No, it does not.
1 Like
Yes it does. Either way.
[You see, dear reader, if the 10-30, currently non-derivable, dimensioned and non-dimensioned, natural physical constants are random, then in natureâs infinity from eternity there are an infinity of universes with anthropic values. I balk at that based on the cognitive bias of empirical strong uniformitarianism through deterministic mathematical elegance extrapolated back to the yawn of creation; c, h, G etc are at the intersection of more fundamental, eternally begotten, self-tuning, phenomena. And because I balk at it.]
We know it by rationality.
God is not dependent upon anything which is not God. (I understand this to be a fundamental assertion of Christian theology, which I certainly agree with)
Therefore to say God is independent of nothing is to say that there is nothing which is not God.
But that means that God cannot create anything⌠unless God can alter His state of being independent of nothing.
So⌠it is entirely possible to believe in a God who is not a creator and thus independent of nothing. That could certainly be a religion which denies the existence of evil and it would likely do so unless it is an evil which is also of God. Though the one I had in mind above was the Unity church founded upon the power of positive thinking. You can practically see their eyes glaze over when you speak of anything evil or wrong with the world. I found it kind of creepy.
The God who is independent of nothing sounds just like the God I believe in before He created anything. But regardless of whether you imagine a God who is independent of nothing, it would be reasonable to ask if the God you imagine is capable of creating anything and therefore becoming one who is independent of something? If He is capable then would He? Would He have a reason to create something which is independent? Does He value the existence of anything other than Himself?
I can hardly see any reason to call a being God who cannot create anything or who does not value anything other than Himself. That is a god to bury next to Zeus, Odin, Ra, the Demiurge of Plato, and a goodly number of Christian conceptions of God (like the godfather) which are equally contemptable. Even for myself, I can aim higher than any of those. And if I give my aim a name and credit a being such as this with existence, can this be any greater than God? Is it not more likely that other people simply havenât aimed very high and thus have invented a god much lower than the real thing?
Just like the second aborigine:
I fail to see the relevance of that analogy no matter how many times you refer to it. Who is the first aborigine? What is the smartphone analogue?
God has never been the God you believe in before He created anything. Aye, our aim is human: shoot everything except the target.
The video you posted arguing ten dimensions to be maximal is interesting but mathematically flawed. I think it is confusing dimensionality with higher orders of infinity at some point. It can be demonstrated that adding on dimensions will not give you a higher order of infinity which would be required to extend the scope to cover all possible universes. Adding a single dimension amounts to adding a single parameter â adding a single degree of freedom, and imaging that you can get all possible universes with a single additional parameter is absurd. It is dubious that even the addition of a large but finite number of parameters can give you all possible universes.
Frankly I think this is an ad-hoc attempt to go from the ten dimensions posited by string theory to a multiverse of all possible universes and thus to an anthropic principle favorable to an atheist hope that science suggests this rather than creation by God. Science provides no such thing. Science has not found any evidence whatsoever of a multiverse. The only evidence science has found is that the steady state universe is wrong and the only measurable universe came into existence 13.8 billion years ago.
1 Like
Welcome @sky, and a good question. I am agnostic and canât add too much to what has already been said. BUT, I can summarize my view of fine-tuning very simply:
If things were different in the past, then things would be different now.
Fine tuning presumes that the world as we see it now is somehow privileged, that the question âWhy are we here?â can only occur in our observed reality. BUT there could be infinitely many different histories that are equally privileged. The only privilege that matters is the ability to ask this question: âWhy are we here?â
I like to think that somewhere in the multiverse, there are other strange creatures asking these same questions, and wondering if they are unique. 
2 Likes
I should have tweaked it for this application, I realized in retrospect, so that your rationality could have correctly deduced its relevance here.
Here it simply means that the second aborigineâs presumptions and rationality are incorrectly based on limited horizons.
Did you really not understand it where it was posted originally?
Iâm good with that. (Hey, Dan @EastwoodDC â long time no see. But I havenât been anywhere else, either.)
1 Like
We have all the evidence weâll ever have and ever need to know with absolute certainty that the infinite, eternal multiverse exists. The fact that science doesnât, canât âknowâ, canât measure it, is utterly irrelevant.
I understand its utter failure as an analogy just fine.
That you say that is not unexpected.
Somebody has to.
Does anyone else not get it?
That your analogy fails from its premiss on?
It doesnât matter how often you say that. Proof by assertion remains a logical fallacy.
1 Like
The assertion is by reality, how it works. âProofâ is irrelevant. Key concepts: uniformitarianism and Kolmogorov complexity.
âŚit doesnât make it true, because you have not connected your assertion to reality except by your aboriginal presumption.