What about the multiverse objection? That is, there may possibly be optrillion other lifeless regions of the cosmos where the constants are different? We are just that tiny fraction of the cosmos where it all, inevitably, came together for the evolution of life.
I've yet to see any empirical evidence to support the multiverse theory. Not that I believe that is grounds for dismissal. I just find it ironic that those committed to scientism depend on a theory that depends on a seemingly non-verifiable theory as an objection to theism.
No evidence for same (a multi-vers), and what possible ways to prove it have failed to pan out.
That said, it depends on what you mean by "multi-verse." None of the extant meanings are supported by any evidence, and so far, three of the five have been disproven.
Fair point (though I'd prefer "unverified" over "unverifiable"). But in terms of discussion about proposals concerning the much needed updated "proof" of the existence of God, such objections do have to be faced.
For me, the wonder of creation is its grandeur and the reality that we are such beautiful creations within that creation. The scale of the universe should make us more and not less wondrous at the Creation we see.
There are strong arguments that the fundamental constants for the Universe (such as gravity, Plank’s constant etc) have to be “just right” to enable the Universe to hang together and to work. And it is not clear how they are set, appearing to be set by chance. Which means that if a Universe is created then we ought to expect that it will not work.
That difficulty, in turn, has led to the postulation of Multiverses.
It seems to me asif an acceptance that a single universe is so unlikely (improbable) to work without the fundamental constants having been set “just right” by a Creator, the postulating a multiverse is, in essence, a surrender to that improbability.
Put another way, the improbability of the universe working is addressed by postulating an infinite number of universes.
On the other hand an infinitely powerful Creator might well have created more than one universe. If he did, and the others don’t work, because the fundamental constants are not right, then surely we should wonder at the even more at Creation which is even larger and greater than we can begin to see.
And in the middle of it there is us. So far we have explored a tiny way into space and everywhere we have been and looked we see desert. We are tiny creatures offered eternal life, nestled in a tiny corner of a vast universe which is almost entirely devoid of life. Quite a marvellous thing. Multiverse hypotheses merely make that reality even more immense
Theorist of “god-of-the-gaps’/Creationist/Anthropic Principle genre argue that the wonderful order of certain regions of the universe shows intelligence. But then if the other regions of the universe are discovered to explain this order, the need of God is nullified. Close the gaps and we have no need to postulate a Creator. Let me explain a bit more.
Creationists used to claim (& some still do) that the species of living cats is evidence for a creator God, then they showed that the evolutionary environment of cats could explain them. William Paley claimed that the eye was so fine tuned it needed God, then they found that its evolutionary environment explains it. Intelligent Design theorists claim that aspects of the biological cell cannot be explained by certain evolutionary mechanisms, then they will likely update those mechanisms. This video argues that certain types of fine tuning intrinsic to our post-Big Bang universe shows intelligence behind it. But it is quite natural and reasonable to make the usual, perennial objection: what if the evolutionary environment of the our post-Big Bang universe, explains the constants, that is to hypothesise a multiverse.
I do agree that the multi-verse suggestion just makes the universe bigger. And I do think there is an argument to God from the unity of the whole universe, but that is a different design argument from the anthropic principle -- which for the above reasons, I think is more god-of-the-gaps, and a dangerous hostage to scientific/atheistic fortune as all Creationism has been.
In short if a fine-tuned area, in distinction from its environment, is evidence for God, then reduce it to being the same kind of thing as its non-fine-tuned environment and we all become atheists. To destroy the god-of-the gaps all you have to do is close the gaps.
What about the multiverse objection? That is, there may possibly be optrillion other lifeless regions of the cosmos where the constants are different? We are just that tiny fraction of the cosmos where it all, inevitably, came together for the evolution of life.
ReplyDeleteI've yet to see any empirical evidence to support the multiverse theory. Not that I believe that is grounds for dismissal. I just find it ironic that those committed to scientism depend on a theory that depends on a seemingly non-verifiable theory as an objection to theism.
DeleteNo evidence for same (a multi-vers), and what possible ways to prove it have failed to pan out.
DeleteThat said, it depends on what you mean by "multi-verse." None of the extant meanings are supported by any evidence, and so far, three of the five have been disproven.
Fair point (though I'd prefer "unverified" over "unverifiable"). But in terms of discussion about proposals concerning the much needed updated "proof" of the existence of God, such objections do have to be faced.
DeleteFor me, the wonder of creation is its grandeur and the reality that we are such beautiful creations within that creation. The scale of the universe should make us more and not less wondrous at the Creation we see.
ReplyDeleteThere are strong arguments that the fundamental constants for the Universe (such as gravity, Plank’s constant etc) have to be “just right” to enable the Universe to hang together and to work. And it is not clear how they are set, appearing to be set by chance. Which means that if a Universe is created then we ought to expect that it will not work.
That difficulty, in turn, has led to the postulation of Multiverses.
It seems to me asif an acceptance that a single universe is so unlikely (improbable) to work without the fundamental constants having been set “just right” by a Creator, the postulating a multiverse is, in essence, a surrender to that improbability.
Put another way, the improbability of the universe working is addressed by postulating an infinite number of universes.
On the other hand an infinitely powerful Creator might well have created more than one universe. If he did, and the others don’t work, because the fundamental constants are not right, then surely we should wonder at the even more at Creation which is even larger and greater than we can begin to see.
And in the middle of it there is us. So far we have explored a tiny way into space and everywhere we have been and looked we see desert. We are tiny creatures offered eternal life, nestled in a tiny corner of a vast universe which is almost entirely devoid of life. Quite a marvellous thing. Multiverse hypotheses merely make that reality even more immense
Theorist of “god-of-the-gaps’/Creationist/Anthropic Principle genre argue that the wonderful order of certain regions of the universe shows intelligence. But then if the other regions of the universe are discovered to explain this order, the need of God is nullified. Close the gaps and we have no need to postulate a Creator. Let me explain a bit more.
ReplyDeleteCreationists used to claim (& some still do) that the species of living cats is evidence for a creator God, then they showed that the evolutionary environment of cats could explain them. William Paley claimed that the eye was so fine tuned it needed God, then they found that its evolutionary environment explains it. Intelligent Design theorists claim that aspects of the biological cell cannot be explained by certain evolutionary mechanisms, then they will likely update those mechanisms. This video argues that certain types of fine tuning intrinsic to our post-Big Bang universe shows intelligence behind it. But it is quite natural and reasonable to make the usual, perennial objection: what if the evolutionary environment of the our post-Big Bang universe, explains the constants, that is to hypothesise a multiverse.
I do agree that the multi-verse suggestion just makes the universe bigger. And I do think there is an argument to God from the unity of the whole universe, but that is a different design argument from the anthropic principle -- which for the above reasons, I think is more god-of-the-gaps, and a dangerous hostage to scientific/atheistic fortune as all Creationism has been.
In short if a fine-tuned area, in distinction from its environment, is evidence for God, then reduce it to being the same kind of thing as its non-fine-tuned environment and we all become atheists. To destroy the god-of-the gaps all you have to do is close the gaps.