Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[sayak83]

Fine tuning doesn't mean selecting one configuration/design vs. another. But it means that the specific nuts and bolts of a specific design to be perfect fit for its intended use.

No it does not. As I have said you have no conception of what the so called fine tuning is telling physicists at all. But i have explained this in various ways many times already, your misconceptions come from your presuppositions, as long as you have it, your misconception will remain. Fine tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with teleology in any way shape or form. Some
theologians want it to be, but wishing does not make it so. Fine tuning, or its lack provide no information whatsoever regarding whether the universe was designed or whether it has a purpose.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

But it means that the specific nuts and bolts of a specific design to be perfect fit for its intended use.

As opposed to what? Think about it.

 

[NoorNoor]

I am not sure that if the constants would be different, then there would be no Universe. String theory, for instance, would strongly disagree

The fabric of the universe, development of matter, Astronomical structures, galaxies, gravity, carbon, complex chemistry, the building blocks of life are all extremely dependent on the constant values. Without this fine tuning, the entire model would not be possible. I am not clear in what sense the string theory would disagree. Why?

And we have definetely no evidence that this is indeed the case

Why? Physical Forces such as Electromagnetism, gravity, Dark energy, strong nuclear force are all studied, measured and we know how it precisely control our physical world. For example, higher gravity would collapse our universe while lower gravity wouldn't allow stars to form. It was established that all these forces have to lie within very low range. Slight difference and the model collapses.

I am not even sure that it makes sense. What are those constants describing if there is no Universe based on them?

You can't split a reality and assume each part will work independently. If the constant forces are excreting an influence to creat configuration. Now if there is no configurations, what does this mean? The configuration didn't form because there were no forces or no calibrated forces to creat it.

But even if it were true. Why do you think that this would possess theological or teleological relevance?

The universe has a beginning. a singularity. Undefined zone. No time, no space, no matter, no physical laws, no possibilities. None. If we agree that the universe has a beginning and agree that it didn't exist before the beginning, then we have to wonder Would the universe just arise out of nothing? Did it create itself? That wouldn't work. it implies it was existent and non existent at same time. Only logical possibility is that it depended on an external influence that already existed. This external influence is external to time, space and any limits because simply these limits neither exist nor apply. Our universe has a beginning but this influence doesn't. Time has no meaning or relevance to it. The beginning was not a coincidence or a possibility. There is nothing tangible to create physical possibility within the realm of none existence. If its not a possibility, then it's intentional creation point that brought the non existent to existence through the execution of a precise complex program. From the beginning, the physical forces that hold the fabric of this model were designed in a very precise fashion to achieve a purpose. Till now, we can only understand the effects of these forces but what it is and what give it it's power, we will never know. Unless its getting it's power from a higher power above all that we will similarly never understand its nature but can understand its existence through its influence. We can definitely see the hands of the creator.

I think you are begging the question by assuming the Universe must have any significance at all. In the same way some people tend to attribute unjustified cosmic importance to things like life, so that they need to look for significance thereof.

If we, our science, our observations are all stopped at a limit and we sure that this limit exist. If you stop at an unknown undefined zone and now I say a creation point and a fine tuned universe are evidence of intentional creation, On what basis would you deny it? If its already beyond your limits. We can see Gods hands in nature. In beauty, in the conscience of our self aware beings. We are going from point A to point B. but we have to understand that this is only our limit. Our relative reality. But the absolute reality before A and after B doesn't have any limit.

A see creature in the darkest depth of an ocean would never understand what the sun is. It's beyond his reality. but that doesn't mean the sun doesn't exist. Human also have their own relative reality. The more we deny these limits, the more it confines us. Once we accept it, we would have a better chance to have a glimpse of what's beyond.

 

[NoorNoor]

No it does not. As I have said you have no conception of what the so called fine tuning is telling physicists at all

I do and I am not claiming that cosmologists are necessarily relating fine tuning to theology. Not at all. Maybe some of them.

But i have explained this in various ways many times already, your misconceptions come from your presuppositions, as long as you have it, your misconception will remain.

That would apply to you. Can you accept to expect the unexpected. Are you sure your own presuppositions are not giving you misconceptions. I guess you would be.

Fine tuning has nothing whatsoever to do with teleology in any way shape or form. Some
theologians want it to be, but wishing does not make it so. Fine tuning, or its lack provide no information whatsoever regarding whether the universe was designed or whether it has a purpose.

I don't rely on any one else to tell me my own interpretation of fine tuning or any thing else. No theologian, no scientist, no one. Yes, I may have my presuppositions. I do. I am aware of it. are you aware of yours? but that doesn't necessarily mean I am following the footsteps of anyone or let my own presuppositions take control of my opinion blindly.

 

[McBell]

If you really want to know, find a reference you can trust and get your facts straight for your self.

Now you want me to do your homework?

Since you cannot present anything to support your bold empty claims, they will be dismissed as bold empty claims.

 

[McBell]

Without this fine tuning, the entire model would not be possible.

Here you are once again making this bold empty claim....

 

[NoorNoor]

As opposed to what? Think about it.

As opposed to nothing.

A manufacture made a single car (no other cars were made). You examined the car and learned how it works. Now, do you need another car to tell if yours will not work without specific engine, wheels, gas or battery? You don't need to compare your car to any other to understand the necessity of all these elements that fit the specific design of your car.

 

[viole]

The fabric of the universe, development of matter, Astronomical structures, galaxies, gravity, carbon, complex chemistry, the building blocks of life are all extremely dependent on the constant values. Without this fine tuning, the entire model would not be possible. I am not clear in what sense the string theory would disagree. Why?

Because string theory expects a multitude of Universes, all with dfferent constants.

Why? Physical Forces such as Electromagnetism, gravity, Dark energy, strong nuclear force are all studied, measured and we know how it precisely control our physical world. For example, higher gravity would collapse our universe while lower gravity wouldn't allow stars to form. It was established that all these forces have to lie within very low range. Slight difference and the model collapses.

And these are still Universes. A Universe without stars is still a Universe, isn't it? You seem to contradict your initial statement that if the constants were different, there would be no Universes. Maybe you meant that there is no Universe looking like ours, but that is obvious.

You can't split a reality and assume each part will work independently. If the constant forces are excreting an influence to creat configuration. Now if there is no configurations, what does this mean? The configuration didn't form because there were no forces or no calibrated forces to creat it.

I am not sure what you mean, here.

The universe has a beginning. a singularity. Undefined zone. No time, no space, no matter, no physical laws, no possibilities. None. If we agree that the universe has a beginning and agree that it didn't exist before the beginning, then we have to wonder Would the universe just arise out of nothing? Did it create itself? That wouldn't work. it implies it was existent and non existent at same time. Only logical possibility is that it depended on an external influence that already existed. This external influence is external to time, space and any limits because simply these limits neither exist nor apply. Our universe has a beginning but this influence doesn't. Time has no meaning or relevance to it. The beginning was not a coincidence or a possibility. There is nothing tangible to create physical possibility within the realm of none existence. If its not a possibility, then it's intentional creation point that brought the non existent to existence through the execution of a precise complex program. From the beginning, the physical forces that hold the fabric of this model were designed in a very precise fashion to achieve a purpose. Till now, we can only understand the effects of these forces but what it is and what give it it's power, we will never know. Unless its getting it's power from a higher power above all that we will similarly never understand its nature but can understand its existence through its influence. We can definitely see the hands of the creator.

The Universe did not have a beginning. Where did you get the idea from?

If we, our science, our observations are all stopped at a limit and we sure that this limit exist. If you stop at an unknown undefined zone and now I say a creation point and a fine tuned universe are evidence of intentional creation, On what basis would you deny it? If its already beyond your limits. We can see Gods hands in nature. In beauty, in the conscience of our self aware beings. We are going from point A to point B. but we have to understand that this is only our limit. Our relative reality. But the absolute reality before A and after B doesn't have any limit.

If you think it is so obvious to see the hand of God in the beauty of nature and in the conscience of self-aware beings, whatever that means, why do you venture in cosmology? I usually use additional evidence only when I am not so sure of the one I already have.

A see creature in the darkest depth of an ocean would never understand what the sun is. It's beyond his reality. but that doesn't mean the sun doesn't exist. Human also have their own relative reality. The more we deny these limits, the more it confines us. Once we accept it, we would have a better chance to have a glimpse of what's beyond.

This is valid for everything that might go beyond our limits. God, invisible fairies, Xenu, and an infinity of things I could make up today. The question is why you pick only one out, and not the rest, given your limits.

Ciao

- viole

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

As opposed to nothing.

Nothing? Not even a less perfect (thus, different) universe? Not sure why "fine tuning" is needed then. Fine tuning implies that it's possible to "mess up" and accidentally make the universe different than what was intended. But you just said earlier that any different kind of universe is a meaningless hypothesis and that this is the only possible kind. If this is the only possible kind, then no fine tuning is needed.

A manufacture made a single car (no other cars were made).

I know of no such manufacturer.

You examined the car and learned how it works. Now, do you need another car to tell if yours will not work without specific engine, wheels, gas or battery?

Yes. If you're gonna develop cars, you need to study other cars rigorously and learn how they work. You can't just develop a car on a whim.

You don't need to compare your car to any other to understand the necessity of all these elements that fit the specific design of your car.

Yes you do.

I'm not sure where you're going with this either. The point is, all kinds of cars exists. If there's many different ways to build a car, and many "wrong" ways to do it, then you need fine tuning. If there's only a single possible way that something can be configured, then there's no fine tuning needed. Because a more flawed configuration would be a different configuration, which you said was a meaningless hypothesis when it came to other possible universes.

It's like blowing a soap bubble. The vast majority of the time, it'll be a near-perfect sphere. Other times, it'll be multiple spheres stuck together. It will NEVER be a cube, or a pyramid, or a dodecahedron or something. Those are impossible configurations, therefore, you don't have to fine tune a soap bubble to make sure it DOESN'T become those things. And you don't need to fine tune it to make sure it becomes a sphere. You can easily leave that up to chance.

If there's only a single possible configuration that a universe can assume, then no fine tuning is needed to make sure it doesn't unintentionally become something else, even if that something else is only slightly different.

 

[NoorNoor]

Because string theory expects a multitude of Universes, all with dfferent constants.

The string theory belong to a domain of theories with less solid science than mathematical allegory. In another word fictions created as a response to challenges in our world. The string theory opened space up adding extra hidden dimensions as a mathematical abstract. I believe the string theory doesn't necessarily suggest multitude of universes, regardless multiverse provide theoretical frame work of the universe of universes each with its own laws of physics. the values of constants we see in our world would simply be an accident as matter of statistics of other infinite imagined universes.

Critics stated that these theories don't explain but on the contrary explain away. Both the unseen universes in multiverse and unseen dimensions in string theory are fictions that drain the reality out of the actual reality we experience. What is solid till now is the fact that there is no experimental evidence that hidden dimensions or alternate universes exist.

And these are still Universes. A Universe without stars is still a Universe, isn't it? You seem to contradict your initial statement that if the constants were different, there would be no Universes. Maybe you meant that there is no Universe looking like ours, but that is obvious.

No. It's like saying a car without engine, transmition, wheels and body is still a car. it's not. The stars were only an example but it's also planets and galaxies. Even matter depended on the constants. A universe collapsing on itself with no astronomical structures is not a universe. In fact,even collapse is not really accurate because it wouldn't have a chance to form to begin with.

I am not sure what you mean, here

Lets go back to your original point "What are those constants describing if there is no Universe based on them". I am simply say, both the constants and the universe are inseparable. You can't have one in isolation of the other. In an example of non existent universe, you would also consider non existent constants.

The Universe did not have a beginning. Where did you get the idea from?

It sure did. about 14 billion years ago. In fact, some scientists claim the starting point can be calculated to a fraction of a second.

If you think it is so obvious to see the hand of God in the beauty of nature and in the conscience of self-aware beings, whatever that means, why do you venture in cosmology? I usually use additional evidence only when I am not so sure of the one I already have

I agree. You are absolutely correct. But what I meant was that we see the hands of God all around us not only in the universe but even in our own being and our immediate environment. In both macro and micro scales.

This is valid for everything that might go beyond our limits. God, invisible fairies, Xenu, and an infinity of things I could make up today. The question is why you pick only one out, and not the rest, given your limits.

No. The context here was the dependency of our non existent universe on already existing original external influence to force the universe to existence. If you describe such influence, then it has to be eternal (beyond spacetime). If eternal, then it has no dependency on any other influence to create it (because it has no beginning). It has to be extreme intelligent powerfull self aware origin that gave definition to every thing. It has to be God.

 

[NoorNoor]

Yes. If you're gonna develop cars

The car example was a hypothesis to clarify a concept but it appears that it got you totally sidetracked to the realm of car industry with many irrelevant implications to our discussion.

The point is, your careful understanding of a machine of any kind allows you to understand the perfect engineering of its elements and the specific dependency of this machine on those elements to function as intended.

It's like blowing a soap bubble. The vast majority of the time, it'll be a near-perfect sphere. Other times, it'll be multiple spheres stuck together. It will NEVER be a cube, or a pyramid, or a dodecahedron or something. Those are impossible configurations, therefore, you don't have to fine tune a soap bubble to make sure it DOESN'T become those things. And you don't need to fine tune it to make sure it becomes a sphere. You can easily leave that up to chance.

If there's only a single possible configuration that a universe can assume, then no fine tuning is needed to make sure it doesn't unintentionally become something else, even if that something else is only slightly different.

You have to ask why the bubble is near perfect sphere. What are the forces controlling its particles to give it this perfect shape. How these forces work. What are its values. How these values are balanced. What is the nature of these forces. What give it it's powers. How it came to existence. If you have all of that figured out, then yes, the bubble will have a perfect shape.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The car example was a hypothesis

A meaningless hypothesis at that.

The point is, your careful understanding of a machine of any kind allows you to understand the perfect engineering of its elements and the specific dependency of this machine on those elements to function as intended.

Can you point out any non-hypothetical example? Like a real life case?

Because usually (as in, all the time) when something is developed, countless other things have to be referenced in the process. You can't just manifest new information out of your head.

You have to ask why the bubble is near perfect sphere. What are the forces controlling its particles to give it this perfect shape. How these forces work. What are its values. How these values are balanced. What is the nature of these forces. What give it it's powers. How it came to existence. If you have all of that figured out, then yes, the bubble will have a perfect shape.

Simply asking why doesn't give you the answer. Yet you're real quick to adhere to the God of the Gaps fallacy.

 

[NoorNoor]

Can you point out any non-hypothetical example? Like a real life case?

I did give you a real life case. Didn't I?

ply asking why doesn't give you the answer. Yet you're real quick to adhere to the God of the Gaps fallacy

No, Simply not asking neither gets you any where nor give you any chance for any answer. It only allow you to stay in your comfort zone of illusions. You have to ask and find a satisfactory answer but its also very possible you don't find the answer. then at least you are aware that a puzzle piece is missing and you have to keep searching. You can't put blind trust in an overall image if you are only looking at half of it, Not even considering the limits of your own vision. Don't even care about the missing pieces. You just jump to a conclusion simply because you want to believe it this way. That would be exactly mere faith fallacy? Please don't take my response personal and just think about it.

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

I did give you a real life case. Didn't I?

No. Car development never works the way you think it does.

You have to ask and find a satisfactory answer but its also very possible you don't find the answer.

Practice what you preach.

You just jump to a conclusion simply because you want to believe it this way.

What conclusions have I jumped to?

The core of my point is, the universe is the way it is and that's as far as we know. The probability of it being this way is completely unverified. But you want to jump to conclusions and make empty claims that it's some highly improbable number based on pop-science you saw on Nat-Geo. Then you want to contradict yourself and say it's configured this way out of an infinite number of possible configurations, but at the same time, say that other possible configurations of universes is a meaningless hypothesis. Or you say that other configurations will lead to "nothing" which it self is an assumption.

You've provided exactly zero formally peer-reviewed sources, zero experimental or observationally verified sources. You have to understand, the type of sources you provide is pop-science including those books. I have books like that. While they are interesting, they're not verified sources, nor are they explained in a formal manner. Books like that cover scientific topics in a sensationalized and oversimplified manner, because it's meant only to spark interest for the common laymen like you to eat up, so it's sold to you to generate revenue. It's not stuff that's taught in any formal educational setting or things you'd find in university text books. It's not stuff that's taught in a lecture by university professors.

It's science that's meant to sell first, and meant to inform second (or last. Or not at all). That's really the bottom line.

 

[viole]

The string theory belong to a domain of theories with less solid science than mathematical allegory. In another word fictions created as a response to challenges in our world. The string theory opened space up adding extra hidden dimensions as a mathematical abstract. I believe the string theory doesn't necessarily suggest multitude of universes, regardless multiverse provide theoretical frame work of the universe of universes each with its own laws of physics. the values of constants we see in our world would simply be an accident as matter of statistics of other infinite imagined universes.

Critics stated that these theories don't explain but on the contrary explain away. Both the unseen universes in multiverse and unseen dimensions in string theory are fictions that drain the reality out of the actual reality we experience. What is solid till now is the fact that there is no experimental evidence that hidden dimensions or alternate universes exist.

That does not really matter. What matters is that alternative Universes with different constants are possible, at least in principle.

And by the way, even if they were only speculative and not falsifiable, they would not be less speculative and falsifiable than God. Which should suffice to exclude the character of necessity of God or other non naturalistic explanations, if we really insist in looking for explanations of why the constants have the value they have.

No. It's like saying a car without engine, transmition, wheels and body is still a car. it's not. The stars were only an example but it's also planets and galaxies. Even matter depended on the constants. A universe collapsing on itself with no astronomical structures is not a universe. In fact,even collapse is not really accurate because it wouldn't have a chance to form to begin with.

To say that a universe collapsing on itself is not a universe is self contradictory. The conclusion falsifies the premise. What was then? You can call it alternative reality if you want, or unstable universe. And your assumption that it is not possible to have (stable) universes with other variables has no evidence whatsoever.

Lets go back to your original point "What are those constants describing if there is no Universe based on them". I am simply say, both the constants and the universe are inseparable. You can't have one in isolation of the other. In an example of non existent universe, you would also consider non existent constants.

Well, it is a chicken egg problem. What comes first: universe generating constants, or Universes that are described by some constants? You say they are inseparable, like a circle has a constant ratio between its circumference and its radius, I presume. Fine. But that does not solve you problem. LIke in geometry, you can have perfectly plausible, albeit different, universes with different constants.

It sure did. about 14 billion years ago. In fact, some scientists claim the starting point can be calculated to a fraction of a second.

Ah. That is what you read in popular science. And no serious physicist can tell you how old the Universe is without first specifying what she really means by that. For instance, time is relative, not absolute, so any talks of age is in the eyes of the beholder. What is absolute is spacetime.

And if you think about it for a moment, it appears meaningless to talk of age, beginings, evolution, expansion, whatever, of spacetime. All these are concepts that make sense within spacetime, and cannot be applied to it as a whole, since they all require a temporal context that trascends spacetime itself. At what time was time born is an absurd question. Is like asking where space started.

I agree. You are absolutely correct. But what I meant was that we see the hands of God all around us not only in the universe but even in our own being and our immediate environment. In both macro and micro scales.

Then I suggest that you stick to this sort of "evidence" instead of venturing in relativistic cosmology in order to prove God. If you see God in the beauty of nature and in things like the Ebola virus and parasitic wasps, then well..good for you.

No. The context here was the dependency of our non existent universe on already existing original external influence to force the universe to existence. If you describe such influence, then it has to be eternal (beyond spacetime). If eternal, then it has no dependency on any other influence to create it (because it has no beginning). It has to be extreme intelligent powerfull self aware origin that gave definition to every thing. It has to be God.

No. As I said, spacetime intended as a 4-dimensional block, satisfies the same requirements. It is eternal, by definition, and things like cause-effect are unapplicable to it when taken as a whole. And even if we do not invoke relativistic block universes, you still have multiverses, eternal inflation, etc. which can explain things as well, and have, at worst, the same evidence of god, gods, spirits, etc.

No God required.

Ciao

- viole

 

[NoorNoor]

You've provided exactly zero formally peer-reviewed sources, zero experimental or observationally verified sources. You have to understand, the type of sources you provide is pop-science including those books. I have books like that. While they are interesting, they're not verified sources, nor are they explained in a formal manner. Books like that cover scientific topics in a sensationalized and oversimplified manner, because it's meant only to spark interest

You don't get it. I am not presenting something new or making a claim. The fine tuned universe have been already established. This fact may not be known to you but a little effort will allow you to verify it for yourself if you wish. The bottom line is, it's ok if you refuse that the fine tuning is an evidence for God but you absolutely have no basis to refuse the fine tuning itself. It's just meaningless denial simply because of your lack of knowledge about it.

second (or last. Or not at all). That's really the bottom line

The bottom line is. The fine tuning Is an established fact. How most scientists understand it or explain it is as follows:

- it can't be a coincidence in light of the understanding of a single universe.
- possibly a future theory would explain this extreme fine tuning is not as understood today but it's unlikely.
- possible explanation is multiverse hypothesis where infinite number of unseen universes would have different laws and would not be fine tuned. In this case, our fine tuned universe would be simply an accident as matter of statistics of other infinite imagined universes. The problem with this view is that we can neither prove existence of these infinite number of imaginary universes nor can prove that it's not similarly fine tuned. as a result believing in Multiverse as a theory that can never be verified in no different that believing in God.

If our universe is single as we see it, then the fine tuning is not a coincidence. No scientist believe it this way. But it's also true that they believe there must be some other explanation. The problem is no one knows for sure what it is since these theories are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

These are the facts. At which side you are, this would be your concern.

 

[YmirGF]

It's always fascinating how far people will go to justify their spiritual preconceptions and resulting delusions. Talk about fine tuning...

 

[AndromedaRXJ]

The bottom line is. The fine tuning Is an established fact. How most scientists understand it or explain it is as follows:

No it's not. It's not taught in a formal setting through university courses, nor is it found in textbooks. It's only found in sensationalized pop-science. It's far from verified, unless you know of some textbooks that's been formally approved by the scientific community, or any universities that teach it this way.

- it can't be a coincidence in light of the understanding of a single universe.
- possibly a future theory would explain this extreme fine tuning is not as understood today but it's unlikely.
- possible explanation is multiverse hypothesis where infinite number of unseen universes would have different laws and would not be fine tuned. In this case, our fine tuned universe would be simply an accident as matter of statistics of other infinite imagined universes.

More sensationalized crackpot science. Point to some verified sources.

The problem with this view is that we can neither prove existence of these infinite number of imaginary universes nor can prove that it's not similarly fine tuned. as a result believing in Multiverse as a theory that can never be verified in no different that believing in God.

Well this statement puts multiverses at the same level as believing in god. Well look at that. But you seem to put one higher than the other. Bias much?

If our universe is single as we see it, then the fine tuning is not a coincidence. No scientist believe it this way. But it's also true that they believe there must be some other explanation. The problem is no one knows for sure what it is since these theories are neither verifiable nor falsifiable.

That's certainly what you weren't saying before. You were, with bias, being in favor of the "goddidit" view.

These are the facts. At which side you are, this would be your concern.

The fact is, the universe exists the way it does. Any attempt at answering "why" it's the way it is, is hypothetical at this point.

 

[Noitall]

To me both are some sort of belief systems. People simply choose to follow one or another not because they are scientists, theologians or have specific compelling evidence but merely because they are free to choose what they believe in and when they choose, most people mainly follow the thoughts or teachings of others that they think can be trusted (whether right or wrong). In that sense, both Evolution and Creationism are similar. What do you think?

Creationism is the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution.

 

[NoorNoor]

No it's not. It's not taught in a formal setting through university courses, nor is it found in textbooks. It's only found in sensationalized pop-science. It's far from verified, unless you know of some textbooks that's been formally approved by the scientific community, or any universities that teach it this way.

How about Leonard Susskind? He is a director of the Stanford Institute for Theoretical Physics (also I believe he is an atheist). I think you would be able to trust him. Watch this video if you wish. It summarizes the whole thing. I expect you to agree with it especially with respect to the hypothesis that possibilities are responsible for fine tuning and life. nonetheless, you will get better understanding about the fine tuning itself.

More sensationalized crackpot science. Point to some verified sources.

Can you trust renowned scientists such as Stephen Hawking, Martin Rees, Leonard Susskind and Paul Davies?

Well this statement puts multiverses at the same level as believing in god. Well look at that. But you seem to put one higher than the other. Bias much?

Multiverse is neither verifiable nor falsifiable and without experimental verification, Multiverse must be accepted on faith. That’s why critics consider it to be similar to believing in God. But I do put believing in God much higher simply because the verified observations of our single fine tuned universe support this belief vs. non verifiable Multiverse that suggests no need for God.

That's certainly what you weren't saying before. You were, with bias, being in favor of the "goddidit" view.

Even so scientists believe the fine tuning is not a coincidence in case of a single universe but scientists also tend to believe in Multiverse not God. In my case, solid creation point at the big bang and fine tuned universe make me in favor of God vs. hypothetical theories such as Multiverse. (Check 7:20 of the video. Susskind doesn’t like this option but nonetheless accept it)

The fact is, the universe exists the way it does. Any attempt at answering "why" it's the way it is, is hypothetical at this point.

In other word, why has no answer, if you don’t know why. How can you be so sure? Unless it’s simply some sort of different beleif like any other faith. This is not satisfactory. At least for me