Recent supernova evidence has shown that the universe probably possesses a cosmological constant - a universal "repelling" force that accelerates the stretching of space as objects become further apart from each other. In order for the universe to contain stars and planets, this constant must be fine tuned to a level of a part in 10{120}. Such an extreme level of design is almost incomprehensible. In my discussion with atheists, several have told me that they are comfortable with the idea that such levels of fine-tuning could have occurred by chance in our single universe. Such a proposal is completely illogical, and, in fact, requires more blind faith than to believe that God designed the universe. In fact, in order to be a logic-based atheist (as opposed to a faith-based one), you must believe in the multi-universe theory. Not only that, but you must believe that there are more universes in existence than the number of all the subatomic particles that exist in our universe. Don't believe me? Here is what a recent article from Science says about this hypothetical "multiverse" spinning off an "infinity" of other universes:
Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Stephan Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger "multiverse," each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.
Luck has no place in science, since all events must be probable (on the basis of all possible events) in order to actually occur.
What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)! Why are some cosmologists "uncomfortable" with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer. A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God. Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but is based solely on the "hope" (i.e., belief) that there is no personal God to Whom we will be personally accountable.
Even evolutionists now admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than metaphysics. In a recent discussion of the origin of life, the The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.® made the following admission:
"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."
According to Paul Davies:
"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not .If instead, the other universes are ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."
On the other hand, the deist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither hypothesis is testable, but that the God hypothesis is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.
Uncomfortable with the idea that physical parameters like lambda [cosmological constant] are simply lucky accidents, some cosmologists, including Stephan Hawking, have suggested that there have been an infinity of big bangs going off in a larger "multiverse," each with different values for these parameters. Only those values that are compatible with life could be observed by beings such as ourselves.
Luck has no place in science, since all events must be probable (on the basis of all possible events) in order to actually occur.
What scientific evidence exists to support the multiverse model? None! Not only is there no evidence, the physics of our own universe requires that we will never be able to obtain evidence about any other universe (even if it does exist). Therefore this belief is, and always will be, based solely upon blind faith (sounds like a new religion to me)! Why are some cosmologists "uncomfortable" with the idea that the cosmological constant (lambda) is so finely tuned? Simply because such fine tuning suggests design and (oh no!) a Designer. A hypothetical, untestable, complicated model of a super universe is the only alternative to belief in God. Such belief is not based upon science, since science requires that hypotheses be testable, but is based solely on the "hope" (i.e., belief) that there is no personal God to Whom we will be personally accountable.
Even evolutionists now admit that such ideas amount to nothing more than metaphysics. In a recent discussion of the origin of life, the The Origin-of-Life Foundation, Inc.® made the following admission:
"Appeals to multiple or "parallel" cosmoses or to an infinite number of cosmic "Big Bang/Crunch" oscillations as essential elements of proposed mechanisms are not acceptable in submissions due to a lack of empirical correlation and testability. Such beliefs are without hard physical evidence and must therefore be considered unfalsifiable, currently outside the methodology of scientific investigation to confirm or disprove, and therefore more mathematically theoretical and metaphysical than scientific in nature. Recent cosmological evidence also suggests insufficient mass for gravity to reverse continuing cosmic expansion. The best cosmological evidence thus far suggests the cosmos is finite rather than infinite in age."
According to Paul Davies:
"Whether it is God, or man, who tosses the dice, turns out to depend on whether multiple universes really exist or not .If instead, the other universes are ghost worlds, we must regard our existence as a miracle of such improbability that it is scarcely credible."
On the other hand, the deist says that God designed the universe with just the right laws of physics. Note that neither hypothesis is testable, but that the God hypothesis is much simpler. The naturalistic explanation requires the presence of a complicated, unproved super universe that has the capacity to randomly spew out an infinite number of universes with different laws of physics. How does this hypothetical super universe know how to do this? Why would it even want to do this? Ultimately, why should there be any universe at all? None of these questions are logically explained by naturalism. Only an intelligent Being would be motivated and expected to produce any kind of universe such as what we see. If we use Occam's razor, which states that one should use the simplest logical explanation for any phenomenon, we would eliminate the super universe/multi-universe explanation in favor of the simpler God-designed universe model.
