In my previous post, I brought up the fact that nontheists commonly argue the “who created the creator’s creator” viewpoint. Now I’d like to take this opportunity to turn this line of reasoning towards the increasingly popular nontheist argument on multiple universes (or multiverse) to support the Anthropic Principle. If you are unfamiliar with this concept, I will explain more, but you can find a great objective synopsis of it here.
It seems to be more and more common for the nontheists’ rebuttal to the theists’ argument, the fine tuned universe, is the Anthropic Multiverse concept. This multiverse argument has acknowledged the statistical impossibility of the universe, and ultimately life, occurring by chance. However, it has brilliantly (sarcasm) offered an objection to that argument stating that out of an infinite (or nearly infinite depending on the perspective) number of universes it is statistically probable that at least a few would have been created with conditions conducive to supporting life. This desperate argument is akin to losing a bet and betting “double or nothing” until you win. In other words, if you play the odds long enough, it is bound to payoff. Before I get into some of the staggering numbers on this, I would like to illustrate how the nontheists who have constructed these arguments do not apply logic evenly to all perspectives. Rather they use it only as it serves them in achieving the answers they have preconceived. So if we were to take the same logic used in the argument of “who created the creator’s creator” and applied it to the multiverse concept it would look something like this:
If the universe was created spontaneously, from where did the material come that was found in the singularity? If there was nothing before the singularity, how was that material created? If the material did exist prior to the singularity, what created the material? If there are an infinite number of universes, then each universe must be finite. Since they are finite and have to exist in a shared environment, what is the space (environment) called ? Did each universe have it’s own singularity event that birthed a unique set of natural laws exclusive to that universe? Is there space between the universes, if so how much space? Since it is not possible to have an infinite number of universes inside of a finite space, then logically speaking the space must also be infinite. If both are infinite, wouldn’t the share space of these universes have to be bigger since it houses these universes, thereby rendering the number of universes finite? Finally, if the number of universes is finite how many would be necessary to make this argument valid?
You can see if you follow the logic through its logical conclusion, the idea looks pretty ridiculous, pretty fast. Speaking of ridiculous let’s just take a look at some of the math that supports the ‘fine tuned universe’ and you will soon see why the Nontheists need to construct this multiverse (“double or nothing until I win” ) type of argument. I included some numbers from a great article on this topic below: (The excerpts listed below and references can be found in a great article here.)
- Physicist Paul Davies estimated that for electromagnetism a change of only one part in 10 to the power of 40 would have spelled disaster for stars, like our sun, thereby precluding the existence of planets.
- The gravitational force must be what it is for planets to have stable orbits around the sun. If the force were greater they would fall into the sun and burn up; if weaker, they would escape from their orbit into a very cold outer darkness. It is estimated that a change in gravity by only one part in 10 to the power of 100 would have prevented a life permitting universe.[5]
- Stephen Hawking wrote, “If the rate of expansion one second after the big bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand million million, the universe would have re-collapsed before it ever reached its present size.”[7]
- How many universes then would you need to make it at all probable that one of them could be like our universe? String theorists posit a number of 10 to the power of 500. It might help to see that number written out. It is 1 with 500 zeroes after it.
Here it goes: 100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Now that is an awful lot of universes, particularly since the estimate for the total number of atoms in the entire observable universe is no more than 10 to the power of 80.[10]
It’s kind of mind boggling to think about, even outside the context of this discussion. The margin for error in the creation of a universe to support life is so small that it almost doesn’t exist at all. It would take more universes than 6 times the number of atoms in the observable universe. Not on earth, or our solar system, or even our galaxy… But the entire observable universe. I know it may seem that my subjectivity is shining through and I would agree that it’s inevitable in a discussion like this, but I assure you that I make my best effort to bring objective principles to the table so that you, my reader, can make up your own mind. However, when I see things like this I have a hard time envisioning myself arguing from the other side. In any case, I will be concluding this series with my next post and I will summarize my arguments against a spontaneous cosmos, challenging my atheists readers to bring their perspectives to help me understand how you would argue these points.
Until then…
Be Well,
(END OF PART 3)
Couple of questions to ponder, for pondering’s sake: 1.) Does anything happen to the Fine-Tuning Theory or “Goldilock’s Theory” if additional intelligent life is found in the universe? Life that is sustained in a completely different way than how human life is sustained. Just playing devil’s advocate here, but wouldn’t the calculations of 10 to the power of 50 need to be completely re-worked and wouldn’t the idea of the “creation for cause” thought be turned on it’s head? 2.) in the theory of “intelligent design” (of which I am an advocate), is life as we know it on earth, in this vast and expanding universe, this little speck of dust in space and time, god’s divine plan? or are we still in the infancy of that plan, only one rung of the ladder further up a ladder with infinite rungs? those questions aside. We are, by human nature, absolutists. For some reason, things either need “to be” or “not to be”. I agree with you that science and faith are not mutually exclusive, but like I’ve said to you before and since this is your 3rd installment on the subject it bares repeating. People are either believers or they are not believers. Neither camp is going to get very far swaying the other camp, when believers are forced to plug in faith into the equation to prove their point and non-believers are forced to plug in untested scientific theory to prove their point. The design is incomplete my friend… We are a work in progress. If we had all the answers we’d be at the top of that ladder.
Hey Kevin,
Maybe I did a really poor job of conveying my purpose in the 3 questions section of my site and if that is the case I apologize. So just in case, let me restate it in a more concise manner. The purpose for this blog is to broaden perceptions, not change them. This includes my own. So as I share my perspective I will do so strongly, but that doesn’t mean that I haven’t listen, read, or try to grasp the perspectives of others. I do. However, if I can’t follow the logic in an argument I will point it out. I chose this topic as the first topic to write because “life by chance” doesn’t make sense to me. If nontheist wants to share their opposing perspective with me, I will attempt to follow their reasoning and, if I believe there are flaws in their logic, I will argue back. If they have sound logic, it will not necessarily change my beliefs, but it will broaden my perception which will provide me with another angle from which I can perceive things, providing me with slightly a bit more clarity. As for humans being absolutist by nature, that would be the perspective of an absolutist. However, while I like it when things are black or white, I do not believe truth (collectively) is ever JUST black and white. I believe that truth in most cases is entirely subjective.
As for the absolutist statement that people are believers or nonbelievers and that nothing will change that, I couldn’t disagree more. I have been both agnostic and a believer. What I believe today may change a year from now. I don’t believe that anything I say or have ever said will ever convert people, but that doesn’t mean I shouldn’t share with them a way of looking at things that they may have never experienced. Just because I am a Raider’s fan doesn’t mean I couldn’t learn something about a Charger player that I connected with and become a fan. Our belief or disbelief will change as our way of seeing the world changes. It may not leave one camp for the other, but it will definitely “evolve”.
You mentioned that believers have to plug in their faith to prove their point. I don’t relate to this at all. My belief in God is where my pursuit for understanding lead me. As an agnostic I arrived to a place that I could no longer sit on the fence, when one side’s arguments didn’t pass the metaphorical smell test. I am not plugging my faith into my arguments, I am approaching it intellectually as that is where my faith started. Unfortunately, my belief had to get through my head before it could reach my heart.
As for your questions, I am happy to share my perspective on those.
1. The Fine-Tuning Theory isn’t just concerned with the creation of human life, but rather the creation of stars, planets, galaxies, etc. However, I will address your question directly. I don’t believe that your scenario would actually change those odds of the creation of an animate universe, if anything it would further decrease the probability. If the fine-tuning was concerned with the probability of life on a planetary level, then I would agree, but it’s not. The 10 to the power of 500 was the odds on there being another universe like our own. So if that number was based on the probability of there being another universe like ours, supporting one planet of life, then it follows that the probability would further decrease for the existence of a universe with no only one, but two instances of life.
2. As for your question regarding our current status as part of God’s plan, I am not sure it is relevant to the discussion. We would be on the same page number in the authorless book of universe as we would be in the same book authored by God. The only difference is in God’s book of the universe, all the chapters (before and after our own) are already written. If you were just sharing it to give some food for thought, then it is intriguing indeed.
Best Regards!