The Creationistic Method and Why It Is Fraudulent

[Vouthon]

Another is that a multiverse generates countless iterations of every possible set of constants, with stable galaxies, life, and mind arising in each of them where that is possible, like ours, for example.

Ah, the multiverse. Before we embark on a debate concerning it, I must ask something of you first:

Q: Do you agree with me that scientific theories "live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing", to quote one prominent cosmologist George Ellis? Yes, or no? I hope your answer is "yes", if so let us proceed, if not then umm.....​

To frame our discussion on this particular point, consider the following from the cosmologist Paul Davies as to why multiverse theories are, in his assessment, enterprises in speculative philosophy that - while not lacking in merit if recognized as such, since philosophy is very useful - lie outwith the bounds of science:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
​

The inflationary multiverse is certainly plausible as a purely philosophical hypothesis, if one works under an assumption of naturalism. After all, it too has explanatory power and makes good sense of the data - so, I admit, there is a logical possibility of us living in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities. However, this is in no way a superior position to adopt than the "God hypothesis": actually, by making zero testable scientific predictions within the observable universe, it is virtually indistinguishable in character and amounts to what I would call "unilateral intellectual disarmament" from the atheist perspective.

Allow me to explain the "why": in essence, the multiverse is fundamentally beyond the realm of empirical test just like God, with no possibility of direct or indirect testability, predictive power and observation which renders it inherently "unfalsifiable". This is a crucially important point. Numerous leading scientists are therefore either opponents or highly critical of the "multiverse hypothesis" including: David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, Viatcheslav Mukhanov, Michael S. Turner, Roger Penrose, George Ellis, Joe Silk, Carlo Rovelli, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Jim Baggott, and Paul Davies. Now here's the "how":

On account of their particle horizons and the larger expansion rates in an inflationary multiverse, the "bubble" universes which comprise any hypothetical multiverse would be separated from each other by enormously space-like distances that preclude casual contact, making communication between them or observation impossible forever. Light could never traverse those infinite distances, since inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light. I think you can see where this leads, no?

Simply put, if your best response to a fine tuning design argument prefixed on belief in the invisible, immaterial agency of a supreme being who exists outside the universe...is to posit the existence of something else outside our universe (a "multiverse") which is equally invisible to our observation and equally unprovable as a result: then you are essentially giving ground to the theist notion that, as it stands, there is no naturalistic explanation for fine tuning to be found within the observable universe (the only universe we know to exist and which we can study with scientific tools) and answers need to be sought in untestable metaphysical realities beyond it.

Do you really want to reach such an impasse and grant the biggest concession of all to theism? That's a master class argument in circular reasoning and self-defeating logic IMHO. This is the reason why the physicist and mathematician Peter Woit has bluntly dismissed it as being: "grandiose nonsense".

See:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

Horgan: Are multiverse theories not even wrong?

Woit: Yes, but that's not the main problem with them. Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable. Most good ideas start off "not even wrong", with their implications too poorly understood to know where they will lead. The problem with such things as string-theory multiverse theories is that "the multiverse did it" is not just untestable, but an excuse for failure. Instead of opening up scientific progress in a new direction, such theories are designed to shut down scientific progress by justifying a failed research program.

The problem with such research programs isn't that of direct testability, but that there is no indirect evidence for them, nor any plausible way of getting any. Carroll and others with similar interests have a serious problem on their hands: they appear to be making empty claims and engaging in pseudo-science, with "the multiverse did it" no more of a testable explanation than "the Jolly Green Giant did it". To convince people this is science they need to start showing that such claims have non-empty testable consequences, and I don't see that happening.​

Have a look at this New Scientist article You think there's a multiverse? Get real based on theoretical physicist (and Faculty Member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) Lee Smolin's book "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time", which is co-authored with Roberto Mangabeira Unger, in which he explains why the multiverse has no "predictive power":


You think there’s a multiverse? Get real

You think there’s a multiverse? Get real

14 January 2015

Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on, says physicist Lee Smolin

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick – or even a billion.



The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation – the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.



But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe. And unless inflation is highly tuned and constrained, it leads to a runaway process of universe creation. As a result, some cosmologists suggest that there is not one universe, but an infinite number, with a huge variety of properties: the multiverse...



The multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science. These other universes are unobservable and because chance dictates the random distribution of properties across universes, positing the existence of a multiverse does not let us deduce anything about our universe beyond what we already know. As attractive as the idea may seem, it is basically a sleight of hand, which converts an explanatory failure into an apparent explanatory success.​

(continued....)

 

[Vouthon]

See also this essay in NATURE by two of the world's most prominent and respected cosmologists: Joe Silk and George Ellis. They are perfectly about what should be regarded as outside the bounds of science:


Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

Scientific method: Defend the integrity of physics

16 December 2014

Attempts to exempt speculative theories of the Universe from experimental verification undermine science, argue George Ellis and Joe Silk.

This year, debates in physics circles took a worrying turn. Faced with difficulties in applying fundamental theories to the observed Universe, some researchers called for a change in how theoretical physics is done. They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific.

Chief among the 'elegance will suffice' advocates are some string theorists. Because string theory is supposedly the 'only game in town' capable of unifying the four fundamental forces, they believe that it must contain a grain of truth even though it relies on extra dimensions that we can never observe. Some cosmologists, too, are seeking to abandon experimental verification of grand hypotheses that invoke imperceptible domains ...

These unprovable hypotheses are quite different from those that relate directly to the real world and that are testable through observations — such as the standard model of particle physics and the existence of dark matter and dark energy.

The issue of testability has been lurking for a decade. String theory and multiverse theory have been criticized in popular books1, 2, 3 and articles, including some by one of us (G.E.)4. In March, theorist Paul Steinhardt wrote5 in this journal that the theory of inflationary cosmology is no longer scientific because it is so flexible that it can accommodate any observational result. Theorist and philosopher Richard Dawid6 and cosmologist Sean Carroll7 have countered those criticisms with a philosophical case to weaken the testability requirement for fundamental physics.

MANY MULTIVERSES

The multiverse is motivated by a puzzle: why fundamental constants of nature, such as the fine structure constant that characterizes the strength of electromagnetic interactions between particles and the cosmological constant associated with the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe, have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. Multiverse theory claims that there are billions of unobservable sister universes out there in which all possible values of these constants can occur. So somewhere there will be a biofriendly universe like ours, however improbable that is. Some physicists consider that the multiverse has no challenger as an explanation of many otherwise bizarre coincidences. The low value of the cosmological constant — known to be 120 factors of 10 smaller than the value predicted by quantum field theory — is difficult to explain, for instance. ...

... [Sean Carroll] argues that inaccessible domains can have a “dramatic effect” in our cosmic back yard, explaining why the cosmological constant is so small in the part we see. But in multiverse theory, that explanation could be given no matter what astronomers observe. All possible combinations of cosmological parameters would exist somewhere, and the theory has many variables that can be tweaked. Other theories, such as unimodular gravity, a modified version of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, can also explain why the cosmological constant is not huge7.

The consequences of overclaiming the significance of certain theories are profound — the scientific method is at stake (see go.nature.com/hh7mm6). To state that a theory is so good that its existence supplants the need for data and testing in our opinion risks misleading students and the public as to how science should be done and could open the door for pseudoscientists to claim that their ideas meet similar requirements.
​

To actually counteract the theistic argument in a meaningful way, it would be far more logical to start from an utterly different set of assumptions: namely that the universe we live in is the only one there is, since its the only one we can observe, analyze and test using the scientific method.

Moreover, I would argue, the "inflationary multiverse" which you propose as a solution to the fine-tuning issue has additional shortcomings that the "God hypothesis" does not suffer from. This is due to the fact all multiverse models are predicated on the empirical evidence, or lack thereof, substantiating two other hypotheses:

(1) cosmic inflation and (2) a string landscape in M-Theory

The multiverse is not typically mooted as a viable possibility in its own right, on the basis of its own aesthetic merits (for that's not how science operates), rather it can only be plausibly conceived if these other hypotheses are already accepted a priori as valid descriptions of nature, since at least some of their potential iterations predict an "eternal inflation" which would in theory allow multiple spacetime separated universes to be generated in the first place.

And here's where we hit the next major roadblock: Einstein’s theory of General Relativity has made innumerable correct predictions - from the gravitational bending of light to the time dilation measured by our GPS phones. String theory by comparison is yet to produce any prediction that can be subjected to empirical test (e.g. like predicting the masses of current or yet-to-be-discovered particles), after forty years of academic paper after academic paper, being worked on by about 90% of theoretical physicists at some point in their careers.

And yet during that long span of time, it has so far not made any independently testable predictions. Let's just remember the standard we hold theories in science up to: the idea is not "I predict xyz" and get a rough estimation. No! It's: "I predict this exactly to ten decimal places..." You predict exactly what's going to happen for a theory to be classed as scientifically tested. And General Relativity does, it predicts the motion of the planets to a spectacular degree of accuracy.

Surely this is the fundamental difference between science and other belief systems: that a scientist can predict something in advance (we don't know whether its true or not), then when we make the experiment and its confirmed, then that gives us reason to believe it?

Consider the Theory of Evolution as a paradigmatic example. Darwin was fascinated by orchid pollination strategies and actually discovered a special kind of orchid known as Angraecum sesquipedale. It had an uncharacteristically long pipe-like "nectar reservoir". Now, on the basis of this discovery Darwin *predicted* the existence of an insect with a proboscis that would be able to get "in there" and retrieve the deeply-hidden nectar. And not long after, biologists found one - just as he had predicted. So the theory of the mutual evolution of pollinators and plants successfully made the prediction that if there was a plant that could only be pollinated in this way, there must be some insect that did it. And this is what you call a "testable prediction" in science. There is no such experiment you can point to for String Theory and say, "Aha! String theorists predicted this number and we got this number".

Worse, for String Theory to work (which is necessary for the multiverse to exist) you need to prove that there is such a thing as "supersymmetry": the idea that for every particle we discover in nature, they should have a twin particle. None of those twin particles have been found by the LHC (Large Hadron Collider) ar CERN despite it being world's largest and most powerful particle collider and most complex experimental facility ever built (and despite all the money that's been poured into it). Supersymmetry needs to be true for String Theory to work.

Worse, String "Theory" amounts to being a "Theory of Anything" that makes an utter mockery of Occam's Razor, as Peter Woit notes:

The possible existence of, say, 10500 consistent different vacuum states for superstring theory probably destroys the hope of using the theory to predict anything. If one picks among this large set just those states whose properties agree with present experimental observations, it is likely there still will be such a large number of these that one can get just about whatever value one wants for the results of any new observation.​

(continued.....)

 

[Vouthon]

And I've already touched on the issues with "inflation", here is the verdict from Paul Steinhardt, the scientist who thought up the "inflationary multiverse" hypothesis in the 1980s (but who has since turned against it and is far more critical of the idea than I am, denying that it is even "explanatory"):


https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/

Physicist Slams Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive

Paul Steinhardt, Albert Einstein Professor in Science and Director of the Center for Theoretical Science at Princeton University

Steinhardt: From the very beginning, even as I was writing my first paper on inflation in 1982, I was concerned that the inflationary picture only works if you finely tune the constants that control the inflationary period. Andy Albrecht and I (and, independently, Andrei Linde) had just discovered the way of having an extended period of inflation end in a graceful exit to a universe filled with hot matter and radiation, the paradigm for all inflationary models since. But the exit came at a cost -- fine-tuning. The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.

We have not explained any feature of the universe by introducing inflation after all. Instead we have just shifted the problem of the original big bang model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities that could emerge from the big bang?) to the inflationary model (how can we explain our simple universe when there is a nearly infinite variety of possibilities could emerge in a multiverse?).

I have to admit that I did not take the multiverse problem seriously at first even though I had been involved in uncovering it. I thought someone would figure out a resolution once the problem was revealed. That was 1983. I was wrong.

To me, the accidental universe idea (the notion that the features of the observable universe are accidental: consequences of living in this particular region of the multiverse rather than another), is scientifically meaningless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing. Also, it misses the most salient fact we have learned about large-scale structure of the universe: its extraordinary simplicity when averaged over large scales. In order to explain the one simple universe we can see, the inflationary multiverse and accidental universe hypotheses posit an infinite variety of universes with arbitrary amounts of complexity that we cannot see. Variations on the accidental universe, such as those employing the anthropic principle, do nothing to help the situation.

Scientific ideas should be simple, explanatory, predictive. The inflationary multiverse as currently understood appears to have none of those properties.​

The "string theory inflationary multiverse" argument to explain fine tuning is thus every bit the article of faith that atheists consider belief in God to be.

If some atheists feel comfortable with the idea of explaining the problem of fine tuning by having recourse to a greater, unseen reality beyond our observable universe (an infinite multiverse of inflationary bubble universes, endlessly popping into existence and where every conceivable set of physical laws and constants is realized somewhere)...a reality that is unfalsifiable and imperceptible to any instrument of measurement or analysis which could be created and utilized by humankind, putting it beyond the reach of the scientific method....then be my guest but please tell me how this doesn't amount to some kind of "faith" as described by the Book of Hebrews?

Hebrews 11: 1-3

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
​

So far as I can read the situation: we appear to be at an inescapable impasse with the fine tuning problem whereby our best explanations to account for it (an inflationary multiverse or God) are essentially untestable philosophical answers arising from an unspoken recognition on both sides that our best chance of addressing fine tuning is to envisage a greater, unobserved reality outside the universe because on its own terms our universe looks far too improbable, unnatural and inexplicably fortunate to exist.

That's not science, that's metaphysics.

Moreover postulating an almost infinite number of unobservable universes, just to explain our own universe, is contrary to Occam's razor, whereas (in my opinion) if we were forced to choose between the multiverse and God: the "God hypothesis" comes out as the better of the two since it more elegance and explanatory power; precisely due to the fact it accounts for the data and addresses the problem by relying upon the more simple explanation. In brief: if one unobservable God is a simpler answer than an infinite number of other unobservable regions/patches/universes then by Occam's razor it is the better answer and more scientific of the two.

Last but not least, the multiverse generator itself would need to be fine-tuned (I'll gather peer-reviewed evidence for you to read on this when I get the opportunity), so it simply moves the fine-tuning problem up a gear from what would become the the cosmic "by-laws" governing our universe and the "meta-laws" governing the multiverse. And the multiverse is dependent on cosmic inflation which as already demonstrated would be massively fine-tuned - requiring an even lower entropy than the initial conditions of our single universe, which are already finely-tuned!

I'm not asking you to think the same way, just defending my own reasons for thinking as I do.

Furthermore, why would an omnipotent god need to finely tune the laws of nature unless it was being restricted by some other laws beyond its control? Who created those laws that govern the necessity for a god to fine tune the laws of nature? Nobody.

You're looking at this the wrong way.

The universe appears "fine-tuned" from our perspective as contingent beings within the universe: which is to say, these parameters have values that lie in the small range that allows life to exist. God is the one who decided what that "small range" is in the first place since He is the reason why we have 'something rather than nothing' to begin with.

The necessity of that "small range" is not a limitation imposed upon God - as if the laws were pre-existent and binding upon him. He can design a universe whatever way He sees fit:

If we posit God as the reason for fine-tuning, we posit that He has decided to design the universe in such a way that it looks positively designed when studied and operates according to rational, consistent laws that rational conscious observers within it can discover by means of their own reason - and there are innumerable good theological reasons why a Supremely Omniscient Being would see fit to design the universe in that way, as opposed to some arbitrary, illogical way even though He has the omnipotence to have done so if he wished.

So we can dispense with the god.

You are certainly free to do so...but I would urge you to bear in mind the words of the late great atheist intellectual Christopher Hitchens prior to his untimely death:

 

[Super Universe]

Lee Smolin is just one physicist who doesn't like the ideas proposed by string theory.

There are many theoretical physicists working on string theory and they're not going to stop because Lee Smolin doesn't like it.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, the multiverse. Before we embark on a debate concerning it, I must ask something of you first:

Q: Do you agree with me that scientific theories "live or die based on internal consistency and, one hopes, eventual laboratory testing", to quote one prominent cosmologist George Ellis? Yes, or no? I hope your answer is "yes", if so let us proceed, if not then umm.....​

To frame our discussion on this particular point, consider the following from the cosmologist Paul Davies as to why multiverse theories are, in his assessment, enterprises in speculative philosophy that - while not lacking in merit if recognized as such, since philosophy is very useful - lie outwith the bounds of science:

For a start, how is the existence of the other universes to be tested? To be sure, all cosmologists accept that there are some regions of the universe that lie beyond the reach of our telescopes, but somewhere on the slippery slope between that and the idea that there are an infinite number of universes, credibility reaches a limit. As one slips down that slope, more and more must be accepted on faith, and less and less is open to scientific verification. Extreme multiverse explanations are therefore reminiscent of theological discussions. Indeed, invoking an infinity of unseen universes to explain the unusual features of the one we do see is just as ad hoc as invoking an unseen Creator. The multiverse theory may be dressed up in scientific language, but in essence it requires the same leap of faith.

— Paul Davies, A Brief History of the Multiverse
​

The inflationary multiverse is certainly plausible as a purely philosophical hypothesis, if one works under an assumption of naturalism. After all, it too has explanatory power and makes good sense of the data - so, I admit, there is a logical possibility of us living in an ever expanding megaverse of unlimited physical possibilities. However, this is in no way a superior position to adopt than the "God hypothesis": actually, by making zero testable scientific predictions within the observable universe, it is virtually indistinguishable in character and amounts to what I would call "unilateral intellectual disarmament" from the atheist perspective.

Allow me to explain the "why": in essence, the multiverse is fundamentally beyond the realm of empirical test just like God, with no possibility of direct or indirect testability, predictive power and observation which renders it inherently "unfalsifiable". This is a crucially important point. Numerous leading scientists are therefore either opponents or highly critical of the "multiverse hypothesis" including: David Gross, Paul Steinhardt, Neil Turok, Viatcheslav Mukhanov, Michael S. Turner, Roger Penrose, George Ellis, Joe Silk, Carlo Rovelli, Adam Frank, Marcelo Gleiser, Jim Baggott, and Paul Davies. Now here's the "how":

On account of their particle horizons and the larger expansion rates in an inflationary multiverse, the "bubble" universes which comprise any hypothetical multiverse would be separated from each other by enormously space-like distances that preclude casual contact, making communication between them or observation impossible forever. Light could never traverse those infinite distances, since inflation causes the universe(s) to expand at a rate exceeding the speed of light. I think you can see where this leads, no?

Simply put, if your best response to a fine tuning design argument prefixed on belief in the invisible, immaterial agency of a supreme being who exists outside the universe...is to posit the existence of something else outside our universe (a "multiverse") which is equally invisible to our observation and equally unprovable as a result: then you are essentially giving ground to the theist notion that, as it stands, there is no naturalistic explanation for fine tuning to be found within the observable universe (the only universe we know to exist and which we can study with scientific tools) and answers need to be sought in untestable metaphysical realities beyond it.

Do you really want to reach such an impasse and grant the biggest concession of all to theism? That's a master class argument in circular reasoning and self-defeating logic IMHO. This is the reason why the physicist and mathematician Peter Woit has bluntly dismissed it as being: "grandiose nonsense".

See:

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/why-string-theory-is-still-not-even-wrong/

Horgan: Are multiverse theories not even wrong?

Woit: Yes, but that's not the main problem with them. Many ideas that are "not even wrong", in the sense of having no way to test them, can still be fruitful, for instance by opening up avenues of investigation that will lead to something conventionally testable. Most good ideas start off "not even wrong", with their implications too poorly understood to know where they will lead. The problem with such things as string-theory multiverse theories is that "the multiverse did it" is not just untestable, but an excuse for failure. Instead of opening up scientific progress in a new direction, such theories are designed to shut down scientific progress by justifying a failed research program.

The problem with such research programs isn't that of direct testability, but that there is no indirect evidence for them, nor any plausible way of getting any. Carroll and others with similar interests have a serious problem on their hands: they appear to be making empty claims and engaging in pseudo-science, with "the multiverse did it" no more of a testable explanation than "the Jolly Green Giant did it". To convince people this is science they need to start showing that such claims have non-empty testable consequences, and I don't see that happening.​

Have a look at this New Scientist article You think there's a multiverse? Get real based on theoretical physicist (and Faculty Member at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics) Lee Smolin's book "The Singular Universe and the Reality of Time", which is co-authored with Roberto Mangabeira Unger, in which he explains why the multiverse has no "predictive power":


You think there’s a multiverse? Get real

You think there’s a multiverse? Get real

14 January 2015

Positing that alternative universes exist is just disguising our lack of knowledge of the cosmos. It's time to move on, says physicist Lee Smolin

Everything we know suggests that the universe is unusual. It is flatter, smoother, larger and emptier than a “typical” universe predicted by the known laws of physics. If we reached into a hat filled with pieces of paper, each with the specifications of a possible universe written on it, it is exceedingly unlikely that we would get a universe anything like ours in one pick – or even a billion.



The challenge that cosmologists face is to make sense of this specialness. One approach to this question is inflation – the hypothesis that the early universe went through a phase of exponentially fast expansion. At first, inflation seemed to do the trick. A simple version of the idea gave correct predictions for the spectrum of fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background.



But a closer look shows that we have just moved the problem further back in time. To make inflation happen at all requires us to fine-tune the initial conditions of the universe. And unless inflation is highly tuned and constrained, it leads to a runaway process of universe creation. As a result, some cosmologists suggest that there is not one universe, but an infinite number, with a huge variety of properties: the multiverse...



The multiverse theory has difficulty making any firm predictions and threatens to take us out of the realm of science. These other universes are unobservable and because chance dictates the random distribution of properties across universes, positing the existence of a multiverse does not let us deduce anything about our universe beyond what we already know. As attractive as the idea may seem, it is basically a sleight of hand, which converts an explanatory failure into an apparent explanatory success.​

(continued....)

If the only possible explanation you can come up with for an object existing without ID- is an infinite probability machine, that's a pretty good test for that object being intelligently designed when you think about it!

The multiverse was always going to be the last resort, after every testable theory for a spontaneous creation was debunked. It's about as close to conceding defeat as imaginable and many atheists have a problem with it for that same reason, it's a dead end scientifically, it takes atheism off the scientific playing field altogether.

The shift in the last decade or so has been gradually away from a spontaneous/ undesigned universe- to something that probably was designed after all 'just not by God'

Andre Linde, principle in modern inflationary theory also, considers it 'feasible' that we could one day create our own universe, and that this is how our's may have been created- i.e. by 'alien scientists'

 

[gnostic]

God engineered the math for the desired outcome, that's not a restriction of anything other than pure math and logic

That’s absurd.

Mathematics are all man-made logic, thought of by past and present mathematicians.

I have not seen a single logic statement, formula or equation in scriptures, including the Bible and Qur’an.

When concerning the mathematics and science, the Bible is void of them, it is an idiot book, filled with allegories & superstitious myths, outrageously absurd revelations & prophecies, very minimal reliable history, primitive and outdated laws and ethic.

 

[Profound Realization]

That’s absurd.

Mathematics are all man-made logic, thought of by past and present mathematicians.

I have not seen a single logic statement, formula or equation in scriptures, including the Bible and Qur’an.

When concerning the mathematics and science, the Bible is void of them, it is an idiot book, filled with allegories & superstitious myths, outrageously absurd revelations & prophecies, very minimal reliable history, primitive and outdated laws and ethic.

I often see many citing how ridiculous a book is to show "God," "ID," doesn't exist... is this what you're doing or no? I ask because I don't want to assume on you, I think you're more seasoned than to do so.

 

[gnostic]

I often see many citing how ridiculous a book is to show "God," "ID," doesn't exist... is this what you're doing or no? I ask because I don't want to assume on you, I think you're more seasoned than to do so.

The creationists and ID believers actions, their propaganda speak loudly how ridiculous their beliefs are, and it really doesn't help their cause, when they used deception.

I really don't oppose the bible as a work of literature. Of all the books in the bible, my favorite book is actually the Genesis, with the creation and flood stories.

The differences between me and Young Earth Creationists, is that I no longer believe Genesis creation and flood, to be historical, let alone scientifically possible. All evidences showed that Genesis creation is not true, as are this "global" deluge, covering the whole earth and the highest mountains.

When I was a teenager, I used to believe Genesis was literal and historical. And even during my 14 year of hiatus of not reading or touching the bible (I stopped reading the bible at 20 (1986), because of other priorities, eg life, like my studies and career), I still believe.

I have never considered myself as creationist, even when I was believer at that time; I was simply just a believer of the bible, not a creationist. Heck, I didn't even know creationist was a word, back then.

It is only re-reading again, after my hiatus, that I cannot trust the bible.

There was no theism vs atheism, or creationism vs evolution that made my choice to change from my belief to skepticism. It was the bible itself. Re-reading the bible again, just made me revise my view and belief; it had nothing to do with science.

During the nearly 20 years of belief, I was aware of the creationism vs evolution debates. Sure, I have heard of evolution, but my Year 9 biology didn't touch on the subject, so I didn't know anything about natural selection or mutation. I went the physics route, mainly due to me studying civil engineering after high school.

I was younger back then, with very little experience in examining what's real and what isn't, so I didn't question the bible's veracity.

Me, becoming an agnostic, was due to seeing contradictions in the stories, and errors here and there. That's what questioned my faith, not science.

And the biggest reason why I revised my outlook on the bible, wasn't the Genesis.

No, PR. It was Jesus' birth story from 2 different gospels, plus the so-called "messianic prophecies" in Matthew 1 & 2, that made me questioned it.

That's what may me questioned everything else about the bible, including the Genesis story.

Genesis is still my favorite book in the entire bible, but I simply don't take it literally, and I recognised a myth when I see or read one. I have been reading literature with mythological and folkloric themes for some years and created my own website Timeless Myths.

It wasn't until a few years later, when I joined a forum in 2003 (not this one) for the 1st time, that I became aware of creationism vs evolution. So to understand what is evolution is all about, I had borrowed my cousin's old biology textbook.

Reading evolution from textbook, doesn't make me an expert in biology or in evolution, but it does give me insight as to what evolution is.

Likewise, I was never astronomy student, and though I have studied physics because of my engineering course, it was limited to physics that was applicable to civil engineering, so I only knew that Relativity and Quantum Physics exist, but never study it.

So to acquaint myself and understand what people were talking about Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Particle Physics, the Big Bang model and other cosmologies, I took the time to do a lot of reading and do some research, to learn these subjects.

Again, like evolution and biology, it doesn't make an expert in physics and astrophysics, but at the very least, I have better understanding than I did before.

What I don't do is, is read books about atheism, because they were written by atheists. And I don't read books about agnosticism, just because I am agnostic.

And what I don't do is read books, articles or webpages that are anti-creationism or anti-evolution. I simply read what I find in the forums, and to be honest, I find those who called themselves creationists or are creationists, particularly YEC and ID advocates, to be less than honest bunch.

 

[SkepticThinker]

The Intelligent Design argument is pure pseudoscience.

What I consider to be highly regrettable is that some theists and apologists of Christianity, particularly in the United States, use the genuinely thought-provoking "cosmological fine-tuning argument" in conjunction with the anti-evolutionistic Intelligent Design argument.

As a consequence, a compelling philosophical argument deduced from scientific data (fine tuning) - certainly no less so than the "multiverse" proposition - can get tied at the hip with an argument from scientific ignorance (intelligent design), and therefore the former can sometimes get unfairly dismissed by atheists – guilt by association, courtesy of the scientifically illiterate/enemies of science.

The fine-tuning of the universe's physical laws under the present Lambda-CDM model has been recognised with broad consensus by leading cosmologists, many of them agnostic or atheist in belief. It is rather strange to me how some atheists can overlook or even on occasion dismiss this mainstream science when it comes to fine-tuning, thereby indulging in an error not all that dissimilar from that which they justifiably charge extreme creationists of when it comes to evolution.

If the argument is that, "the universe is fine-tuned for life" I don't see it, given that most of the known universe is quite inhospitable to life. Heck, even parts of the Earth are inhospitable to life.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I'm not paying attention to what I'm reading? I've forgotten more than you ever knew. Human scientific thought was so pitiful. I've always found it absolutely amazing what you humans tell yourselves.

It wasn't Lamaitre who predicted cosmic radiation of the big bang, it was Alpher and Herman? In reality it was a very long list of people. Lamaitre predicted cosmic rays. Background radiation is not cosmic rays so he is not included on the Wiki Cosmic Background Radiation page list.

You may want to refresh your information and read up on stellar nucleosynthesis.

The abundance of hydrogen atoms was the result of bonding electrons to ionised hydrogen nuclei? And when did gravity activate? Even the angels cannot produce a big bang. It's impossible.

You say that the only reason that primordial photons can be seen by radio telescopes is that as light ages it becomes more red shifted? This is incorrect. The red shift is not caused by the age of light, it's caused by the transmitter of the light moving away from the receiver of the light. Light does not give it's age. The age of the universe is a guess based upon the speed and measured acceleration of the target moving away from where scientists "think" everything came from. A blue shift in the light means a target is moving towards us, not that the target is young.

You continuously insult me but you're the one getting the physics wrong.

The 1948 model is still valid? And gravity is or is not valid? Which is it? You can't just use it when it's convenient and then dismiss it when it stops your "theory" cold.

Lambda is the symbol for dark energy? You can worship Lambda symbol if you wish. When are you going to provide details on this dark energy, what kind of particle is it?

Can I read? Better than you. English is my first language unlike you.

Dark energy is not the big bang? Who told you it was? Oh, Lambda told you that? You're easily confused. Must happen a lot. Seems to happen two or three times each post.

You're no astrophysicist? In the US we have a saying "No sh**."

I really have a blind spot? Perfect vision there little Gilligan.

I should re read the Lambda article? No, what are you going to do about it?

What are you going to do when the James Webb finds galaxies over 14 billion light years away? Where are you going to run to? You can't go to religion, they have standards.

Oh, are you a god, or an alien? Gee, I didn't realize we were all in the presence of such greatness.

 

[Vouthon]

If the argument is that, "the universe is fine-tuned for life" I don't see it, given that most of the known universe is quite inhospitable to life. Heck, even parts of the Earth are inhospitable to life.

Thanks for your post Skeptic!

Your argument rests on an understandable misapprehension about what scientists mean when they claim the universe is finely-tuned for life.

When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are firstly complexity-permitting and secondly life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life need exist everywhere in the postulated universe.

The fact that there is the possibility of life somewhere in the universe is precisely because the fundamental parameters are finely tuned. Without this fine-tuning, there would be no life, anywhere in the universe.

Cosmologists can actually use the laws of physics as we understand them to model simulations of counterfactual universes and a consistent finding is that the range of constants where the universe isn't an undifferentiated cloud of hydrogen and helium, devoid of the complexity required to ultimately spawn a universe with intelligent life, is exceedingly low.

A complex universe - one with stars, galaxies and other structures that can permit life - requires fine tuning of the values of the fundamental parameters within a narrow range.

Also, much of the universe that is inhospitable for life happens to be essential for a life-permitting universe. I mean, to use but two examples: life cannot exist on the surface of the Sun yet the existence of stars is necessary for their to be life in the first place.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Thanks for your post Skeptic!

Your argument rests on an understandable misapprehension about what scientists mean when they claim the universe is finely-tuned for life.

When scientists speak of fine-tuned universes, they are referring to universes that are firstly complexity-permitting and secondly life-permitting. By life-permitting, they do not mean that life need exist everywhere in the postulated universe.

The fact that there is the possibility of life somewhere in the universe is precisely because the fundamental parameters are finely tuned. Without this fine-tuning, there would be no life, anywhere in the universe.

Cosmologists can actually use the laws of physics as we understand them to model simulations of counterfactual universes and a consistent finding is that the range of constants where the universe isn't an undifferentiated cloud of hydrogen and helium, devoid of the complexity required to ultimately spawn a universe with intelligent life, is exceedingly low.

A complex universe - one with stars, galaxies and other structures that can permit life - requires fine tuning of the values of the fundamental parameters within a narrow range.

Also, much of the universe that is inhospitable for life happens to be essential for a life-permitting universe. I mean, to use but two examples: life cannot exist on the surface of the Sun yet the existence of stars is necessary for their to be life in the first place.

The problem is that there is a substantial difference between a Universe which is specifically "fine tuned" for life, and notion of a Universe that simply allows for life to exist. There is a gulf between the two. One implies clear and direct intent, the other does not.

The other fundamental, perhaps most devastating, flaw in any kind of "fine-tuning" argument is that it assumes that the form life takes on earth is the only possible form life can take, and that therefore the conditions that permitted life to form on earth are the only conditions necessary for life to exist. This is an extremely bold statement, considering:

1) We are aware of only one instance of life occurring and have no reason to assume that this is the only potential instance.
2) We have no idea if there is, or could be, any other forms life could take and what conditions they might require.
3) Whether, conditions having been different, life would still have arisen but merely in a different form.

The fine-tuning argument makes a ridiculously sweeping generalization about the form and function of both life (as a broadly complex system of replicating organic molecules) and of the Universe itself, and asserts that because certain conditions exist under which life arose in this one specific instance, that these conditions were specifically formulated for this one specific instance of life and that, therefore, all forms of life (and even all potential forms of life that could ever exist) necessarily must arise from this set of conditions.

This strikes me as a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to the question of origins, and quite a ludicrously arrogant assertion of life's place in the Universe.

 

[Vouthon]

The problem is that there is a substantial difference between a Universe which is specifically "fine tuned" for life, and notion of a Universe that simply allows for life to exist. There is a gulf between the two. One implies clear and direct intent, the other does not.

I disagree. Fine tuning is a scientific term referring to physical constants which permit life only for a very narrow range of values and yet, inexplicably, they take those values - despite the fact that these values cannot be determined by any calculation. It is technically what scientists call "unnatural".

The simple axiom here is that a life-permitting universe is extremely, extremely improbable. To take but one example, the cosmological constant sits on the most unbelievably tiny knife-edge: by this I'm referring to the positive energy density of empty space that causes accelerating expansion and which physicists say needs to be fine tuned to 120 decimal places – "one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion".

Steven Weinberg (nobel laureate in high energy physics and an atheist, incidentally) has noted in relation to this constant:

“....It would seem to require an incredible fine-tuning. The existence of life of any kind requires a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. If not the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form...

In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant.

It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large, and could be positive or negative. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people.

If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse, leaving no time for the evolution of life. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.” [Facing up (Harvard University Press, 2003), 237.]​

This is not accidental.

There are literally gazillions of different values the cosmological constant could take in different universes that would make life categorically impossible, even if it was changed ever so slightly from its current knife-edge non-zero value.

The Cosmological Constant Problem thus appears very unlikely to have any conventional scientific explanation. The only plausible solutions involve God or an inflationary multiverse arising from a speculative "string landscape" in M-Theory, and I have already dealt with the problems inherent in the latter in my previous posts.

Most counterfactual universes would have parameters that simply do not permit life. To make a universe able to result in life, the relevant parameters have to be very delicately tuned.

I believe that the hypothesis which suggests intelligent agency was involved in this phenomenon is completely defensible.

The other fundamental, perhaps most devastating, flaw in any kind of "fine-tuning" argument is that it assumes that the form life takes on earth is the only possible form life can take, and that therefore the conditions that permitted life to form on earth are the only conditions necessary for life to exist. This is an extremely bold statement, considering:

1) We are aware of only one instance of life occurring and have no reason to assume that this is the only potential instance.
2) We have no idea if there is, or could be, any other forms life could take and what conditions they might require.
3) Whether, conditions having been different, life would still have arisen but merely in a different form.

The fine-tuning argument makes a ridiculously sweeping generalization about the form and function of both life (as a broadly complex system of replicating organic molecules) and of the Universe itself, and asserts that because certain conditions exist under which life arose in this one specific instance, that these conditions were specifically formulated for this one specific instance of life and that, therefore, all forms of life (and even all potential forms of life that could ever exist) necessarily must arise from this set of conditions.

This strikes me as a fundamentally wrong-headed approach to the question of origins, and quite a ludicrously arrogant assertion of life's place in the Universe.

It is admittedly difficult for me to envisage what kind of life could exist in a universe devoid of stellar bodies and complex chemistry but in the case of the Cosmological Constant: yes, life is quite honestly impossible in any hypothetical variation.

If this constant were the expected size and had a negative value then our universe would have collapsed in less than a second after the Big Bang. On the contrary, if the constant were the expected size but had a positive value, anything separated by more than a few meters would have been unable to communicate - meaning no complex objects of any sort (such as stars, galaxies etc) is even possible, let alone life itself because "the cosmological constant would have to be fine-tuned with exquisite precision, a deviation in even the 100th decimal place would lead to a universe without any significant structure" (Alejandro Jenkins (Center for Th. Physics, MIT) & Gilad Perez(Yang Inst. for Th. Physics))

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I disagree. Fine tuning is a scientific term referring to physical constants which permit life only for a very narrow range of values and yet, inexplicably, they take those values - despite the fact that these values cannot be determined by any calculation. It is technically what scientists call "unnatural".

You've not really addressed the objection, only repeated your assertion.

The simple axiom here is that a life-permitting universe is extremely, extremely improbable.

How can you possibly determine that considering we have only a single instance of the Universe from which we can draw that information?

To take but one example, the cosmological constant sits on the most unbelievably tiny knife-edge: by this I'm referring to the positive energy density of empty space that causes accelerating expansion and which physicists say needs to be fine tuned to 120 decimal places – "one part in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion".

And how have you determined that this constant isn't either an inevitable result of physics in any possible Universe or the only level of density that is required for any form of life to exist?

Steven Weinberg (nobel laureate in high energy physics and an atheist, incidentally) has noted in relation to this constant:

“....It would seem to require an incredible fine-tuning. The existence of life of any kind requires a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places. If not the universe either would go through a complete cycle of expansion and contraction before life could arise, or would expand so rapidly that no galaxies or stars could form...

In any case, there is one constant whose value does seem remarkably well adjusted in our favor. It is the energy density of empty space, also known as the cosmological constant.

It could have any value, but from first principles one would guess that this constant should be very large, and could be positive or negative. If large and positive, the cosmological constant would act as a repulsive force that increases with distance, a force that would prevent matter from clumping together in the early universe, the process that was the first step in forming galaxies and stars and planets and people.

If large and negative the cosmological constant would act as an attractive force increasing with distance, a force that would almost immediately reverse the expansion of the universe and cause it to recollapse, leaving no time for the evolution of life. In fact, astronomical observations show that the cosmological constant is quite small, very much smaller than would have been guessed from first principles.” [Facing up (Harvard University Press, 2003), 237.]​

​

I can't find a direct quote of this full article and its context (that isn't just pasted on a creationist website), but what I can find is a direct quote fro Weinberg that appears to directly contradict your stance:

"(I) am not terribly impressed by the examples of fine-tuning of constants of nature that have been presented. To be a little bit more precise about the case of carbon, the energy levels of carbon, which is the most notorious example that’s always cited, there is an energy level that is 7.65 MeV above the ground state of carbon. If it was .06 of an MeV higher, then carbon production would be greatly diminished and there would be much less chance of life forming. That looks like a 1% fine-tuning of the constants of nature ... However, as has been realized subsequently after this ‘fine-tuning’ was pointed out, you should really measure the energy level not above the ground state of carbon but above the state of the nucleus Beryllium 8 (8Be) plus a helium nucleus ... In other words, the fine-tuning is not 1% but it’s something like 25%. So, it’s not very impressive fine-tuning at all.[5]"

SOURCE: Not so fine tuned after all? Steven Weinberg's objection to fine tuning

This is not accidental.

It doesn't have to be.

There are literally gazillions of different values the cosmological constant could take in different universes that would make life categorically impossible, even if it was changed ever so slightly from its current knife-edge non-zero value.

And how many of those values would result in the Universe in which it is impossible for any form of life to form anywhere, and how many of those values are just as probable as the value it currently has?

Most counterfactual universes would have parameters that simply do not permit life. To make a universe able to result in life, the relevant parameters have to be very delicately tuned.

Once again: How have you determined this? How many POTENTIAL parameters could there be and how many POTENTIAL forms can life take? We know of only ONE set of parameters and exactly ONE outcome of life, but we cannot use that SINGLE EXAMPLE to determine ANY AND ALL PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH LIFE CAN ARISE.

Do you understand?

I believe that the hypothesis which suggests intelligent agency was involved in this phenomenon is completely defensible.

Then demonstrate an intelligent agency.

It is admittedly difficult for me to envisage what kind of life could exist in a universe devoid stars and complex chemistry if the Higgs et al were not finely tuned but in the case of the Cosmological Constant: yes, life is quite honestly impossible.

Show your working.

If this constant were the expected size and had a negative value then our universe would have collapsed in less than a second after the Big Bang. On the contrary, if the constant were the expected size had a positive value, anything separated by more than a few meters would have been unable to communicate - meaning no complex objects of any sort - such as stars, galaxies etc. - is possible, let alone life itself because "the cosmological would have to be fine-tuned with exquisite precision, a deviation in even the 100th decimal place would lead to a universe without any significant structure" (Alejandro Jenkins (Center for Th. Physics, MIT) & Gilad Perez(Yang Inst. for Th. Physics))

So, in other words, this constant is the only constant that COULD exist, so your objection is self defeating. If the Universe were other than it is, it wouldn't be the Universe that it is.

 

[Vouthon]

And how have you determined that this constant isn't either an inevitable result of physics in any possible Universe or the only level of density that is required for any form of life to exist?

Physicists have practically mapped out all the potential symmetries which a quantum field theory could have and for the cosmological constant they can observe physics at the relevant energy scales and there is no physical mechanism they can think of which would explain why this parameter would have to take the value that it takes. Also, its nigh on impossible to come up with theories in which this constant is dynamically adjusted to zero.

Additionally, I have already written in detail about why I'm not convinced by these arguments from hypothetical physical necessity in my prior postings on this thread. I went into some detail.

"(I) am not terribly impressed by the examples of fine-tuning of constants of nature that have been presented. To be a little bit more precise about the case of carbon, the energy levels of carbon, which is the most notorious example that’s always cited, there is an energy level that is 7.65 MeV above the ground state of carbon. If it was .06 of an MeV higher, then carbon production would be greatly diminished and there would be much less chance of life forming. That looks like a 1% fine-tuning of the constants of nature ... However, as has been realized subsequently after this ‘fine-tuning’ was pointed out, you should really measure the energy level not above the ground state of carbon but above the state of the nucleus Beryllium 8 (8Be) plus a helium nucleus ... In other words, the fine-tuning is not 1% but it’s something like 25%. So, it’s not very impressive fine-tuning at all.[5]"

SOURCE: Not so fine tuned after all? Steven Weinberg's objection to fine tuning

That doesn't conflict with what I quoted at all! He is discussing the alleged fine-tuning of the carbon cycle in your above quote, not the cosmological constant which he does regard as being fine-tuned. He doesn't think the carbon cycle is compelling but I never alleged that he did. Physicists don't dispute the fine-tuning of fundamental constants like the cosmological constant and the Higgs field but the carbon cycle (first identified by Fred Hoyle I believe back I'm the 1950s) is disputed by Weinberg. But I never brought that up, so I'm not sure why you have either.

Here is another source, and no it doesn't come from a "creationist website": its an interview in which Professor Weinberg discusses the DOUBLE fine tuning problem posed by the cosmological constant:

So there you have it, straight from the "horse's mouth" as that old saying goes (the video loops and replays again about 20 minutes in for some reason but I encourage you to watch the actual 20 minute interview in full).

 

[Vouthon]

Once again: How have you determined this? How many POTENTIAL parameters could there be and how many POTENTIAL forms can life take? We know of only ONE set of parameters and exactly ONE outcome of life, but we cannot use that SINGLE EXAMPLE to determine ANY AND ALL PARAMETERS UNDER WHICH LIFE CAN ARISE.

It's not "I" who have determined this (as if dreaming it up in my head) but rather cosmologists working on supercomputers with the relevant modelling software: namely modelling galaxy formation with accurate simulations by adjusting the value of one of the constants on these programs to see what happens.

See:

A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life | Cosmos

A universe made for me? Physics, fine-tuning and life

Geraint F. Lewis’ day job involves creating synthetic universes on supercomputers. They can be overwhelmingly bizarre, unstable places. The question that compels him is: how did our universe come to be so perfectly tuned for stability and life?​

As a cosmologist, I can use these immutable laws of physics to evolve synthetic universes on supercomputers, watching matter flow in the clutches of gravity, pooling into galaxies, and forming stars. Simulations such as these allow me to test ideas about the universe – particularly to try to understand the mystery of dark energy (more on this later).

Examining the huge number of potential universes, each with their own unique laws of physics, leads to a startling conclusion: most of the universes that result from fiddling with the fundamental constants would lack physical properties needed to support complex life.
​

And:

https://www.insidescience.org/news/more-finely-tuned-universe

A More Finely Tuned Universe

Could life as we know it have developed if fundamental physics constants were different?

For all the progress physicists have made in figuring out the universe, they still don't know some pretty basic things. Why, for example, do fundamental particles possess the specific values of mass that they have? Presently, physicists have no explanation for this and similar questions.

They do know something pretty significant, however. If the masses of particles or the values of fundamental constants were much different from what physicists have measured, carbon-based intelligent beings might not be here to measure them, because fundamental particles might not assemble into stable atoms, atoms might not form rocky planets and dying stars might not produce the chemical elements we find in our bodies.

These observations have led some physicists to describe the universe as "fine-tuned" for carbon-based life. Imagine the universe is like a machine with dials used to set the properties of each important piece -- from the masses of the constituents of protons and neutrons to the rate of expansion of the universe. If many combinations of dial settings yield conditions in which complex life can evolve, physicists would say the universe is not fine-tuned. But if some of the dials have to be set very precisely to values that are not readily explained by theory, physicists would consider these parameters to be fine-tuned.

Physicists have recognized for decades that certain parameters do seem to be fine-tuned. The most fine-tuned of these parameters seems to be the cosmological constant, a concept that Albert Einstein proposed to provide an outward-pushing pressure that he thought was needed to prevent gravity from causing the universe's matter from collapsing onto itself.

For the parameters that describe forces inside the atom, physicists have few hints at how fine the tuning is. In other words, how many different dial settings would create a universe that supports life as we know it?

To try to answer such questions, nuclear physicist Ulf Meissner of the University of Bonn in Germany and colleagues ran complex computer simulations at the Juelich Supercomputing Center, home of the largest supercomputer in Europe. In their simulations, the scientists created a simplified model universe that included specific values for the masses of particles and the way they interact. The simulations were based on the Standard Model, physicists' main theory of fundamental particles and the strong, weak and electromagnetic forces. (The other fundamental force, gravity, is described by the general theory of relativity.)

The recent development of extremely powerful computers that can crunch through a thousand trillion calculations per second has now made this possible, said Meissner. With these computers, he said, "We can explore worlds where the constants have different values."

Meissner and his colleagues ran their simulations while varying two constants. One was the average of the masses of the up and down quarks. These fundamental particles make up protons and neutrons, which in turn make up people and the universe we see. (The quarks in protons and neutrons are held together by what is called the strong nuclear force.)

The scientists also varied the fine structure constant, which accounts for the strength of the electromagnetic force between charged particles. The strong force must overcome the electromagnetic force to bind protons and neutrons into stable nuclei that make up the familiar chemical elements: helium, carbon, oxygen and all the rest...

Meissner acknowledges that the research does not answer why the values are what they are. To explain this, some physicists invoke a concept called the "multiverse," in which "parallel" universes with many different possible values of the constants exist, and we, unsurprisingly, find ourselves in one in which complex life can evolve....

"This paper strengthens the case for the fine-tuning of the universe," agrees Luke Barnes, an astrophysicist at the University of Sydney. Meissner's team's model of the carbon atom is more advanced than previous efforts, he said, especially because they can change the mass of the quarks.​

 

[Vouthon]

So, in other words, this constant is the only constant that COULD exist, so your objection is self defeating. If the Universe were other than it is, it wouldn't be the Universe that it is.

You've lost me here, entirely. Please explain what your saying?

 

[Jimmy]

maybe a new 'religion of simplicity' is needed for theists based on a 'gut feeling' being there evidence as to avoid any debate with other theories.

 

[Vouthon]

maybe a new 'religion of simplicity' is needed for theists based on a 'gut feeling' being there evidence as to avoid any debate with other theories.

I see no evidence here that would lead me to think theists are avoiding "debate with other theories".

For one, I have conceded that the inflationary multiverse arising from the "string landscape" is a plausible philosophical response to the fine-tuning problem but have given the reasons why I don't personally find it persuasive: since it produces no testable or reproducible scientific predictions or consequences (making it indistinguishable from the God hypothesis); the very ideas which make it possible "eternal inflation and string theory" also have significant drawbacks; it violates Occam's Razor and finally "inflation" (which is necessary for the multiverse hypothesis) results in new fine-tuning problems.

So while it is the favoured response among some eminent atheist thinkers to the fine-tuning, I (and a good deal many other people) find it significantly lacking.

How then am I not "debating other theories"?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have conceded that the inflationary multiverse arising from the "string landscape" is a plausible philosophical response to the fine-tuning problem but have given the reasons why I don't personally find it persuasive: since it produces no testable or reproducible scientific predictions or consequences (making it indistinguishable from the God hypothesis)

By the same reasoning, you must find the god hypothesis equally nonpersuasive, since it too produces no testable hypotheses apart from the one that God answers prayer, which can be tested scientifically.

Yet it seems that either a naturalistic or a supernaturalistic explanation for the existence of our universe is all we have to choose from.

the very ideas which make it possible "eternal inflation and string theory" also have significant drawbacks; it violates Occam's Razor and finally "inflation" (which is necessary for the multiverse hypothesis) results in new fine-tuning problems.

It's the god hypothesis that violates Occam's Razor. The multiverse hypothesis can account for this universe being exactly as we find it without invoking a conscious, intelligent agent. The multiverse need be no more than an unconscious, amorphous substance capable of generating untold numbers of universes of every possible type, including ones like this one.

The fine tuning problem creates an additional problem for omnipotent gods. Only godless universes need to be regulated by regular rules to which they are subject. From a youTube video:

Yahwey: "They're going to ask, "Who created those finely tuned laws of nature?" The design of the universe itself will be the evidence of my existence and nature."

Yahweh's mentor: "Will it? The question of fine tuning will be inevitable indeed, because each and every unknown that was attributed to your doing will eventually be discovered to be nature's doing. The question itself, however, will lead to an infinite regress. Why would you need to finely tune the laws of nature unless you are being restricted by some other laws beyond your control? And who created the laws that govern the necessity for god to fine tune the laws of nature? If these laws dictated the nature of your creation, then how could you be called omnipotent? How could you be called god if your creation could only be created in one kind of way? If the laws of nature could only be one kind of way to permit life, and the universe runs all on its own, then what does it need with a god? Because if that's the case, you didn't actually design anything. You merely followed a set of instructions. Whose instructions? The presence of an all-powerful god doesn't explain anything at all. ​