we don't 'know' this. Berkeleyan idealists and other like-minded types would argue that we don't have bodies in the sense you're discussing, and some of them claim support for their position from QM. They're in a minority position, absolutely, but given the issues in play in some fundamental areas of science, there's ample ground to question what these 'bodies' are, if they do in fact exist. Second, if you're attempting to get at this issue by insisting that a divine agent is necessarily immaterial, I'll object again from a different direction: What 'immaterial' means. If the DA's position to us is analogous to a programmer's position to a program, from the program's perspective the DA is immaterial in any and all meaningful ways. Either way, the only point that survives without question here is the raw mind/agent itself. "But beyond that, we also don’t know how our mind/bodies came to be - did they arise by agency or did they arise from the interaction of particles, forces and principles in our universe. This is precisely the unanswered question that is at the heart of the ID argument: ID says that life, and us, was designed." Sorry, but no. ID says that A) It's entirely possible that life is designed, and B) It's entirely possible that this can be explored through science. ID proponents may believe that life is designed. They may cite science that they say strongly infers this. But ID itself is a large collection of perspectives, ideas, and approaches - and nowhere in that sum is the out-of-the-box certainty that life is designed. Also, the distinction you give is wrong. The vast majority of ID proponents I am aware of cede that human agents arise from 'the interaction of particles, forces, and principles in our universe.' The question is whether those interactions infer design of varying kinds. Yes, there are some ID proponents who may argue for special creation in the history of man. There are also some (a growing number, a promising trend) who favor front-loading or procedural unfolding of nature along teleological lines and the like. ID is not a 'either evolution did it, or it did not' enterprise. That comes up a lot. "But we don’t know that. More importantly, we can’t use the argument that we design things as an argument that we were designed. The common argument that every thing that we know was designed had an intelligent cause (which is a form of Barb’s statement that “every design has a designer”) can’t be used as evidence that we were designed because if we weren’t designed the statement “every thing that we know was designed had an intelligent cause ” would be false." Barb is making a different argument than I am (a good one, but different) - I happily conceded some major points for the sake of argument, and am approaching this differently. What I'm saying is that the issue is more fundamental: we know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that design exists, and that agents exist. We can point at certain things that are definitely designed. Anything we can point at where the status of design is uncertain is entirely compatible in principle with an assumption of design (with varying perspectives on how that design was implemented.) Yes, we can imagine things coming into being or events coming to pass that are fundamentally unguided/without design too. In which case we have two possible explanations - but only certain and undeniable supporting evidence for one. We can't, in principle, get evidence for the latter. Again, the latter could be true. But it will never be the more satisfying explanation. It requires too much assumption, too much faith, and can never have supporting evidence in its favor. "The same argument goes back to the cause of the universe. If the universe both came from and embodies principles which can build complex parts that interact together, including the complexities of life, then you can have “design” without a designer. The fact that the universe has created beings - us - who can create in the ways we do doesn’t mean that we were created in those same ways. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental flaw in the “every design has a designer” argument." Again, that's not the case. You seem to be implying here that you can't have both a divine agent and particle interactions and physical principles. That's incorrect. Further, I did not deny that 'no designer' may well be true. I expressly said it's possible. But when it comes to what we're capable of inferring, what is most easily inferred given the evidence, and what kind of evidence we could ever hope to have? The DA's strengths are superior in every way. Again, I'm talking about on the most fundamental, basic philosophical level here. Once you get into the specifics of the type Barb discusses, the difficulty increases dramatically and quickly. "This is why I disagree with you that the best inference for the cause of the universe is a being - i.e., God." No. The best inference is an agent, a being, a "DA" (where DA indicates something more about the relation of the agent to us, and possibly some of its implied properties). This alone does not get you to God. God's among the possibilities, and is extremely compatible with placement in such a position. But I've not argued that God (certainly not the God of the faith I subscribe to) is made certain by this argument. I set the bar very low - deistic agent.nullasalus_{November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT}

scottrobinson, "If we’re talking about the origin of the universe, then no, our minds or technology is not capable of creating self sustaining very large complex universes like the one we find ourselves in. So I don’t see how you can draw any kind of inference there." Our minds? Of course not, and I never claimed as much. What I said was that agency and agents is the one thing we're certain of, that in principle they're entirely compatible with everything we see, and that as a result of that and several other factors, it is destined to remain our best default inference. It gains inferred strength whenever we make progress in understanding our universe, or improving our technology. I'd go so far as to say it amounts to the null hypothesis based on certain fundamental truths. "Is this not exactly the attitude that is railed against here? I find it mind boggling that you say there is serious evidence for ID and that it’s being supressed or ignored and then go onto say that no matter what evidence is discovered either way you won’t be prepared to change your mind over this? You ask your opponents to do something you are not willing to do yourself. If both you are your opponents hold this view then progress of any kind will never be made." You're new around here, so let me clue you in on something: I'm not a proponent of scientific ID. In fact, I'm the resident TE-inclined skeptic who has gotten into more than one congenial argument over my view that design (either identifying, or ruling out) cannot be investigated by science, certainly not on the levels ID proponents (and, on the flipside, naturalists/atheists) believe it to be. So I'd have to ask, just where did I say that 'serious evidence for ID is being suppressed or ignored'? I come at the entire question from a philosophical, metaphysical, and sure, theological point of view. I do think that certain *perspectives* are regarded with hostility by various science communities and institutions. I have great sympathy for ID's aims, philosophical aspects, and for incidents like the Guillermo Gonzalez case and otherwise. But it really sounds like you're attributing beliefs to me that I haven't stated here. Second: Progress? What makes you think progress can be made on what are fundamentally philosophical and metaphysical perspectives? To paraphrase Van Inwagen, if any issue of that nature were ever settled, it would be the first time in the entire history of philosophy that it happened. God Himself could etch the words 'GOD EXISTS' on the surface of the moon tonight. Atheists and skeptics would be divided over whether this proves that aliens exist and have a sense of humor, that we're in a simulated universe, that we're engaging in mass delusion, or otherwise. Idealists, materialists, and dualists would argue about what the nature of existence is, and whose paradigm the event supports. So, I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but: Faith is never going away. Not for atheists. Not for theists. Not for anyone. Many others on this site disagree with me, and I can understand why. But know where I, personally, am coming from on this.nullasalus_{November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
06:45 PM
6
06
45
PM
PDT}

nullasalus
We have considerable ideas about what minds are capable of - we can look at our technology, our history, and so on.
If we're talking about the origin of the universe, then no, our minds or technology is not capable of creating self sustaining very large complex universes like the one we find ourselves in. So I don't see how you can draw any kind of inference there.
But I suspect that it illustrates a good reason to not only take agency seriously in context, but to prefer it to the alternative regardless of what’s discovered or implied in science.
Is this not exactly the attitude that is railed against here? I find it mind boggling that you say there is serious evidence for ID and that it's being supressed or ignored and then go onto say that no matter what evidence is discovered either way you won't be prepared to change your mind over this? You ask your opponents to do something you are not willing to do yourself. If both you are your opponents hold this view then progress of any kind will never be made.scottrobinson_{November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
08:54 AM
8
08
54
AM
PDT}

Hi nullasalus. I'm glad you're willing to acknowledge that, at least for the sake of discussion, there are alternatives to assuming a divine being is the cause of the universe. You then argue that, given that, the best inference is still "agency/design." However the arguments you use are flawed in the same way that the Teleological Argument in Barb's post is flawed. Let me explain. You say that "We have considerable ideas about what minds are capable of - we can look at our technology, our history, and so on." First, I'll point out that we know what minds AND bodies working together are capable of - we have no idea if minds without bodies exist, nor whether, if they do, they could have any causal efficacy. But beyond that, we also don't know how our mind/bodies came to be - did they arise by agency or did they arise from the interaction of particles, forces and principles in our universe. This is precisely the unanswered question that is at the heart of the ID argument: ID says that life, and us, was designed. But we don't know that. More importantly, we can't use the argument that we design things as an argument that we were designed. The common argument that every thing that we know was designed had an intelligent cause (which is a form of Barb's statement that "every design has a designer") can't be used as evidence that we were designed because if we weren't designed the statement "every thing that we know was designed had an intelligent cause " would be false. The same argument goes back to the cause of the universe. If the universe both came from and embodies principles which can build complex parts that interact together, including the complexities of life, then you can have "design" without a designer. The fact that the universe has created beings - us - who can create in the ways we do doesn't mean that we were created in those same ways. That is, in my opinion, the fundamental flaw in the "every design has a designer" argument. This is why I disagree with you that the best inference for the cause of the universe is a being - i.e., God.hazel_{November 16, 2008
November
11
Nov
16
16
2008
07:28 AM
7
07
28
AM
PDT}

Hazel, "I am making the separate point that whatever cause there is of our universe, it is not necessarily a divine being." The problem is that, even if someone were to go ahead and grant this (a divine being is possible, but not utterly necessary) for the sake of argument, the best inference still kicks over to agent/design of at least a deistic variety. At the end of the day, minds and design are the one thing whose existence we can be certain of - as in, we know minds exist due to introspection, we know design exists. We have considerable ideas about what minds are capable of - we can look at our technology, our history, and so on. And there is no problem in principle for design/agency being the cause on one or multiple levels behind everything we see in the universe. You can respond that there is no problem in principle for a mindless or utterly agent-devoid explanation for all of these things. Again, let's cede that for the sake of argument. But we only have direct and undeniable evidence for agent-centric causes. No evidence for the alternative exists without begging the question - in fact, I'd argue that evidence for such is not even possible in principle. Any given event or state of affairs is either beyond our understanding and therefore can't be rallied for evidence, or is within our understanding - and the very understanding of it lends some credence to a mind/agent behind it on one or more levels. The mindless ultimate is condemned to be an assumption that requires a faith leap, a larger and more counterintuitive one than the bare 'divine/deistic agent' explanation. This only gets a person a person as far as deism. And it doesn't mean that the mindless explanation is wrong. But I suspect that it illustrates a good reason to not only take agency seriously in context, but to prefer it to the alternative regardless of what's discovered or implied in science.nullasalus_{November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
10:32 PM
10
10
32
PM
PDT}

A simple question: Is there any reason why, with all these universes, there can't be an enormous number of universes *exactly* like this, with every planet in the exact same place, every person on their "earths" with the same names, living in the same houses, with the same languages, and identical thoughts, etc. How far can this go? And this is "science"? Oh?es58_{November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
09:39 PM
9
09
39
PM
PDT}

Hi Barb. Thanks for the thorough response. I am enjoying the opportunity to discuss these issues. Here are some thoughts (which I know are similar to other posts I've made in another thread.) You start by offering the Cosmological Argument: "1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause." First of all, I accept that the universe had a cause. However, that is not the issue. The issue is what is that cause? One possibility is that that cause is a divine being - a God, but that is not the only possibility. For instance, the universe could be an effect of the properties of some kind of "larger" impersonal state or dimension of which we have no knowledge. I don't think there is any reason to think that a divine being is the logically necessary explanation. (Let me note for completeness that I understand the argument that ultimately we must have a cause that did not have a beginning - an uncaused cause - in order to avoid the infinite regress problem. However, again, there is no reason that eternal state has to be a being.) Your second argument is the Teleological Argument: 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a designer. Here my objections are more fundamental: I don't accept the truth of the first premise: "1. Every design had a designer." As is common with many philosophical arguments, if you embed your conclusion in your premises you can in fact erroneously appear to logically reach the desired conclusion. Let me explain here. Let's start by asking what is a "design"? If design means "something that has interacting parts that work well with each other," or something like that, then how do you know that your premise is true? If in fact the universe arose out some impersonal state of principles or some higher dimension or in some way other than being consciously and willfully designed by a divine being, then in fact the statement that every design has a designer is false. Your premise is assuming exactly what you are trying to prove, and so the Teleological Argument fails. And last, you write, "Taking into consideration all this, and contrasting it with the multiverse theory, ..." Let me make it clear, if it isn't already, that I am not contrasting theism to the multiverse hypothesis. I am making the separate point that whatever cause there is of our universe, it is not necessarily a divine being.hazel_{November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
07:10 PM
7
07
10
PM
PDT}

"What actual evidence for an intelligent divine creator of the universe is there? What I see are philosophical arguments with various self-fulfilling assumptions and/or specific religious arguments based on theology (which assumes the creator), but those aren’t evidence, I don’t think." Linus Pauling once commented that science was a search for the truth, and I agree with him. We are using philosophy to get to the truth of the matter. Philosophy in this case means finding truth through logic, evidence, and science. Something is worth believing if it's rational, supported by evidence, and if it best explains all the data. We use the principles of induction and observation to investigate the possibility that there is an intelligent divine creator. We obviously can't see God, just as we can't see gravity; however, we can observe the effects of gravity. We can then make a rational inference to the existence of a cause. Are there any observable effects that seem to require some kind of pre-existing supernatural intelligence? In other words, are there effects that we can observe that point to God? Einstein's theory of general relativity that I mentioned above supports a formal argument for the existence of God. This is known as the Cosmological Argument and in logical form, it goes like this: 1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause. 2. The universe had a beginning. 3. Therefore, the universe had a cause. For an argument to be logically valid, its premises must be true. The first premise is also known as the Law of Causality, which is the fundamental principle of science. Sir Francis Bacon acknowledged this law when he stated: "True knowledge is knowledge by causes." We have observed in our universe that things don't happen without a cause. To deny this law is to deny rationality. The second premise is outlined in my post above regarding the Big Bang. There are other competing theories available as to the origin of the universe, but none as well supported as the Big Bang. Scientists predicted in 1948 that some radiation from the Big Bang would be detectable and in 1965, Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson discovered this background radiation. Another prediction supporting the Big Bang is that we would see variations (ripples) in the cosmic background radiation; this was confirmed in 1992 by the COBE satellite. COBE took infrared pictures of the ripples, which I believe are viewable here: http://Lambda.gsfc.nasa.gov. A second logical argument for the existence of a creator is the Teleological Argument, which takes into account the precision with which the universe exploded into being. The Teleological Argument goes like this: 1. Every design had a designer. 2. The universe has a highly complex design. 3. Therefore, the universe had a designer. Part of that complex design can be described as the "Anthropic Principle", which refers to the highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (anthropic constants) that we observe here on earth. Here are five anthropic constants: 1. Oxygen level. Oxygen comprises 21% of our atmosphere. Any higher (say, 25%) and fires would erupt spontaneously; any lower (say, 15%) and humans would suffocate. 2. Atmospheric transparency. If our atmosphere were less transparent, not enough solar radiation would reach the earth's surface; more transparency would lead to bombardment by solar radiation at levels lethal to humans. 3. Gravitational interaction of the moon and earth. Too much interaction would cause tidal effects on the ocens; too little would cause climate instabilities. 4. Carbon dioxide level. Any higher, and runaway greenhouse effects would develop; any lowwer, photosynthesis becomes impossible. 5. Gravity. If the gravitational force were altered by 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000001 percent, the sun would not exist and neither would we. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist, calculated the probability that these and other constants (122 in all) would exist today for any planet in the universe by chance (without divine design). Assuming that there are 10^22 planets in the universe, Ross estimated that there is 1 chance in 10^138. The kicker: there are only 10^70 atoms in the entire universe. In effect, Ross states that there is zero chance that any planet in the universe would have the life-supporting conditions we have, unless there is an intelligent designer behind it all. Taking into consideration all this, and contrasting it with the multiverse theory, I agree with physicist Paul Davies, who wrote: "One may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes rather than an infinite Deity, but such a belief rests on faith rather than observation."Barb_{November 15, 2008
November
11
Nov
15
15
2008
06:10 PM
6
06
10
PM
PDT}

What actual evidence for an intelligent divine creator of the universe is there? What I see are philosophical arguments with various self-fulfilling assumptions and/or specific religious arguments based on theology (which assumes the creator), but those aren't evidence, I don't think.hazel_{November 14, 2008
November
11
Nov
14
14
2008
09:40 AM
9
09
40
AM
PDT}

You could speculate that an incomprehesible, unverifiable metaverse produced the Big Bang and, subsequently, our universe. Or you could follow the empiric evidence and speculate that an intelligent divine being is behind all of nature. I don't have enough faith to do the former.Barb_{November 14, 2008
November
11
Nov
14
14
2008
09:26 AM
9
09
26
AM
PDT}

Stephen you ask what assumptions you might be making, as you claim, it seems, to be using solely the "principles of right reason." Well, for one, you say that "A causeless cause must be an eternal, self existent being. But why must this be a "being"? As I been discussing in #32 and #35 (I think those numbers are right), the uncaused cause could also be something like the material universe we know, with principles and forces which cause universes such as ours to come into self-contained existence, or it could be something whose nature is utterly incomprehensible to us. To assume that the uncaused cause has the properties of a being is, well, just that - an assumption.hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT}

Hi Barb. Let me make myself clearer. I'm not talking about our universe being eternal, and I'm not talking about what has happened after the Big Bang. I'm talking about whatever "world" there is out of which our universe came via Big Bang. I am talking about speculative metaphysics, not physics. Since we use the word "natural" to refer to causes and events in our universe, it's hard to know what word to use here. "Supra-natural" or just "metaphysical" is perhaps better than "supernatural", which carries the connotation of some type of being that is like a living thing but non-material. It is this assumed connotation that it must have been a being - a God - that created our universe that I am arguing against. All the time, space and matter we know of in our universe came into being with the Big Bang, as you say. However we can speculate that the Big Bang is a product of some "larger" meta-verse, one which possibly has analogs to the time, space and matter we know, or which possibly is of a sort utterly incomprehensible to us. Of course one can also speculate that a divine being consciously and willfully created the universe via the Big Bang. My point is that these are equally valid speculations logically. Whatever arguments that one can make about the need for an eternal uncaused first cause applies equally to each of them. I'm not stating that such a meta-verse exists, because we can't know. I am arguing that the statement that a God exists who created our universe is just as unknowable, and doesn't hold a privileged position over the idea of an eternal meta-verse.hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
06:47 PM
6
06
47
PM
PDT}

Hazel @ 32- Robert Jastrow commented on the Big Bang theory: "That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." The question is, why couldn't natural forces (your eternal material world) have produced the universe? Because Jastrow, along with other cosmologists and scientists, knows that natural forces--all of nature--were created at the Big Bang. This is the beginning point for the entire physical universe. Time, space, and matter all came into existence at that point. Logic tells us that a cause cannot come after its effect, and therefore natural forces cannot account for the Big Bang. There must be something outside of nature (supernatural) to do the job. Even if the Big Bang theory is disproven at some point in the future, that still does not mean that the universe is eternal. 1. The second law of thermodynamics supports the Big Bang but is not dependent on it. The fact that the universe is running out of usuable energy and heading towards disorder is not up for debate. The second law holds true even if the Big Bang is false. 2. Einstein's theory of general relativity. This theory, which has been well verified by observation, posits a beginning for time, matter, and space whether or not it all began with a bang. 3. The field of geology teaches that radioactive elements decay over time into other elements. Radioactive uranium eventually becomes lead. If all the uranium atoms were infinitely old, they would all be lead by now. Are they? If the answer is no, then the earth cannot be infinitely old. In order for the multiverse theory to be correct, all the evidence pointing to the Big Bang (or to the beginning of the universe) must be dealt with. Simply stating that there was an eternal material world doesn't cut it.Barb_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT}

Digdug: "And, if THAT’S true, then perhaps can we suppose that - if the universe had been subtly different in some way - then we organisms would still be around, merely in some different form?" We can suppose anything we want, but that doesn't mean it is actually possible. When we look at our current form, we see that there are small islands of functionality with vast amounts of ocean in between. But if you really want to suppose, then at least develop your suppositions. How is your supposed universe different to ours, and how does life function in that universe? Lay it out for us. Please don't hold back on the details.Phinehas_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
04:08 PM
4
04
08
PM
PDT}

Yes, but the "meta-universe" from which our universe came might be everlasting. Earvin's argument is solid if you just back it up one level of causation. The main point is that a common argument is that if you want to avoid the infinite regress you have to posit an eternal first cause, but there is no reason why positing an eternal non-material divine being is logically any more compelling than positing an eternal material "world" out of which come universes such as ours.hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
03:18 PM
3
03
18
PM
PDT}

"If we allow for the infinite existence of something, why can’t it be the universe itself?" The preeminent theory in cosmology, the Big Bang theory, pretty much rules out an infinite universe.Barb_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

-----I’m afraid I just believe that “logic” leads inevitably to all these conclusions. You include lots of assumptions in your logic that are not necessarily true. What assumptions might those be? I assert plainly that the principles of right reason underlie all science. One of the first is that something cannot come from nothing. Do you question that? If so, let me know and we can discuss it. Here are a few more beginning principles: [A] A thing cannot be and not be at the same time, [B] A thing cannot be true and false at the same time and under the same formal circumstances, and [C] The whole is always greater than any one of its parts. There are more, but you get the idea. Do you question any of them? We don’t reason toward these points, we reason from them. Anyone who doesn’t accept them, a growing number of people by the way, are irrational and cannot reason in the abstract. Without these metaphysical foundations, there is no science or, for that matter, no logic. -----“Here’s just one thought: how do you know that the uncaused cause doesn’t create multiple universes?” If the uncaused cause creates multiple universes, then the credit for creation should go to the uncaused cause, not the infinite multiple universes. In that case, there is no need for the multiple universes, because the only reason scientists conceived the idea in the first place was to do an end around the need for a designer. It was a response to the “anthropic principle” (the privileged planet concept), which is a derivative of the fine-tuning argument. -----Why is a larger meta-universe in which universes are created and play out their existence separate from other universes somehow incompatible with the idea of a God as the uncaused cause? If you acknowledge the designer (God, uncaused cause, unmoved mover, etc.), then there is no reason to resort to a mult-iverse to explain the design. You already have your designer. -----“(P.S. I don’t think the general idea is that there are “infinite” universes, just that there are many, perhaps spinning off into more universe through quantum effects. This might be a very large number of universe, but not infinite.)” You seem to be forgetting the reason that infinity was introduced in the first place. The idea is to provide an alternate explanation for the phenomenon of “fine tuning.” In order to avoid the obvious point that someone or something fine-tuned it, materialist scientists fall back on the concept of infinity to try to explain how one instance of a fine tuned universe can “emerge” as the inevitable result of an infinite number of chances. Mere multiple universes won’t get the job done. Do you not see the incredible desperation involved in this initiative?StephenB_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

I am so sorry - I meant to start by writing "I’m afraid I just DON'T believe that “logic” leads ..." I will really try to proofread my posts. (I think I am used to places where you can edit mistakes, but that's not an excuse for doing poorly here.)hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
10:36 AM
10
10
36
AM
PDT}

I'm afraid I just believe that "logic" leads inevitably to all these conclusions. You include lots of assumptions in your logic that are not necessarily true. Here's just one thought: how do you know that the uncaused cause doesn't create multiple universes? Why is a larger meta-universe in which universes are created and play out their existence separate from other universes somehow incompatible with the idea of a God as the uncaused cause? (P.S. I don't think the general idea is that there are "infinite" universes, just that there are many, perhaps spinning off into more universe through quantum effects. This might be a very large number of universe, but not infinite.)hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
09:49 AM
9
09
49
AM
PDT}

StephenB said:
A causeless cause must be an eternal, self existent being. To be self existent is to be dependent on nothing else, and to be the cause of everything else that exists.
If we allow for the infinite existence of something, why can't it be the universe itself?Earvin Johnson_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

hazel: If something can come from nothing, then events can occur without causes. That closes the door on science. It also closes the door on reason itself. You are right about infinite regress; all causes must end with a causeless cause. But it is not an unsolvable problem. A causeless cause must be an eternal, self existent being. To be self existent is to be dependent on nothing else, and to be the cause of everything else that exists. Since all of empirical reality is changing, and since physical laws are unchanging, the origin of those laws must be transcedent to that changing reality. If the laws and the creator of those laws were part of that changing reality, (immanence, pantheism etc) then they too would always be changing. To know that a being is self existent and to know that everything we see around us is not self existent is to know a lot. For one thing, it renders us immune from the irrational idea that infinite mutliple universes can explain our existence. For another, it suggests that this self existent being, like us, has an intellect and will, since the creator cannot give the creature something that it doesn't already have.StephenB_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
08:37 AM
8
08
37
AM
PDT}

What all people (and science) is doing is they are trying to rationalize things they can not understand. There are plenty of things in this world that does not make sense. However, we put labels on them not go crazy, such as universe, origin, etc. What we need to do is stop holding on to theories that do not hold much water anymore (i.e. evolution) and focus on where evidence leads, not where we wish it would.JoeMamma77_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT}

Stephen, thanks for answering though I'll have to admit I think you are making a big unfounded leap from the things you say to the conclusions you reach. The universe we live in seems to be pretty susceptible to scientific investigation. Even if it came into existence out of nothing, either by itself or as one of many universes, that fact doesn't stop us from figuring out how it works though science. You seem to be saying that if we can't know the ultimate cause of the universe as a whole we can't study the parts of it we can know, and I think that argument is wrong. As for a first cause, of course we have an infinite regress problem when we try to think about that. This is an unsolvable problem, because no matter what the case, whatever we find out, there will always be the question of what caused the current ultimate cause that we know about. Calling this God and asserting that God is eternal and needs no first cause doesn't really tell us anything, and of course doesn't justify ascribing personal, willful qualities to that cause.hazel_{November 13, 2008
November
11
Nov
13
13
2008
05:04 AM
5
05
04
AM
PDT}

hazel: Multi-verse advocates say only one of two things: [A] Infinite multiple universes came into existence out of nothing. That means that they exist for no reason. Under those circumstances, there is no reason to assume that anything at all will have a cause. That means there is no reason to study science. OR [B] There is a universe generating mechanism. Under those circumstances, they have simply begged the question to another unknown cause, which is precisely the argument they are arguing against in the first place---The unmoved mover or, if you like, God. Something cannot come from nothing. That is one of the first principles of right reason. Multi-verse theory is a complete intellectual madhouse.StephenB_{November 12, 2008
November
11
Nov
12
12
2008
09:29 PM
9
09
29
PM
PDT}

Stephen, why does multi-verse theory completely destroy the rational foundations for science? Why would infinite multiple universes make reality incomprehensible? We only live in this universe and its the one we can rationally understand. The idea that there may be others spinning off each moment from the quantum possibilities of this one doesn't change the fact that we can study this one. So I don't understand why you said what you did. Would you like to explain?hazel_{November 12, 2008
November
11
Nov
12
12
2008
04:45 PM
4
04
45
PM
PDT}

Digdug, ID theory does not directly address the multiverse concept, of which there are multiple variations. I've seen ID proponents debate whether it is irrelevant or not, which depends on the preferred multiverse scenario. In any case, try reading some of Dembski's books and your first question will get answered.Patrick_{November 12, 2008
November
11
Nov
12
12
2008
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT}

-----Barry A: "The theory is sheer lunacy. It would have to get better to rise to the level of merely wrong instead of insidiously stupid. -----"My best guess is that the we are witnessing the death throes of the materialist paradigm, and the “multi-verse” idiocy is an intellectual spasm, as it were. Alternatively (and this explanation, it would seem, would be favored if we were to apply Occam’s razor), there are a lot of really stupid albeit highly educated people out there." Barry A, I am glad someone is finally describing this theory for what it is---pure idiocy. I am beginning to think that we should pass some kind of law forbidding anyone from getting a PhD in science without learning something about philosophy and logic. Multi-verse theory completely destroys the rational foundations for science. If there were infinite multiple universes, then reality would be totally incomprehensible, which means that there would be no reason to think or communicate about anything. I am amazed that so many ostensibly educated people do not understand this. Wishful thinking has a way of perverting one’s judgment. If a man does not conform his behavior to an objective and rational standard of truth, he will eventually try to create an irrational and subjective truth conform to his behavior. That, in my judgment, is what is going on here.StephenB_{November 12, 2008
November
11
Nov
12
12
2008
01:10 PM
1
01
10
PM
PDT}

Even if that crack had been designed for that function it would be a false negative. Try reading here first: http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.09.Primer_on_Probability.pdf http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.06.Specification.pdfPatrick_{November 12, 2008
November
11
Nov
12
12
2008
11:41 AM
11
11
41
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply