The answer is getting more evidence.
It doesn’t take faith to understand that the fine tuning argument depends on there only being one or few universes for which there is no evidence. The fine tuning argument isn’t able to support its conclusions with evidence which is why I don’t find it compelling. That doesn’t take faith.
The problem isn’t a lack of objective evidence. It’s defining “objective evidence” in a way that it excludes God by default. Don’t miss that sleight of hand.
You are inventing the possibility of an infinite number of speculative things that have no observational evidence in their favor as an explanation for something else and doing it without even flinching. That is the exact problem with theoretical physics today.
Vinnie
It is no more invented than our universe being the only one. We don’t know how many universes there are. Period. Our universe being the only one is not supported by any evidence. It would take faith to believe that our universe is the only one. If an argument is based on our universe being the only one, as the fine tuning argument is, then that argument is based on faith.
A boundless eternal universe and the only living things in it are on earth? Gee, who knew?
Shall we talk about the probabilities in winning five separate lotteries in the same order that the tickets were purchased, and there was only one ticket sold in each? Turkish translators are interesting too. And then there is the not insignificant detail that the individual in each account was in a crisis. No, we’re not going to talk about theodicy – others have plenty and skeptical theism covers it pretty well. Besides, it’s above our pay grade… mine, at least.
Cynics would still find a way to explain it anyhow. Have you seen how Delia Knox is supposed to have faked being in a wheelchair for 20 years?
T, I hope you give the video 5 minutes. It brought me to tears. God is still working among us. These stories are one of the areas where I believe God is showing himself. Why he chooses some (Thomas) and not others, or why he allows so much fraud is something you can ask him about one day.
Edit: Sorry if this is a bit much to take in as my comment follows Dale’s, I wasn’t thinking about any relationship to Dale’s comment as I wrote this. It’s just that your comment about seeking evidence brought to my mind how cynics treat the evidence God gives us. I’m also not in any way implying that this is a how I see you.
I think you use the idea of “other universes” too cavalierly like they are an actual thing. I know it’s all the rage now but I am personally not buying it at all. I might as well appeal to infinite fairies as an explanation of gravity. Just because we might vaguely understand what “infinite fairies” means does not mean it’s not anymore contrived or absurd than “infinite universe.”
How about instead of the loaded word “universe,” that many, whether correctly or not, seems they think they can actually describe and define in the plural, let me use the the word “reality.”
Reality as we know it began 13.8 byo. Reality as we know it is appears completely and utterly fine-tuned for carbon-based life. Reality as we know it is real. If inventing an infinite number of other realities that show life is a meaningless and freak cosmic accident is the alternative to fine-tuning I’ll stay put where I am.
We seem to have forgotten about the watchmaker arguement since evolution has shown how complexity can evolve but the basic idea of the argument is valid. If I find a car in the woods I will not assume natural formation. Now it is possible, if I speculate an infinite number of woods exist for me to claim natural formation. One of infinite number could conceivable make a car in the woods naturally. That is what I see you doing. The universe is the watch. Instead of accepting a designer for the car the multiverse is positing an infinite number of of other forests. The literal answer to fine-tuning observed by science is science fiction.
The multiverse is no more demonstrable, no more testable, no more falsifiable and no less magical than using God, invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters as an explanation for why objects fall when released instead of lazily staying put.
.
What evidence would you suggest? What (on earth) are you lookiig for?
It would appear to be an alternative to religion, on the same basic level of proof.
Richard
From a philosophical pov there could be other universes, there just couldn’t be an infinite number of them. I brought this up with a group of philosophers of science and it was an interesting discussion. One of them even claimed an infinite number of universes can exist as a brute fact, to which I poked fun at how scientific brute facts are.
On a practical note. What use is the theory of multi-universes? Other than to deny God?
(I am not convinced that it even does that, because God, by definition, would rule all universes)
Richard
It has something to do with quantum theory. Now I’m curious to see if that’s where it had its beginning as a theory.
Not sure that answers the question. Are we talking about the notion that everything vibrates to a certain frequency and that other Universes would have a different one?
The question remains. Who cares? What use is the information? It’s not as if we can change or affect it.
Richard
I look at it as this universe could have been caused by a blackhole in another universe. There is nothing inherently irrational about that.
Nothing rational either. Where did the other Universe come from?
What is the point? What benefit is there to humankind? Is knowledge/speculation enough?
Richard
Yes, it’s God or multiverse. T has said as much with the third option just being that’s the way it is (brute facts).
The multiverse is being touted by so many today because of what they deem “the fine-tuning problem.” Some do more legitimately believe in it as a corollary of certain inflationary models. But Guth and others have shown inflation it’s not past complete and in general inflation is highly amorphous and difficult if not impossible to falsify.
As noted above, some models of inflation do more legitimately lead to other universes. But just saying there are infinite universe with different physical laws to explain the obvious fine tuning is akin to the mental gymnastics apologists use to harmonize obvious errors in the Bible. Multiplying entities to infinity to explain something is rather questionable.
A scientific minded person who should wonder how anyone could test them . A philosopher should wonder if it really solves the fine tuning problem if true? Or does it commit the inverse gamblers fallacy? Interesting questions.
The same question applies to that one as well. The better question is whether there can be an infinite regress of universes. Or whether this universe came from nothing. These are propositions that can be spoken or written: “nothing exists” or “an infinite number of things exist,”, but that doesn’t automatically mean they are rational or thinkable statements.
We can only talk about those probabilities because we know all of the conditions surrounding the lottery. We have no such knowledge for the creation of our universe.
The fine tuning argument is based on the idea of other universes. The fine tuning argument says that our universe is highly improbable because it is the only universe, or at most, one of a few universes. Therefore, it has to establish how many universes there are.
Why would the car stand out with all of the complex life around it?
Perhaps the universe is like the woods.
Our universe being the only universe has not been demonstrated.
I leave that to the physicists.
It isn’t a religion to note that no one has demonstrated that our universe is the only universe.
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.