Apologetics Lane: multiverse

Showing posts with label multiverse. Show all posts

Friday, November 12, 2021

One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design

Stephen C. Meyer discusses the multiverse and the existence of God. Which better explains cosmic fine-tuning?

One God or Many Universes? Stephen Meyer Explores How Fine-Tuning Points to Intelligent Design
https://youtu.be/dwa6LfZlGN8

Sunday, February 28, 2021

Why Earth's History Appears So Miraculous

Here's a great article highlighting how even secular scientists have to grapple with the apparently miraculous history of life on earth and its preservation despite so many dangers like asteroids and nuclear winter. From the Christian perspective, the apparent miraculous nature of life on earth actually IS miraculous in both its creation by God and God's providential protection in history.

Why Earth's History Appears So Miraculous by Peter Brannen

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/03/human-existence-will-look-more-miraculous-the-longer-we-survive/554513/

Thursday, August 24, 2017

The Problem of Evil, a Brief Conversation

The following is a brief conversation I had on Facebook with an atheist. I did minor editing and removed extraneous material. He posted the following quote and question:

MC²: "Wykstra backs off his 1984 claims (1984: 74, 79, 80, 90–91) that evil provides no evidence for atheism. He now calls those claims “reckless” (1996, 148 n. 14). He now admits that the evidence from evil, bracketing evidence for God's existence, “tilts” in favor (rather significantly, 1996, 138) of atheism, but not enough to justify belief in atheism, even if one starts from agnosticism."

Christian philosopher friends: do you agree or disagree with Wykstra? Does the evidence from evil tilt in favor of atheism over theism?

Before evil can be evidence for atheism, it must be shown that objective good and evil is coherent within atheism. The best hope for that is something like Atheistic Moral Platonism. However, I doubt it's coherent. See for example, William Lane Craig's simple critique here:
https://youtu.be/VGWAVRoLQ3c

Most modern apologetics & apolgists do acknowledge evil is evidence for atheism, *but* that the positive evidence for God tips the scale in favor of theism to a less or greater degree. Personally, I don't think evil is evidence against *Christianity* whatsoever, since part of the Christian worldview is to affirm the reality of sin and evil in the world. That God allows and directs them for His greater purposes. I say that as a Calvinist, but even historic Arminians, Catholics, Lutherans (etc.) would affirm God at least negatively permits evil for His greater purposes. The difference between Calvinists and most non-Calvinist versions of Christianity is whether God can in some sense positively ordain sin and evil.

Given that objective good and evil seem to be incompatible with atheism, AND given that there are various theistic options (like Christianity, Judaism, Islam et al.) that are (at least in principle) compatible with evil, evil would seem to not be very strong evidence (if at all) for atheism.

MC²: no, no, no. It's neither here nor there if moral realism is impossible on atheism when it comes to the problem of evil. The problem only arises for someone who affirms that both evil and God exists. An atheist need only demonstrate that there is an internal inconsistency. And anyway, why think that moral realism is impossible on atheism anyway? Moral arguments are notoriously weak.

AP: The truth of atheism is distinct from any supposed insufficiency of the evidence for theism. I was referring to the non-existence of God, not the justification of the absence/lack of belief in God. Admittedly, the Problem of Evil for theism is a question of internal consistency. Since, there are various theistic options that are compatible with evil, it doesn't pose much trouble for theism, and therefore providing support for the truth of the non-existence of God. That's different from the psychological and rational question of whether one can be justified in being free of God/gods belief.

MC²: Well it does provide support for the truth of the nonexistence of God so... Assuming by "God" we mean the Christian conception of God...

AP: Can you determine the percentages when it comes to how many conceptions of God are compatible with the existence of evil and how many aren't? There are potentially billions of rational civilizations in this universe, plus any other universe in a possible multiverse, plus whatever simulated worlds which have sentient personal agents. I certaintly can't make such a determination. I can only be aware of the theistic options on Earth that have survived history up to the present.

MC²: No, I can't. And..?

AP: Then it's possible that 99% of theistic options that have been conceived have been compatible with evil. In which case, wouldn't that suggest that evil doesn't pose much of a threat for theism?

MC²: Again so what? By "theism" I specifically mean 'belief in the sort of God Christians have in mind.' So what if my argument against theism doesn't say anything about other conceptions of God. I'm still struggling to follow what you're even saying here

AP: Admittedly, I made that statement in terms of inductive possibility, not deductive possibility. When it comes to the deductive issue with regard to an an Omni-God, I still don't see any necessary incoherence.

MC²: I'm not saying there is a logical incompatibility between God and evil existing simultaneously. I tend to prefer inductive or abductive arguments from evil myself.

AP: I corrected "an" to "any". If we were to define evil as anything contrary to a subset of God's will or preferences, those are consistent with other higher wills or preferences within God. Take a for example a voluntaristic conception of God (which I don't currently hold). If God were to will that eating chocolate ice cream were evil (CIC), while eating strawberry ice cream (SIC) is good, His omnipotent power isn't undermined if he allowed people to eat chocolate ice cream. Atheists can't automatically dismiss voluntaristic conceptions of God in favor of say essentialistic conceptions of God (I hold to Divine Command Essentialism).

AP: If I were an atheist I too would prefer inductive or (especially) abductive arguments since I think deductive arguments for atheism based on the PoE [problem of evil] utterly fail.

AP: Inductive arguments of course must be much more modest because they depend on our finite inductive survey. Maybe of all the worlds God has created 99% of them have no evil, and the majority of the evil is concentrated on Earth. In which case, if we were privy to the percentages of good and evil in the entire Omniverse, we wouldn't find the existence of evil nearly as problematic as we do here on Earth.

AP: Given the philosophical "Principle of plenitude" (i.e. God's infinite creativity), multiverses make a lot of sense. In which case, evil might be restricted to a tiny dark corner of the Omniverse.
[[For all we know the Omniverse is peopled with billions of various species all of whom are evil free and have the light of the knowledge of God in abundance.]]

Since the inductive/circumstantial argument for the non-existence of God based on gratuitous evil depends on percentages, and since we cannot gauge percentages given God's infinite creativity and the possible innumerable worlds He's created, we therefore cannot say that there is such a thing as gratuitous evil QUANTITATIVELY. So, the best avenue for atheists would seem to be to argue for evil's gratuity QUALITATIVELY. That is, on the basis of the intensity of the limited evil we are aware of. And that's where I think William Lane Craig's distinction between the 1. logical and 2. emotional problem of evil is so crucial. The suffering of a little child can be very emotionally troubling, but that's technically not a *logical* problem. God may have multiple present and future purposes for allowing that type of evil that we just cannot fathom in our finitude, but which make perfect sense in God's infinitude.

Sunday, September 14, 2014

Problems with the Multiverse

I myself am open to the reality of a multiverse. I don't believe its existence threatens the existence of God. I agree with Robin Collins views as he's explained it in the 2nd video HERE.

As Robin Collins points out th multiverse would be consistent with the infinite creativity of God (or Divine principle of plenitude). Nevertheless, the idea that a multiverse exists apart from a designer does seem unlikely and ad hoc to me. It goes against the principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor which argues that all things being equal, the simpler explanation or hypothesis is to be preferred over more complex ones. As Richard Swinburne wrote:

"…it is the height of irrationality to postulate an infinite number of universes never causally connected with each other, merely to avoid the hypothesis of theism. Given that simplicity makes for prior probability, and a theory is simpler the fewer entities it postulates, it is far simpler to postulate one God than an infinite number of universes, each differing from each other in accord with a regular formula, uncaused by anything else."
- Richard Swinburne on the multiverse theory in his book The Existence of God

"Some have said that the laws of nature are simply accidental results of the way the universe cooled after the big bang. But, as Rees has pointed out, even such accidents can be regarded as secondary manifestations of deeper laws governing the ensemble of universes. Again, even the evolution of the laws of nature and changes to the constants follow certain laws. 'We’re still left with the question of how these "deeper" laws originated. No matter how far you push back the properties of the universe as somehow "emergent," their very emergence has to follow certain prior laws.'¹ So multiverse or not, we still have to come to terms with the origin of the laws of nature. And the only viable explanation here is the divine Mind.” —Antony Flew (There is a God, pp. 121-122.) [Anthony Flew was a well known 20th century atheist philosopher who converted to theism near the end of his life.]
1. Martin Rees, “Exploring Our Universe and Others,” in The Frontiers of Space (New York: Scientific American, 2000), 87.

“[The multiverse theory] can explain anything . . . If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything.”- John Polkinghorne (is an Anglican priest and philosopher, a theist. He was also at one time a theoretical particle physicist at Cambridge.)

Polkinghorne's statement renders the multiverse theory trivial—or at least the infinite universes version of the theory.

Victor Stenger, a retired physics prof from the University of Hawaii, has given us two books that explain both atheism and "multiverses", and behold, they are one. Few other proponents of multiverses are quite as forthcoming with their logic, but clearly something besides data must motivate the science of multiverses, because by definition multiverses are not observable. Stenger makes the connection explicit, whereas Hawking or Susskind is a little more coy with their metaphysics. Multiverse-theory is designed for one purpose, and one purpose only, and that is to defend atheism. It makes no predictions, it gives no insight, it provides no control, it produces no technology, it advances no mathematics, it is a science in name only, because it is really metaphysics.- physicist Rob Sheldon
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2746500/posts

William Lane Craig has made an interesting point when comparing the competing hypotheses of cosmic design and a multiverse. There's independent evidence for the existence of God, but there is no independent evidence for the multiverse/world ensemble. Much less that it's also infinitely numbered and randomly ordered.
John Lennox rightly noted that though atheists may present the options of either God OR the multiverse, that's a false dilemma since God could have created the multiverse. Don Page is a Canadian Christian and theoretical physicist who is a colleague of Stephen Hawking and he believes in the multiverse. Craig has pointed out that theism is the best hope for the existence of the multiverse because an omnipotent God can create as many worlds as He wants.

Physicist Paul Davies’ killer argument against the multiverse
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/physicist-paul-davies-killer-argument-against-the-multiverse/

Stephen C. Meyer giving his reasons for why cosmic intelligent design is more plausible even if a multiverse theory is true. He speaks on the topic for about 10 minutes. I've already qued the video at 70 minutes. View video by Clicking HERE

Here's another critique of the Multiverse theory.

The Teleological Argument (What it really says)
(video link)

The Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig

"If, for some unforeseen reason, the landscape turns out to be inconsistent – maybe for mathematical reasons, or because it disagrees with observation – I am pretty sure that physicists will go on searching for natural explanations of the world. But I have to say that if that happens, as things stand now we will be in a very awkward position. Without any explanation of nature’s fine-tunings we will be hard pressed to answer the ID critics. One might argue that the hope that a mathematically unique solution will emerge is as faith-based as ID." - From the New Scientist interview of Leonard Susskind

To the hard-line physicist, the multiverse may not be entirely respectable, but it is at least preferable to invoking a Creator. Indeed, anthropically inclined physicists like Susskind and Weinberg are attracted to the multiverse precisely because it seems to dispense with God as the explanation of cosmic design.- Bernard Carr

[Bernard J. Carr is a British professor of mathematics and astronomy at Queen Mary University of London]

William Lane Craig's Debate with Sean Carroll

This link includes 1. Craig's pre-debate assessment, 2. the debate, 3. Craig's after debate reflections

As I understand it, the Multiverse theory is a cosmological postulate distinct (and different from) from the Many Worlds interpretation of Quantum Mechanics.

Here's a critique of the many worlds interpretation

A Critique of the Many Worlds Interpretation
(video link)

Wednesday, July 10, 2013

Beyond the Big Bang lecture by William Lane Craig

https://youtu.be/gNma5z3-nCI

This lecture is slightly out-dated because it was given a while back. Nevertheless it's an informative lecture by Craig and displays his knowledge of modern cosmology. This is clearly one of his best lectures.

Monday, June 24, 2013

What we still don't know with Martin Rees

https://youtu.be/oyH2D4-tzfM

This is not a Christian video, but it does show how fine-tuned the universe is. Here's one quote:

"The cosmological constant needs to be set to one part in a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion" [found at 18 minutes into the video]

See also the videos here:
The Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-big-bang-multiverses-and-anthropic.html

Tuesday, June 11, 2013

The Big Bang, Multiverses, and the Anthropic Principle Discussed by William Lane Craig

https://youtu.be/-J5D7R3pyro

Part 1 of 2

https://youtu.be/jyQMGBmPkdI

Part 2 of 2

Did We Just Get Lucky?

https://youtu.be/UloJeQbxHTo

Besides the objections to the World Ensemble that Craig made in the above videos, here are other features of the world in which we live that make the concept of the world ensemble less plausible as an explanation of the fine-tuning we find in the universe.

1. The correlation between life and scientific discovery (i.e. the Privileged Planet Hypothesis)

2. Gratuitous beauty. For example of the beauty of butterflies. I recommend watching the DVD video Metamorphosis: The Beauty and Design of Butterflies (here's a preview)

3. Gratuitous pleasures. For example, think of all the various molecules and chemicals needed to produce delicious food. For the possible existence of such molecules and chemicals requires the fine-tuning of the universe that we have. But just because a universe is fine-tuned, it doesn't necessitate that there be such chemicals or molecules. That's just one of the various pleasures in the world.

4. Multiple brains or minds that can interact with each other. The probabilities of multiple observers in one universe is less likely than just one Boltzmann brain existing in a delusional solipsism. If you believe in multiple minds in this universe, then that makes the world ensemble less likely as the explanation for this universe's fine-tuning.

5. The possibility of rational creatures being able to reproduce to multiply the number of rational creatures in existence.

6. Gratuitous sense of morality among sentient rational creatures.

7. Gratuitous sense of love among sentient rational creatures.

8. Given quantum mechanics and the multiverse theory things popping into existence (seemingly causelessly) is not only possible but likely. Yet, why don't we see such things occur publicly on a regular basis?

9. Even superheroes might actually exist (see for example HERE, and HERE [#5] ). Why don't we see them in our universe? As a Christian I believe there are supernatural entities like angels and demons who affect the world in hidden covert ways. Some might ask why I don't believe they might actually be these entities that the multiverse allows for? Given an atheistic version of the multiverse theory, that's a possibility. But why do these entities seem walk on a thin line between over and covert activities rather than manifesting publicly? Their behavior seems to be more in line with a Christian theistic worldview (with or without a multiverse) than an atheistic multiverse worldview. In the Christian worldview angels don't want to attract attention to themselves, but rather to God. While God has his purposes for veiling his existence to some degree or another (see for example HERE and HERE). Also, in a Christian worldview demons only want to attract attention to themselves only if it will lead to greater evil. If demons openly revealed themselves it would lead more people out of atheism. Something which demons wouldn't want. Demons would want humans to either not believe in them (and so allow for atheists to continue on their way to hell); or they would want humans to believe in them so that they either live in fear of them or think they have power over demons to do their bidding. When in actuality they are doing the malevolent will of those demons.

I personally don't believe that the concept of a multiverse is necessarily inconsistent with Christianity. What I do object to is appealing to the multiverse to explain fine-tuning away (and hence remove the need for a personal Creator).

Related videos

https://youtu.be/5c97Peb50IA
How Could One Argue that the Universe Didn't Have A Cause?

https://youtu.be/TK-X3x9tyqY
What about Multiverses and Parallel Universes due to Chance?

https://youtu.be/7FS78DPliLM

Does the World Ensemble Hypothesis Violate the Canons of Science?
(here Craig honestly admits that we should take the multiverse theory seriously)

Would Multiple Universes Undermine God? Interview of Robin Collins
Part 1. http://youtu.be/u9VE8dF6zDw
Part 2. http://youtu.be/QGEPGF-09Wc

More videos of Robin Collins being interviewed:
http://misclane.blogspot.com/2013/06/robin-collins-interviews.html