As some claim:
The multiverse is not pure nonsense, it is theoretically possible.But even if there were a multiverse, the generator that makes the universes itself would require fine-tuning, so the multiverse doesn’t get rid of the problem. And, as Lightman indicates, we have no independent experimental evidence for the existence of the multiverse in any case. Atheists just have to take it on faith, and hope that their speculations will be proved right. Meanwhile, the fine-tuning is just as easily explained by postulating God, and we have independent evidence for God’s existence, like the the origin of biological information, the sudden appearance of animal body plans, the argument from consciousness, and so on. Even if the naturalists could explain the fine-tuning, they would still have a lot of explaining to do. Theism (intelligent causation) is the simplest explanation for all of the things we learn from the progress of science.
It’s very important to understand that if these values were any different, then it’s not like we would bridges on our foreheads, or have green skin, or have pointy ears, etc. That’s what science fiction teaches you. And many atheists form their view of science by watching science fiction entertainment. But the truth is that the consequences of changing these values are much more consequential: no stars, no planets, no hydrogen, no heavy elements, the universe re-collapses into a hot fireball.
“What is the Fine-tuning Argument for God’s Existence, and Does the Multiverse Counter It?” at Wintery Knight
See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?
I like the words of experimental particle physicist Dr Michael G Strauss, (https://www.michaelgstrauss.com/2017/04/an-introduction-to-anthropic-principle.html):
As to
Yes it is.
As was touched upon in the last two articles, the materialist/atheist, without realizing it, in his appeal to an infinity of other universes to ‘explain away’ the fine-tuning of this universe, ends up conceding the necessary premise to the ontological argument, (i.e. merely that it is ‘possible’ that God exists in some possible world), and thus guarantees the success of the argument and therefore insures the 100% probability of God’s existence!
Moreover, whereas the atheist has no compelling evidence for all the various extra dimensions, parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, (as is shown in the following video), can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Special relativity in particular is my favorite since it strongly supports the physical reality of a heavenly ‘eternal’ dimension that exists above this temporal dimension that we currently live in:
https://uncommondescent.com/physics/black-holes-are-no-surprise-full-of-surprises/#comment-705293
I prefer John Lennox’s comment that a multiverse is the greatest violation of Occam’s razor we’ve ever seen.
At about 8:00
https://youtu.be/cFVKGCeEX4c
What argument does counters The Fine-Tuning Argument For God’s Existence?
The only substantive argument is the legal/economic one.
Federal Judges have decreed that teaching Creationism is against the Constitution. (They base this on the First Amendment which guarantees Free Speech). . So what does a Peer Reviewed Scientist do, when the obvious truth is illegal, but he’s got a nice tenured berth?
He does whatever it takes to stay on the gravy train. So he spouts P.C. nonsense like the multiverse. Its how Science works.
The Multiverse is amazing. It can create rational universes with rational beings that have foresight and intention, and yet not be rational, intentional or have foresight itself.
P.S. we only have knowledge of one instance of a universe the so-called Multiverse has belched out: the one we occupy. Science!
As far as there being no evidence for the multiverse theory: of course there is. “Evidence for a theory” is just a collection of facts that can be successfully arranged to support that theory and not contradict it.
One of the first theoretical models of the facts that were produced via quantum-theory research was the “many-worlds” model. The facts were used as evidence in support of different theories that sought to model what was happening in the experiments. These quantum physics experiments helped launch an entirely new branch of science that views consciousness as central to our experience of what we call “reality,” and the idea that the basis of reality is information, not matter or energy; or information interpreted by a conscious mind in a process called the observer collapse effect.
To say it is “nonsense” or that there is “no evidence for it” is really just a refusal to even consider the model the evidence can be used to support.
The Multiverse Theory is simpletons and frauds trying to run away as fast as they can from trying to explain the one universe we live in.
Andrew
William J Murray at 6, the many worlds model is in contradiction to the conscious models of quantum theory. It is not complimentary to it.
As Margaret Wertheim stated, “when I was a physics student the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) was widely seen as a fringe concept. Today, it is becoming mainstream, in large part because the pesky problem of consciousness simply hasn’t gone away.,,,”
Moreover, in the many world’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, the reality of wave function collapse is denied:
Moreover, despite the fact that wave function collapse is denied in the many world’s interpretation, wave function collapse has now been experimentally shown to be a real effect.
On top of the experimental falsification of the MWI, MWI is simply complete nonsense,
As Philip Ball stated, “You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,”, around the one electron you measure.
Philip Ball is far from the only person to find the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics to be complete nonsense, as these following quotes attest:
Asauber @7 said: “The Multiverse Theory is simpletons and frauds trying to run away as fast as they can from trying to explain the one universe we live in.”
Your assumption being that we live in “one universe.” There is growing evidence that this is not the case. In fact, the very idea that we live in “a universe” at all is being challenged deeply by various consciousness and infomation theories.
Your assumption being that we live in “one universe.”
WJM
Not an assumption. Its a conclusion based on evidence. You dont think it is?
Andrew
WJM, sarc, right? Hehe, not buying it, given your words over the last several years. 😀
1. Consciousness is primary and is the basic fact of your existence.
2. Copenhagen, Many World, (and others) are interpretations of QM. Not QM itself.
3. Multiverse is an extension of of MW ideas.
4. MW is not compatible with consciousness being primary.
5. Copenhagen interpretation is compatible with consciousness being primary.
6. Much empirical evidence supports consciousness being intertwined with outcomes on a deep, and non-common sense, level. (Quantum eraser, delayed choice, double slit)
7. There is no empirical evidence of other universes or universe-like belchings of a multiverse generator.
Who knows, could be wrong, but so far it all tips the scales in favor of a transcendent origin of the universe that has intention, foresight and rationality.
Change my mind. 😉
Mike1962:
1. Consciousness is primary and is the basic fact of your existence. – Agreed.
2. Copenhagen, Many World, (and others) are interpretations of QM. Not QM itself. – Agreed.
3. Multiverse is an extension of of MW ideas. – Agreed.
4. MW is not compatible with consciousness being primary. – I disagree. I’d like to see your reasoning for this claim.
5. Copenhagen interpretation is compatible with consciousness being primary. – Agreed
6. Much empirical evidence supports consciousness being intertwined with outcomes on a deep, and non-common sense, level. (Quantum eraser, delayed choice, double slit) – Agreed
7. There is no empirical evidence of other universes or universe-like belchings of a multiverse generator. – Of course there is; the MW interpretation is based on that very evidence.
Asauber: @10:
There is literally no direct evidence that we live in an external, physical universe. And I say that being fully aware that I’ve asserted a universal negative and it would be my burden to demonstrate the logical impossibility of gathering such evidence.
4. MW is not compatible with consciousness being primary. – I disagree. I’d like to see your reasoning for this claim.
I can’t prove it wrong. But I don’t have to. The MW believers need to provide an explanation how my consciousness (which is the primary fact of my existence) can withstand a bifurcation. Or any proof at all that it happens. Lie down on your bed and ponder it: the words “your consciousness splits” has no meaning at all. Something that has no meaning, well, has no meaning. Prove me wrong.