A Fine-Tuned Multiverse
by BilboRobin Collins, professor of philosophy at Messiah College (who also holds a PhD. in physics [double PhD. types really make me feel inferior]) has written an interesting response to the Multiverse scenario in his paper God, Design, and Fine-Tuning:
One major theistic response to the many-universes generator scenario, whether of the inflationary variety or some other type, is that a “many-universes generator” would seem to need to be “well-designed” in order to produce life-sustaining universes. After all, even a mundane item like a bread machine, which only produces loaves of bread instead of universes, must be well designed to produce decent loaves of bread. If this is right, then invoking some sort of many-universes generator as an explanation of the fine-tuning only kicks the issue of design up one level, to the question of who designed the many-universes generator.
The inflationary scenario discussed above is a good test case of this line of reasoning. The inflationary/superstring many-universes generator can only produce life-sustaining universes because it has the following “components” or “mechanisms:”i) A mechanism to supply the energy needed for the bubble universes: This mechanism is the hypothesized inflaton field. By imparting a constant energy density to empty space, as space expands the inflaton field can act “as a reservoir of unlimited energy” for the bubbles (Peacock, 1999, p. 26).
ii) A mechanism to form the bubbles: This mechanism is Einstein’s equation of general relativity. Because of its peculiar form, Einstein’s equation dictates that space expand at an enormous rate in the presence of a field, such as the inflaton field, that imparts a constant (and homogenous) energy density to empty space. This causes both the bubble universes to form and the rapid expansion of the pre-space (the “ocean”) which keeps the bubbles from colliding.
iii) A mechanism to convert the energy of the inflaton field to the normal mass-energy we find in our universe. This mechanism is Einstein’s relation of the equivalence of mass and energy (i.e., E = mc2 ) combined with an hypothesized coupling between the inflaton field and normal mass-energy fields we find in our universe.
iv) A mechanism that allows enough variation in the constants of physics among universes: The most physically viable candidate for this mechanism is superstring theory. As explained above, superstring theory might allow enough variation in the variations in the constants of physics among bubble universes to make it reasonably likely that a fine-tuned universe would be produced. The other leading alternatives to string theory being explored by physicists, such as the currently proposed models for Grand Unified Field Theories (GUTS), do not appear to allow for enough variation.
Without all these “components,” the many-universes generator would almost certainly fail to produce a single life-sustaining universe. For example, Einstein’s equation and the inflaton field harmoniously work together to enormously inflate small regions of space while at the same time both imparting to them the positive energy density necessary for a universe with significant mass-energy and causing the pre-space to expand rapidly enough to keep the bubble universes from colliding. Without either factor, there would neither be regions of space that inflate nor would those regions have the mass-energy necessary for a universe to exist. If, for example, the universe obeyed Newton’s theory of gravity instead of Einstein’s, the vacuum energy of the inflaton field would at best simply create a gravitational attraction causing space to contract, not to expand. Thus no universes would be formed.
[By the way, I make no claim to understanding most of this. But there are at least a few of you out there who do. And I forgot to add this part:]
In addition to the four factors listed above, the inflationary/superstring many-universes generator can only produce life-sustaining universes because the right background laws are in place. For example, as mentioned earlier, without the principle of quantization, all electrons would be sucked into the atomic nuclei and hence atoms would be impossible; without the Pauli-exclusion principle, electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit and hence complex and varied atoms would be impossible; without a universally attractive force between all masses, such as gravity, matter would not be able to form sufficiently large material bodies (such as planets) for life to develop or for long-lived stable energy sources such as stars to exist.
In sum, even if an inflationary/superstring many-universes generator exists, it along with the background laws and principles could be said to be an irreducibly complex system, to borrow a phrase from biochemist Michael Behe (1996), with just the right combination of laws and fields for the production of life-permitting universes: if one of the components were missing or different, such as Einstein’s equation or the Pauli-exclusion principle, it is unlikely that any life-permitting universes could be produced. In the absence of alternative explanations, the existence of such an a system suggests design since it seems very unlikely that such a system would have just the right components by chance. It does not seem, therefore, that one can escape the conclusion of design merely by hypothesizing some sort of many-universes generator.
March 18th, 2010 at 9:02 pm
I never quite know how to react to someone that finds comfort in the fact that their argument leads to an infinite regress.
Comment by don provan — March 18, 2010 @ 9:02 pm
March 18th, 2010 at 9:07 pm
Congratulations on being the first two post a comment to this thread, Don. Collins' answer to your objection (from the same paper):
Comment by Bilbo — March 18, 2010 @ 9:07 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 1:10 pm
The response is saying that just because it leads to an infinite regress doesn't make it wrong, and I have no problem with that defense.
What I find astonishing — or, at least, I would if I hadn't run into it before — is the idea that the infinite regress makes the argument better. In this case, the idea (as I read it) is that even if multi-universe theories are correct, that just makes the intelligent designer even more likely and amazing at the next level. To get to that stage, you have to ignore the fact that your original theory about what created the universe (or the galaxy before that, or the solar system before that, or the Earth before that) would be entirely blown out of the water by a proved multi-universe theory. Instead of seeing that as a reason to reconsider the logic of the original argument, he sees it as justification for erecting exactly the same argument at the next level.
Not only does this defy logic, but it takes one further and further from Christianity: there really would be no reason at all to think that the creator of a universe generator would have any personal interest in one little creature in the backwaters of one of an inifite number of generated universes. In fact, there's not even a reason to think that it makes sense for a creator of a universe generator to have anything we'd recognize as "personal interest" at all.
On another tangent, this concedes that specified complexity can arise from non-specified complexity. It puts on the table the sequence "nothing -> creator that is not complex in a specified way -> specified complexity", which is entirely consistent with what those pesky materialist scientists claim happened.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2010 @ 1:10 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 1:42 pm
Uh, no, the response is saying that the fine-tuning of the universe means that Theism is more probable than Atheism:
Uh, no. It says that the mind of the creator need not be complex. It does not say that it came from nothing.
Collins' argument doesn't defy logic. Your argument, however, does. There is no logical entailment of creating a universe generator and not having personal interest in one little creature.
Comment by Bilbo — March 19, 2010 @ 1:42 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
It does not say the mind came from nothing, but it allows the mind to come from nothing, since the claim is that the non-complex mind does not have the problems that ID claims prevent complex things from being created from nothing. The simple God postulates exactly the step that ID itself asserts is not possible. The fact that supporters of the God theory don't want or need the from-nothing-to-simple-mind step doesn't change the fact that his argument has opened the door to it for theories that do depend on it.
But, in a broader sense, what is he accomplishing by pointing out that God can be simple if not to support the idea that God Himself doesn't have creation problems?
But I don't really want to discuss the logic of this argument — as I recently said elsewhere, an infinitely existing God is not logically any different than an infinite regression of gods — I was just pointing out that this line of reasoning undermines the fundamentals of ID theory.
I wasn't making this argument, I was just pointing out that a Christian should seriously consider whether this argument actually says anything about the Christian God. You can still assert that God has a personal relation with each of us — I have no problem with religious beliefs — but arguing to a universe generator doesn't support this assertion: indeed, it makes it less likely, logically, if your think this universe creator is the Christian God.
Comment by don provan — March 19, 2010 @ 2:24 pm
March 19th, 2010 at 5:15 pm
Interesting point. I think Collins and most Christian philosophers would insist that God was a necessary being, and therefore never did come into existence, and therefore never came from nothing. Of course, proving that God is a necessary being is easier said than done.
I think most Christians would say that our faith that God cares about us depends upon revelation, especially as God reveals Himself in Jesus. Otherwise, there is a lot of evidence that would suggest that God doesn't give a hill of beans about any of us, single or multiverse.
Comment by Bilbo — March 19, 2010 @ 5:15 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 6:01 am
[...] universe is so perfectly fitted for complexity and life. Fine! (Pun intended). Robin Collins has argued that even the atheists' favorite resort to escape design in cosmology, the multiverse, must [...]
Pingback by The End of Intelligent Design Is Not Here - Thinking Christian — March 22, 2010 @ 6:01 am
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:08 pm
Naturally. The problem of the creation of the Creator is a serious problem for religions.
Ha-ha. You mean easily said, impossible to do, of course.
Exactly. Religious beliefs based on revelation involve a God with specific characteristcs, and musings about the creator of a universe generator don't suggest any overlap. When I see this kind of thinking, I start to wonder if the focus on the idea of proving an intelligent designer has made them forget that the Intelligent Designer they originally sought to confirm has characteristics beyond simply being intelligent.
Comment by don provan — March 22, 2010 @ 2:08 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 2:40 pm
Don't project your misunderstanding, Don.
If you accept causes and effects – an Uncaused Cause is a logical necessity. You giggling at it doesn't prove your point.
Comment by GringoRoyale — March 22, 2010 @ 2:40 pm
March 22nd, 2010 at 7:09 pm
OK, I won't.
This has absolutely no bearing on whether God is that logically required uncaused cause.
(And, by the way, an infinite chain of causes is a second possibility. Don't project your presuppositions.)
Comment by don provan — March 22, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
March 24th, 2010 at 10:59 am
That makes no sense. What, if there are too many universes, God might not be able to find us?? On a Judeo-Christian theology, the size of the “multiverse”, even infinite, is an irrelevant detail.
That’s debatable, but yeah, for Christians, God’s walking up and introducing himself kinda gives you a clue.
If by “God” you mean “Mickey Mouse” or “a hacksaw”, then yes. On the other hand, if by “God” you mean something more like the “Ultimate Being”, then the bearing is much more direct. And sure, infinite causes are possible in all sorts of circumstances; just not this one.
Comment by DL — March 24, 2010 @ 10:59 am
March 25th, 2010 at 3:36 am
If you begin with a belief in Christianity, then any argument is an irrelevant detail. If, on the other hand, you are coming up with arguments for God — for example, arguments to convince a non-believer — then it doesn't help to argue towards something with no reason to have a personal relation with us since that is a key characteristics of the Christian God.
Being an ultimate being is only one of many characteristics of the Christian God. The argument fails if it requires the ultimate being to have characteristics unlike the Christian God.
What about this circumstance makes infinite causes impossible?
Comment by don provan — March 25, 2010 @ 3:36 am
March 25th, 2010 at 1:00 pm
Perhaps (I’m not sure it’s a “characteristic” — i.e., that’s something God does rather than something God is), but nor does it help to simply assume that there is “no reason”. An infinite Being does not have a limited attention span, or get distracted, so some argument is required if you want to claim that it would be ignoring us. Of course, the question then is what kind of “relationship” is it, and how far that relationship might go, and yes, that obviously requires further argument.
Sure, but not showing that a being has some characteristic is not the same as showing that it doesn’t have it. That’s why theologians don’t stop at proving the existence of God (or of some “ultimate being”), but go on extensively to argue why said Being does in fact have various other characteristics.
I perhaps should have said, infinite causes may be possible, but in this particular case, they don’t solve the problem. In fact, I would say all sorts of infinite causal chains are certainly possible (e.g. infinite multiverses, or infinitely-long universes, i.e. a universe with no “first moment” of time); but if you’re looking for an uncaused cause, if one universe doesn’t work, neither do two, or a million, or an infinity.
Comment by DL — March 25, 2010 @ 1:00 pm
March 25th, 2010 at 5:18 pm
DL,
I'm not sure you're grasping the enormity of the argument. When you move from the creator of the universe to the creator of a universe generator, you switch from a creator that could have personally created humans to one that didn't, something not consistent with the Bible.
It solves the problem exactly as well as a single cause with infinite duration.
But we're not looking for an uncaused cause. The claim was that there must be an uncaused cause, and therefore that uncaused cause had to be God. When you turn around and pretend we started out seeking an uncaused cause, the circular nature of your thinking becomes apparent.
Comment by don provan — March 25, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
March 25th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
There’s nothing about the alleged “multiverse” that makes it incompatible with traditional concepts of God. In fact, it doesn’t make any difference: if the totality of reality consists of this multiverse-generator and all the things it generates, then we don’t really live in the “universe” at all, we live in a “sub-universe”, and the universe is the generator (and its accompaniments). So go through all the standard philosophical arguments and substitute “multiverse” for “universe” and you still end up at God. (Or not, if you don’t believe the arguments — it doesn’t even matter for this particular purpose, since all I’m claiming is that the arguments work just as well, or just as poorly, as they did before.) If you know of any theological position that actually depends crucially on there not being some “multiverse generator”, please point it out to me.
If there’s any circularity, it’s because the “multiverse” idea just takes us right back to where we were with a single universe, and you have to run the same arguments again. (And then someone could propose a multi-multiverse-generator generator, and so on, but it still won’t get us any further ahead.) Again, if you don’t accept the need for an uncaused cause, then a plain old single universe will do. The multiverse is redundant. On the other hand, if you accept that the [sub-]universe alone needs a cause, then the fancy-schmancy multiplexical extrauniversal polycosmos reality-generating superthingy needs one too. After all, our universe “generates” multiple worlds; our world generates multiple ecosystems; and so on. From our point of view, inside, it’s all very different and very interesting. From a Supreme Being’s point of view, they’re all just bits and pieces of his creation.
Comment by DL — March 25, 2010 @ 10:51 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 1:08 pm
That's true. Traditional concepts of God allow you to adapt your beliefs by adding additional, unrelated beliefs, such as the idea that God created a universe generator. Since the universe generator is a way to impersonally create universes, that would have nothing to do with the personal creation of Man which the Bible describes, but I agree that doesn't make the concept incompatible. It makes it extraneous.
The problem isn't that Collins makes an argument that breaks Christianity, merely that his argument supports an intelligent designer with no necessary relation to Christianity. You are, of course, free to create a meta-Christianity by adding the universe generator belief, but that really just distracts from the Christian message without adding anything useful.
That's not the circular thinking I was talking about. I was talking about how Gringo tried to argue to God via a logic based on an uncaused cause, and when I pointed out the second possibility of an infinite string of causes, you rebutted by turning the argument around and saying that we know there was an uncaused cause because it's God.
But the problem you've brought up is an even better example of someone taking comfort in their arguments falling into an infinite regress. You recognize that you are applying the same argument at the next level, but what you're overlooking is that that argument was demonstrably faulty, and its fundamental logical problem is still there at the next level.
The basic argument starts with the premise that our place — the universe in this case — is unique, and therefore must have been created for us by God. When you discover that the universe is not unique, you should be asking yourself why you bought that faulty premise in the first place. But, instead, you shrug off the failure and make the same mistake at the next level.
Personally, I don't find the multiverse ideas very interesting scientifically, but they are excellent logically: you cannot say whether the universe is unique, so making an argument based on that premise is invalid. But you're in good company, of course: religions have been pulling this trick ever since the first religion based on the uniqueness of a fertile valley discovered that there's another fertile valley on the other side of the hill and that the people there attribute their valley to some other god. "Oops, our valley isn't unique. But the Earth must be unique, so that proves God created it for us…. Oops, the Earth isn't unique. But the solar system…."
If you really believed in God because of this uniqueness argument, you'd have to question your belief when you saw it fail. But, of course, you don't base your belief in God on this uniqueness argument, so why do you pretend it's important? Even if it doesn't confuse you, don't you think it might confuse someone that mistakenly considers the uniqueness argument more fundamental? What's the advantage that would make you want to risk losing even a single Christian through this unnecessary doubt?
Comment by don provan — March 29, 2010 @ 1:08 pm
March 29th, 2010 at 1:45 pm
Right- The Monique argument is much better than the sister "unique" hypothesis.
Comment by ID guy — March 29, 2010 @ 1:45 pm
March 30th, 2010 at 6:04 pm
I think we need to clarify your concept of “personal”. Do you think that God needed to create Adam and Eve directly to be a “personal” God?
Well, no; my point was that an “infinite string of causes” is not itself an uncaused cause. Indeed, it can’t be the Ultimate cause for much the same reasons a single ordinary cause cannot be. Arguments for an uncaused cause are distinct from the design argument Collins deals with in that paper. (And I don’t think Gringo Royale suggested otherwise or intended to.)
The infinite regress neither comforts nor disturbs me. But I think you’ve got the argument backwards: it’s the atheist who is chasing the infinite regress, because he doesn’t like the alternative. Faced with a maze of twisty passages (all alike!), he comes to a fork, where the passage forks to the left and to the right. The right passage leads to God, so the atheist goes left… and ends up back at the same fork. He can do so forever, and thus never reach a final answer; I suppose some people might take comfort in that, if they didn’t like the alternative.
The universe is not claimed to be unique, but merely “peculiar”; and it’s not a mistake, it’s a logical classification. The possibilities can be divided into two groups: either the universe was made this way “on purpose”, or else it came about by some “natural” function. If it came about naturally, there you have to explain the “nature” that generated it. That natural system itself must, by definition, be peculiar enough to be just exactly capable of generating the right kind of thing, so it too was either designed, or else generated by some even higher peculiar system. Of course, there is a third possibility: all these different universes/whatever exist because everything exists, not by being generated by a meta-system, but just because everything that could exist in fact does… but people generally don’t go for that one, theists because they have no need, and atheists because if “everything” existed, then so would God. That means we’re left with the same two options: some kind of designer, or the “to be determined” option, which will take you in circles until you go with the (meta-meta-meta-…)designer.
I’m touched by your concern for Christianity, but have you ever met someone who was “lost” because of “confusion” over this point? I guess some people will get confused at anything. Personally, I don’t think this argument is all that important, but it isn’t false, and I’m certainly not going to hide [from] it. Perhaps it will be useful to someone who doesn’t get the more solid, powerful philosophical arguments.
Comment by DL — March 30, 2010 @ 6:04 pm
March 31st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
I know the Bible says God personally created Adam and Eve.
It's not meant to be an uncaused cause. It's simply a different way of applying inifinity, one just exactly as logical as an infinitely existing ultimate cause.
Of course. This was a tangent Gringo kicked off.
I'm glad you find no comfort in it. Collins seems to take comfort in the fact that when faced with a multiverse, he can retreat to the next layer and set up the same arguments that just failed under a single universe theory.
You should be disturbed by it, since leading to an infinite regress means an argument doesn't have a foundation.
I'm not really that interested in anyone's motives, but I don't see why an atheist would feel a need to regress since he's satisfied with his arguments at any given level. The thing about atheists is that they feel no need for an ultimate cause.
I don't really think you have the slightest idea how atheists think, to be honest. Generally, I think the atheist doesn't see the right passage at all, he doesn't choose to avoid it.
The distinction is unimportant, and the "logical classification" is mistaken. We now know that our special, peculiar valley made just for us by God because "how else could it come about?" is just one of many fertile valleys.
I wouldn't have any idea whether many non-Christians were turned away from Christianity by this point, but I'm just trying to figure out why you're so intent on defending this failed and useless argument.
Well, I guess that's my answer: you defend it because someone not smart enough to understand its logical problems might be convinced by it.
Comment by don provan — March 31, 2010 @ 1:33 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 12:15 am
I don’t recall that particular phrase. What verse? And what translation? Anyway, you didn’t answer the question, which was what do you think “personal” means in the context of Christianity’s description of God? You have given no clue as to why you think a “multiverse” is relevant one way or the other. The fact is, it doesn’t matter. Saying God is a “personal” deity usually means that he is a person (as opposed to a mindless force) and/or that he takes an interest in us and is concerned that we do good. Neither remotely depends on multiverses; indeed, it would be possible to have such a personal relationship even if some entity besides God had created man.
If you mean, it answers the question just as well, then it doesn’t. That’s the whole point. That it is “a” possible answer is not denied; it’s just not a very good one.
You shouldn’t be so afraid of infinity, it won’t bite. Well, it will if you’re not careful, but careful philosophers have been dealing with it successfully for centuries. Anyway, that would be a problem for the atheist’s position in this case, since the theist is happy to stop at a single (or finite-numbered, just as good) universe, since the next step is God. The atheist is the one retreating back ever more, so if an infinite regress is no good, then he’s nowhere to go. [Just to make it clear, in case anyone missed the obvious: this atheist obviously does not represent all atheists, as many do not propose this line of argument in the first place.]
Now you’re making me think you don’t know how atheists think. Some certainly do not, and many certainly do. Fortunately, philosophy is not about feelings.
Just because you keep saying so doesn’t make it so. I don’t even know what you think the mistake could be, unless it’s that you believe that all (or the majority) of possible universes inevitably lead to life (and all the other “coincidences” of our world). In which case, don’t hold out on us, do demonstrate how to arrive at such an astounding conclusion.
Yeah, I might trick someone into believing the truth with a valid argument. I’m such a devil!
Comment by DL — April 1, 2010 @ 12:15 am
April 1st, 2010 at 2:22 am
I'm sorry, I'm no biblical scholar. If you're going to tell me that God did not take a rib from Adam to make Eve as the popular knowledge has it, I guess I'll have to concede that God was not personally involved in making Adam and Eve. My bad. And the bad of most Christians.
I mean exactly what I said: that's it's logically just as good. If you feel you have other reasons for believing your answer, that's fine, but an infinite series of causes is just as sound logically as an infinitely existing ultimate cause. It's just a fact.
Infinity is a fine and useful concept. The problem with an infinite regress is that it is a fallacious attempt to make an unsound argument support itself.
Focus. The original argument was that our fertile valley was created by God, because how else could it come to be? We learned that it could come to be by natural forces that we could observe at work producing other valleys. So we said, ok, the valley's not proof of God's existence, but our country, that must be God's handiwork because how else could it come to be? Then we learned that there are other countries. OK, but the Earth, now that's obviously very special and must have been created by God, because how else could it come to be? Etc. At each level, the argument was demonstrated to be flawed because of the invalid — disproved — premise, yet you have no problem applying it, yet again, just because the universe generator seems so special, so how else could it come to be?
Comment by don provan — April 1, 2010 @ 2:22 am
April 1st, 2010 at 5:18 pm
Well, at least we agree on something.
If you are actually saying that sincere traditional Christianity demands a literal interpretation of every verse in Genesis, then you are highly mistaken. (Go ahead, check with a biblical scholar.) But even if you insist on taking the rib thing as literally as possible, it still has absolutely nothing to do with multiverses. That’s why Gen. 2:22 does not contain the world “multiverse” or anything like it. If there were multiverses, a Christian would no doubt believe that God created them, but that in no way affects the “personal involvement” referred to, and furthermore that has nothing to do with the argument at hand!
A pussycat is just as “sound” logically too, but it still is not a sufficient answer to “what’s the square root of 2?”
I don’t know why you’re stuck on this valley thing. It’s not in the Bible (though not being a biblical scholar, you wouldn’t know that), nor do I recall it from any other religion. Sources?? Regardless, your logic is backwards: the claim is not “disproved” at each level, but merely described with additional (irrelevant) detail (though that detail may be very important to answering other questions, of course). What you are doing is like saying, Aristotle was wrong about gravity, and Newton was wrong about gravity, and Einstein was wrong, yet no matter how many times gravity has been disproved, you keep claiming it exists! Gravity has not been “proven faulty” but merely our understanding of it was not fully accurate. Similarly, a valley is a pretty sophisticated thing, but not as sophisticated as the laws of geology that are able to form it, or the physics that permits the geology, and so on. What you are misdiagnosing as “invalidity” is actually reinforcement of the original concept, at ever higher levels.
Comment by DL — April 1, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 7:19 pm
It's not a literal interpretation to say that Genesis tells us that God played a personal role in the acts of creation described in Genesis. I would go so far as to say that regardless of how one might choose to interpret Genesis, one cannot deny that the central point is God's personal interest in the our creation.
I really think I've been quite clear about this, but I'll try one last time: a universe generator is extraneous to personal involvement. Of course Genesis doesn't mention multiverses. That's the point. We were talking about someone citing a universe generator as good evidence for intelligent creation, and I'm simply pointing out that even if that's true, the intelligent creator so supported has no known relation to the Christian God.
You seem to mistakenly think I'm criticizing Christianity. I'm explaining a flaw in a class of arguments. One point I'm making is precisely that the argument is neither central to nor required by Christianity.
No, it's really nothing like that at all. The argument is based on an inability to imagine an alternative other than intelligent design. Once an actual alternative is discovered at one level, the argument is moved to the next level where there's still room to be unable to imagine an alternative. It isn't a matter of having more detail and building on it, but merely a case of moving the argument so that it can once again be free of pesky details.
Comment by don provan — April 1, 2010 @ 7:19 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 7:42 pm
Ah,
Here we go with “the god of the gaps” strawman again.
The problem with this description is that it is just plain false.
It never ever happened that way.
No one ever claimed that there was no possible alternative to intelligent design at any particular level only that intelligent design is the best explanation for what we see around us.
What really happens is those who would deny design “imagine” to use your words, an improbable alternative that in reality only pushes the problem up one level.
Its not God of the gaps it’s “ Impersonal cause of the gaps” the atheist keeps moving up levels hoping to desperately to find one in which no designer is necessary.
History has proven again and again that this is a fools quest. But that never stops the poor slobs from trying.
You'd think they would learn
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 1, 2010 @ 7:42 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 7:45 pm
Yes, I’m the one who explained that above when you were avoiding saying why you think it makes one of iota of difference to that whether God created the Big Bang first or God created a multiverse that generated the Big Bang that led to oh good grief I walked straight into that one didn’t I?!? That’s what I get for not paying attention to the date. I admit it, you got me. Some people might say it’s unfair starting before the 1st, but you left all the clues, like that silly valley girl stuff. I guess Adam’s rib was a sly ref. to the Hepburn/Tracy comedy? Can’t believe I missed that. Well played, sir.
Comment by DL — April 1, 2010 @ 7:45 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 7:56 pm
It goes something like this
Ider:
That car is designed
Atheist:
No it’s not it’s possible that it was made in a factory with no designers involved
Ider:
It’s possible I guess but then the factory was designed
Atheist:
No it’ not The factory could have been built by robots with no designers involved
Ider:
I guess It’s possible but then the factory that made the robots was designed
Atheist:
No it’ not it’s possible the factory was built by an infinite chain of factory building robots with no designers involved. Where is your imagination? you keep appealing to design and I keep showing it to be unnessary
Ider:
You are a dolt!
peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 1, 2010 @ 7:56 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 8:02 pm
Collins specifically argues that it wins because of an "absence of alternative explanations":
Comment by don provan — April 1, 2010 @ 8:02 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 8:06 pm
Hey DP,
Do you understand what suggests means?
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 1, 2010 @ 8:06 pm
April 1st, 2010 at 8:38 pm
Ider:
In the absence of alternative explanations, the existence of such a infinite factory/robot system suggests design since it seems very unlikely that such a system would have just the right components by chance.
Atheist:
There you go as always basing your argument on the absence of alternative explanations.
Ider:
Do you have any duct tape? I’m pretty sure my head is going to explode.
peace
ps
Have a good day
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 1, 2010 @ 8:38 pm
April 2nd, 2010 at 3:31 pm
I'm sorry you thought I was avoiding a question. I thought I'd made this clear, but I guess not. The difference is that the other universes have no relation to humans, so the universe generator implies either that God created other universes for some unrelated and unknown purpose or that God wasn't capable of generating just the right universe in one shot, so he had to set up his generator to produce many until he had one that was suitable. As I've said a couple times now, you can make that compatible with Christianity, but why would you bother?
Remember, my original point was the Collins argument for an intelligent designer based on a universe generator was, over all, a negative argument for the Christian God since it offers no additional support while adding significant metaphysical baggage, so Christians should think twice before embracing it. I didn't mean to suggest that his argument somehow disproves the Christian God.
Comment by don provan — April 2, 2010 @ 3:31 pm
April 2nd, 2010 at 4:13 pm
Yes, I do understand what "suggests" means.
Comment by don provan — April 2, 2010 @ 4:13 pm
April 2nd, 2010 at 8:34 pm
I’m not sure what you know about the Christian God but the God of the Bible reveals in creating things that are unrelated to human beings for purposes unknown to us. Have you not read the book of Job?
If I were to discover that God had created a super vast multiverse instead of just of creating a single vast universe I would not be surprised.
In fact Christian theology demands that this universe is not all there is.
It would not surprise me in the least to discover that the new creation discussed in the Bible is nothing but a parallel universe
Perhaps it’s not the Ider who is suffering from a lack of imagination here.
Peace
Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 2, 2010 @ 8:34 pm