Fine tuning Intelligent Design Multiverse theism

Wintery Knight: Does the multiverse counter the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence?

Spread the love

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?

14 Replies to “Wintery Knight: Does the multiverse counter the fine-tuning argument for God’s existence?

  1. 1
    doubter says:

    I like the words of experimental particle physicist Dr Michael G Strauss, (

    “I find that, in general, there are three major responses among scientists who comment on the unlikelihood of a universe so well tuned. The first is simply an acknowledgement that the universe seems finely-tuned but a lethargic attitude that accepts this as a necessary requirement for existence without any further analysis. To me this attitude is similar to a condemned criminal who is sentenced to die in front of a firing squad, but is not surprised that all 100 sharpshooters missed him when they fired. He simply says, “Well if it was any other way I wouldn’t be here to talk about it.” The second response is a belief that there are many universes that exist (a multiverse) and that we just happen to be in one that is capable of supporting life. Although there is no evidence for any other universes, this is a commonly held belief that I will talk about more in a future post. In any case, I don’t find the idea of a multiverse threatening to the third alternative.

    The third alternative is that the universe looks finely-tuned because it is actually designed. This seems to be the most straightforward interpretation of the facts. It seems reasonable that a universe which looks designed and tweaked really is.”

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    As to

    “The multiverse is not pure nonsense,”

    Yes it is.

    (Dr.) BRUCE GORDON: Hawking’s irrational arguments – October 2010?
    Excerpt: What is worse, multiplying without limit the opportunities for any event to happen in the context of a multiverse – where it is alleged that anything can spontaneously jump into existence without cause – produces a situation in which no absurdity is beyond the pale. For instance, we find multiverse cosmologists debating the “Boltzmann Brain” problem: In the most “reasonable” models for a multiverse, it is immeasurably more likely that our consciousness is associated with a brain that has spontaneously fluctuated into existence in the quantum vacuum than it is that we have parents and exist in an orderly universe with a 13.7 billion-year history. This is absurd. The multiverse hypothesis is therefore falsified because it renders false what we know to be true about ourselves. Clearly, embracing the multiverse idea entails a nihilistic irrationality that destroys the very possibility of science.

    Multiverse and the Design Argument – William Lane Craig
    Excerpt: Or again, if our universe is but one member of a multiverse, then we ought to be observing highly extraordinary events, like horses’ popping into and out of existence by random collisions, or perpetual motion machines, since these are vastly more probable than all of nature’s constants and quantities’ falling by chance into the virtually infinitesimal life-permitting range. Observable universes like those strange worlds are simply much more plenteous in the ensemble of universes than worlds like ours and, therefore, ought to be observed by us if the universe were but a random member of a multiverse of worlds. Since we do not have such observations, that fact strongly disconfirms the multiverse hypothesis. On naturalism, at least, it is therefore highly probable that there is no multiverse. — Penrose puts it bluntly “these world ensemble hypothesis are worse than useless in explaining the anthropic fine-tuning of the universe”.

    Why Most Atheists (must) Believe in Pink Unicorns – May 2014
    Excerpt: Given an infinite amount of time, anything that is logically possible(11) will eventually happen. So, given an infinite number of universes being created in (presumably) an infinite amount of time, you are not only guaranteed to get your universe but every other possible universe. This means that every conceivable universe exists, from ones that consist of nothing but a giant black hole, to ones that are just like ours and where someone just like you is reading a blog post just like this, except it’s titled: “Why most atheists believe in blue unicorns.”
    By now I’m sure you know where I’m going with this, but I’ll say it anyway. Since we know that horses are possible, and that pink animals are possible, and that horned animals are possible, then there is no logical reason why pink unicorns are not possible entities. Ergo, if infinite universes exist, then pink unicorns must necessarily exist. For an atheist to appeal to multiverse theory to deny the need of a designer infers that he believes in that theory more than a theistically suggestive single universe. And to believe in the multiverse means that one is saddled with everything that goes with it, like pink unicorns. In fact, they not only believe in pink unicorns, but that someone just like them is riding on one at this very moment, and who believes that elephants, giraffes, and zebra are merely childish fairytales.
    While it may be amusing to imagine atheists riding pink unicorns, it should be noted that the belief in them does not logically invalidate atheism. There theoretically could be multiple universes and there theoretically could be pink unicorns. However, there is a more substantial problem for the atheist if he wants to believe in them and he wants to remain an atheist. Since, as I said, anything can happen in the realm of infinities, one of those possibilities is the production of a being of vast intelligence and power. Such a being would be as a god to those like us, and could perhaps breach the boundaries of the multiverse to, in fact, be a “god” to this universe. This being might even have the means to create its own universe and embody the very description of the God of Christianity (or any other religion that the atheist otherwise rejects). It seems the atheist, in affirming the multiverse in order to avoid the problem of fine-tuning, finds himself on the horns of a dilemma. The further irony is that somewhere, in the great wide world of infinities, the atheist’s doppelganger is going to war against an army of theists riding on the horns of a great pink beast known to his tribesman as “The Saddlehorn Dilemma.”

    Atheist Accepts Multiverse Theory Of Every Possible Universe Except Biblical One – February 9th, 2017
    Excerpt: The ardent Multiverse proponent went on to state that he readily accepts that a universe governed by Mr. T riding a cyborg ostrich is possible. Also, one with floating, flaming bears instead of stars, one that contains planets full of hairy toasters made out of grape-flavored pudding, a universe that is just one humongous chicken in a bikini, and a universe that is literally a zit wearing a chef’s hat with the “@” symbol tattooed on its face.
    “I like to think there is a universe where Richard Dawkins has 20 heads, waffles rain from the sky covered in ice cream, the only plant that grows is pot and weiner dogs are the most socially progressive and advanced animal there is,” Hemsworth said with a cheerful glimmer in his eye. “Also there are only ponies, no horses.”
    When asked if this means that the universe outlined in the Bible might be one of these infinite possibilities, Hemsworth scoffed and said, “I am a scientist. I don’t have the luxury of engaging in that kind of wishful thinking.”

    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!

    God Is Not Dead Yet – William Lane Craig –
    Page 4?The ontological argument. Anselm’s famous argument has been reformulated and defended by Alvin Plantinga, Robert Maydole, Brian Leftow, and others. God, Anselm observes, is by definition the greatest being conceivable. If you could conceive of anything greater than God, then that would be God. Thus, God is the greatest conceivable being, a maximally great being. So what would such a being be like? He would be all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and he would exist in every logically possible world. But then we can argue:
    1. It is possible that a maximally great being (God) exists.
    2. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
    3. If a maximally great being exists in some possible world, then it exists in every possible world.
    4. If a maximally great being exists in every possible world, then it exists in the actual world.
    5. Therefore, a maximally great being exists in the actual world.
    6. Therefore, a maximally great being exists.
    7. Therefore, God exists.
    Now it might be a surprise to learn that steps 2–7 of this argument are relatively uncontroversial. Most philosophers would agree that if God’s existence is even possible, then he must exist. So the whole question is: Is God’s existence possible? The atheist has to maintain that it’s impossible that God exists. He has to say that the concept of God is incoherent, like the concept of a married bachelor or a round square. But the problem is that the concept of God just doesn’t appear to be incoherent in that way. The idea of a being which is all-powerful, all knowing, and all-good in every possible world seems perfectly coherent. And so long as God’s existence is even possible, it follows that God must exist.

    What is the Ontological Argument? (William Lane Craig) – video
    “It (the ontological argument) puts the atheist in a very awkward position. The atheist must deny, not merely that God exists, he must maintain that it is impossible that God exists. And that is certainly a radical claim that would require great justification.”

    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.

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video

    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:

    Matthew 6:33
    But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.

  3. 3
    Peter says:

    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

  4. 4

    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.

  5. 5
    mike1962 says:

    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!

  6. 6

    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.

  7. 7
    asauber says:

    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.


  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    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.,,,”

    How exactly did consciousness become a problem? by Margaret Wertheim – Dec. 1, 2015
    Excerpt: Heaven and Earth were two separate yet intertwined domains of human action. Medieval cosmology was thus inherently dualistic: the physical domain of the body had a parallel in the spiritual domain of the soul; and for medieval thinkers, the latter was the primary domain of the Real.,,,
    But perhaps most surprisingly, just when the ‘stream of consciousness’ was entering our lexicon, physicists began to realise that consciousness might after all be critical to their own descriptions of the world. With the advent of quantum mechanics they found that, in order to make sense of what their theories were saying about the subatomic world, they had to posit that the scientist-observer was actively involved in constructing reality.,,,
    Such a view appalled many physicists,,,
    Just this April, Nature Physics reported on a set of experiments showing a similar effect using helium atoms. Andrew Truscott, the Australian scientist who spearheaded the helium work, noted in Physics Today that ‘99.999 per cent of physicists would say that the measurement… brings the observable into reality’. In other words, human subjectivity is drawing forth the world.,,,
    Not all physicists are willing to go down this path, however, and there is indeed now a growing backlash against subjectivity.,,,
    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:

    Quantum mechanics
    Excerpt: The Everett many-worlds interpretation, formulated in 1956, holds that all the possibilities described by quantum theory simultaneously occur in a multiverse composed of mostly independent parallel universes.[43] This is not accomplished by introducing some new axiom to quantum mechanics, but on the contrary by removing the axiom of the collapse of the wave packet:

    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.

    Quantum experiment verifies Einstein’s ‘spooky action at a distance’ – March 24, 2015
    Excerpt: An experiment,, has for the first time demonstrated Albert Einstein’s original conception of “spooky action at a distance” using a single particle.
    ,,Professor Howard Wiseman and his experimental collaborators,, report their use of homodyne measurements to show what Einstein did not believe to be real, namely the non-local collapse of a (single) particle’s wave function.,,
    According to quantum mechanics, a single particle can be described by a wave function that spreads over arbitrarily large distances,,,
    ,, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories, scientists have used homodyne detectors—which measure wave-like properties—to show the collapse of the wave function is a real effect,,
    This phenomenon is explained in quantum theory,, the instantaneous non-local, (beyond space and time), collapse of the wave function to wherever the particle is detected.,,,
    “Einstein never accepted orthodox quantum mechanics and the original basis of his contention was this single-particle argument. This is why it is important to demonstrate non-local wave function collapse with a single particle,” says Professor Wiseman.
    “Einstein’s view was that the detection of the particle only ever at one point could be much better explained by the hypothesis that the particle is only ever at one point, without invoking the instantaneous collapse of the wave function to nothing at all other points.
    “However, rather than simply detecting the presence or absence of the particle, we used homodyne measurements enabling one party to make different measurements and the other, using quantum tomography, to test the effect of those choices.”
    “Through these different measurements, you see the wave function collapse in different ways, thus proving its existence and showing that Einstein was wrong.”

    Experimental proof of nonlocal wavefunction collapse for a single particle using homodyne measurements – 24 March 2015
    Abstract: A single quantum particle can be described by a wavefunction that spreads over arbitrarily large distances; however, it is never detected in two (or more) places. This strange phenomenon is explained in the quantum theory by what Einstein repudiated as ‘spooky action at a distance’: the instantaneous nonlocal collapse of the wavefunction to wherever the particle is detected. Here we demonstrate this single-particle spooky action, with no efficiency loophole, by splitting a single photon between two laboratories and experimentally testing whether the choice of measurement in one laboratory really causes a change in the local quantum state in the other laboratory. To this end, we use homodyne measurements with six different measurement settings and quantitatively verify Einstein’s spooky action by violating an Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen-steering inequality by 0.042±0.006. Our experiment also verifies the entanglement of the split single photon even when one side is untrusted.

    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.

    Too many worlds – Philip Ball – Feb. 17, 2015
    Excerpt:,,, You measure the path of an electron, and in this world it seems to go this way, but in another world it went that way.
    That requires a parallel, identical apparatus for the electron to traverse. More – it requires a parallel you to measure it. Once begun, this process of fabrication has no end: you have to build an entire parallel universe around that one electron, identical in all respects except where the electron went. You avoid the complication of wavefunction collapse, but at the expense of making another universe.,,,

    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:

    A Hand-Waving Exact Science – Sheldon Glashow
    Excerpt: Arthur Fine: There is, I think, no sense at all to be made of the splitting of worlds.3
    John Bell: The many worlds interpretation seems to me an extravagant, and above all an extravagantly vague hypothesis.4
    Murray Gell-Mann: Everett’s ideology that there are many worlds that are equally real is operationally meaningless.5
    Steven Weinberg: I find the many worlds interpretation repellent.6

  9. 9

    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.

  10. 10
    asauber says:

    Your assumption being that we live in “one universe.”


    Not an assumption. Its a conclusion based on evidence. You dont think it is?


  11. 11
    mike1962 says:

    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. 😉

  12. 12

    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.

  13. 13

    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.

  14. 14
    mike1962 says:

    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.

Leave a Reply