Either multiverse is true OR God is the intelligent designer?

[tonychanyt]

Dr Francis Collins said:

Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can’t observe at present or you have to say there was a plan.

That's a false dichotomy.

Option 1 pertains to the concept of the multiverse. Option 2 describes God as the intelligent designer of the current universe.

Let proposition P1 = We observe a universe compatible with our existence.

Collins and supporters of Option 2 are surprised that P1 is true.

Why should anyone be surprised at all to find P1 to be true? By definition, if we had not existed, we wouldn't have been observing this universe. It is unnecessary to affirm or deny multiverse for P1 to be true.

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to find a scientific theory to justify P1 ("barring a theoretical resolution"). P1 is true by definition. Logically, we do not need to search for a natural mechanism to support the fine-tuning of the universe in order to justify P1.

Dr. Collins’ framing of the issue as a dichotomy between the multiverse and God reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of P1 and the role of the anthropic principle. Neither the multiverse nor divine design is necessary to explain why we observe a universe compatible with our existence. The weak anthropic principle provides a sufficient explanation: we observe this universe because it supports life, and we could not observe otherwise.

If the gravitational constant changes slightly, life as we know it wouldn't exist.

Right.

Now, imagine that this universe, as we know it, had not existed. In its place, a universe with a slightly different gravitational constant exists, and life thrives in that universe. The intelligent life of that new universe will assert the same statement: If the gravitational constant is changed slightly, life as they know it wouldn't exist.

Note that I have not appealed to multiverse. I only appeal to P1.

 

[BobRyan]

Youtube video "What we Still don't Know" with authors Leonard Suskind (leading Physicist) and Martin Reese (nobel prize winner, and cosmologist), promote evolution as 'The only way' - but then admit that they came up with "multiverse" out of thin air as a much needed "patch" to the story line since the odds of evolution being remotely true in our Universe is infinitesimal.

 

[River Jordan]

Youtube video "What we Still don't Know" with authors Leonard Suskind (leading Physicist) and Martin Reese (nobel prize winner, and cosmologist), promote evolution as 'The only way' - but then admit that they came up with "multiverse" out of thin air as a much needed "patch" to the story line since the odds of evolution being remotely true in our Universe is infinitesimal.

What? The multiverse has nothing to do with evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

What? The multiverse has nothing to do with evolution.

true.

Long before Martin Reese came up with that idea - belief in evolutionism was still "a thing" people were discussing/debating

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Dr. Francis Collins said, "Barring a theoretical resolution, which I think is unlikely, you either have to say there are zillions of parallel universes out there that we can’t observe at present or you have to say there was a plan."

That's a false dichotomy.

Another reason it's a false dichotomy is the fact that a multiverse and a Creator are not mutually exclusive. It could be that God created "zillions of [unobservable] parallel universes" with "a plan" for all of it.

I am not saying that he did, I'm only saying it's logically consistent and therefore proves his statement to be a false dichotomy.

 

[BobRyan]

That only reason the multiverse story telling was invented - was as a patch for belief in evolution since actual observations in nature -- observed science, seemed to be so much against suggestions of evolutionists when we actually look at our Universe.

As even Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind seem to confirm in their video "What we Still Don't Know"

A Creator that did not need "a bazillion failures" to justify the success we see in this Universe would hardly feel the "need" to instantiate a bazillion failures just to appease evolutionism's latest story telling. It makes no sense to imagine such things.

 

[River Jordan]

I say "the multiverse has nothing to do with evolution" and you reply "true". But now you say,

That only reason the multiverse story telling was invented - was as a patch for belief in evolution

Did you forget?

 

[PatrickTate]

Or could it be that Ezekiel chapter thirty seven is not merely a one time event but perhaps Jesus now has the power to recreate all humans who lived, in a moment of time and spin off a new time line in which more and more of the Holy Spirit is poured out on all flesh. Maybe that is one of the "unlawful to be uttered" ideas that was shown to Paul in 2 Corinthians 12: 1-4?

Rick Joyner, The Final Quest..... " The Power of His Word

“You seek to know and walk in My power so that you can heal the sick and perform miracles, but you have not even begun to comprehend the power of My word. To resurrect all the dead who have ever lived on earth will not even cause Me to strain. I uphold all things by the power of My word. The creation exists because of My word, and it is held together by My word." [Rick Joyner]​

 

[Sir Joseph]

Dr Francis Collins said:


That's a false dichotomy.

Option 1 pertains to the concept of the multiverse. Option 2 describes God as the intelligent designer of the current universe.

Let proposition P1 = We observe a universe compatible with our existence.

Collins and supporters of Option 2 are surprised that P1 is true.

Why should anyone be surprised at all to find P1 to be true? By definition, if we had not existed, we wouldn't have been observing this universe. It is unnecessary to affirm or deny multiverse for P1 to be true.

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to find a scientific theory to justify P1 ("barring a theoretical resolution"). P1 is true by definition. Logically, we do not need to search for a natural mechanism to support the fine-tuning of the universe in order to justify P1.

Dr. Collins’ framing of the issue as a dichotomy between the multiverse and God reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of P1 and the role of the anthropic principle. Neither the multiverse nor divine design is necessary to explain why we observe a universe compatible with our existence. The weak anthropic principle provides a sufficient explanation: we observe this universe because it supports life, and we could not observe otherwise.

If the gravitational constant changes slightly, life as we know it wouldn't exist.

Right.

Now, imagine that this universe, as we know it, had not existed. In its place, a universe with a slightly different gravitational constant exists, and life thrives in that universe. The intelligent life of that new universe will assert the same statement: If the gravitational constant is changed slightly, life as they know it wouldn't exist.

Note that I have not appealed to multiverse. I only appeal to P1.

Painful as it was, I had to read your argument 3 times to understand it. I think I do now, but don't agree with your conclusion.

Your thesis doesn't prove that evolution (P1) is true, but rather only suggests that the creation model's argument for the anthropic principle isn't good evidence. In other words, even if it were true that the anthropic principle is irrelevant to the creation/evolution debate, there are numerous other factors contributing to the right answer on the issue.

While there's a preponderance of evidence to consider in the creation/evolution debate, I think the anthropic principle remains extraordinary because it exposes mathematical probabilities that favor the former over the latter. Common sense still dictates that a watch, cell phone, 747 jet, or any masterfully complicated item mandates a creator and a mind. To attribute such obvious design to chance processes is utter foolishness - driven by the heart's commitment to presuppositional views rather than the mind's commitment to logic.

 

[stevevw]

Dr Francis Collins said:


That's a false dichotomy.

Option 1 pertains to the concept of the multiverse. Option 2 describes God as the intelligent designer of the current universe.

Let proposition P1 = We observe a universe compatible with our existence.

Collins and supporters of Option 2 are surprised that P1 is true.

Why should anyone be surprised at all to find P1 to be true? By definition, if we had not existed, we wouldn't have been observing this universe. It is unnecessary to affirm or deny multiverse for P1 to be true.

Furthermore, it is unnecessary to find a scientific theory to justify P1 ("barring a theoretical resolution"). P1 is true by definition. Logically, we do not need to search for a natural mechanism to support the fine-tuning of the universe in order to justify P1.

Dr. Collins’ framing of the issue as a dichotomy between the multiverse and God reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of P1 and the role of the anthropic principle. Neither the multiverse nor divine design is necessary to explain why we observe a universe compatible with our existence. The weak anthropic principle provides a sufficient explanation: we observe this universe because it supports life, and we could not observe otherwise.

If the gravitational constant changes slightly, life as we know it wouldn't exist.

Right.

Now, imagine that this universe, as we know it, had not existed. In its place, a universe with a slightly different gravitational constant exists, and life thrives in that universe. The intelligent life of that new universe will assert the same statement: If the gravitational constant is changed slightly, life as they know it wouldn't exist.

Note that I have not appealed to multiverse. I only appeal to P1.

I think this is appealing to the multiverse. This was introduced when it was said to imagine that a different universe existed. I think its still pre supposing that some sort of multiverse can exist.

To be able to contemplate other universes different to ours where someone exists means also accepting that this is a possibility. Each person within their universe knowing they exist in isolation to each other.

But if there is only one specific universe that conscious observers can know then that is a completely different proposition. Which requires a different measure of liklyhood I think. There is is only one universe that just so happens to allow intelligent conscious life to know this would be pretty special.

I don't think we can know for sure either way. So at best either scenario is based on a metaphysical belief about the nature or reality. One requiring naturalistic explanations which will lead to ideas like multiverses. The other allowing an outside factor coming in that set the laws in motion to produce a specific universe that holds a particular kind of life that can kow its creator.