A Bad Day for "Science" Worshipers

Why then does the news article say that CMB and BAO are more “indirect” and “circumstantial” evidence for dark energy compared to supernovae? Are there more assumptions in deducing the constrains from these? Or is that just a biased press release meant to boost the significance of this paper?

This one.


I also noticed that the phys.org report gave a confidence level of 99.5%.

You say that CMB radiation is not as indirect a way to measure acceleration of the galaxies, but this seems at odds with what it is. It is radiation released at the Big Bang or shortly thereafter and before stars and galaxies formed. Therefore while it might indicate something about the force of the “bang” it is hard to see how it is a better measurement of how fast galaxies are being flung away from each other than SNe, which is at least measured after those galaxies form. Isn’t that based on the assumption that Dark Energy is what powers the bang, that it keeps growing with space, and that the formation of matter, stars, galaxies doesn’t change it?

Yes, this is a time to sit back and wait for the field to establish what’s going on and how things work. It is not the time to employ uncertainty in astrophysics and cosmology as apologetics arguments.


Tell it to the atheists online who with a straight virtual-face tell me that some arcane math proves there are a vast number of undetected universes out there so all fine-tuning arguments are invalidated!

You seem to have some misconceptions in your understanding of standard cosmology, because as of now, your concerns are “not even wrong” (Not even wrong - Wikipedia). Please reread the fundamentals of standard cosmology so you can mount a more coherent argument against it.

Regardless, if you don’t like the CMB, the BAO literally measures the changes of separations between galaxies over cosmic time.


Where do I go to find these people? I’ve been frequenting multiple atheist and skepticism forums now for over 12 years and I’ve never come across even a single one who claims this.


Pfft. Thanks for reminding me why I left here the first time. I’m not arguing against the fundamentals of standard cosmology. Maybe you should try to understand what I am arguing before you drip condescension. Goodbye.

This report came out that shows the main evidence supporting the idea that our universe is mostly a mysterious thing called “dark energy” is in error. This overturns decades of scientific belief about the ultimate nature, structure, and perhaps even fate, of our universe. It turns out the galaxies may not be flying away from each other at increasingly fantastic speeds after all. Therefore there is no need to postulate that most of the universe is composed of an energy which is propelling them against the pull of gravity at those fantastical speeds.

Mark: I think that you are overreacting. I read your blog post and the entire thread, and based upon @PdotdQ 's response, it seems as though you may have over-reached. It seems like what he said was that the results of the study are not reason enough to conclude what you have written above.

Rum, you have not heard of people suggesting that the multi-verse is an adequate response to the fine-tuning argument? I’ve heard this often. I have also heard (here) that the fine-tuning argument is not as strong as it sounds or seems, or maybe as it has been presented in the past by some.(EDIT: It is possible that I misunderstood what was said, too.)

1 Like

I expect he has. I have too. But that’s not what was claimed - MMM referred to “atheists online who with a straight virtual-face tell me that some arcane math proves there are a vast number of undetected universes out there

There’s a large gap between the multiverse being an adequate response vs the multiverse being proven.


I see… I think that we all need to read what one another writes with a bit of context built in. I know it gets difficult when we are talking about very technical issues, but I thought it was pretty clear that Mark was simply referring to the multi-verse as a response to fine-tuning. As I said, I could be wrong (and often am anyhow!) :slight_smile:

The blog post you linked to was hardly a paragon of polite debate.

1 Like

Sure, and to be clear it is an adequate response to the fine-tuning argument.

There’s a set of observations that we want to explain, in that the physical constants take certain values that allow life to exist in this universe.
Theists then say that we have good reason to believe God exists, because they have a really good explanation for the physical constants, because we can just hypothetically postulate that there’s a God that made the laws of physics because that God wants there to be life in this universe.

And atheists then respond that other explanations for those constants are also possible, such as a multiverse where the laws of physics can vary.

But that’s not what mr. Revealed_Cosmology was referring to, he was creating some absurd caricature. The implication being that atheists are claiming that the multiverse has been mathematically proved in order to (quoting him): “shield themselves from the knowledge of God”.

All that happens is basically that one camp is saying there’s evidence to believe in God because hypothetical explanation X accounts for the data, and another camp is saying we don’t have to because, there’s another candidate explanation Y that also accounts for the data. Nobody is claiming that the multiverse has been proved because math. That is a caricature designed to make the atheist response to the supposed obviousness of fine-tuning arguments look ridiculous.

There are of course other formulations of both the fine-tuning arguments, and associated responses to those too. But even so, I don’t believe anyone responds in the way Revealed_Cosmology claim.


Thanks, this is how I have understood the discussion as well. So, it is the caricature to which you object, then? I agree that the phrasing was less-than-charitable. I’m curious, though, about the multi-verse theory. Clearly, as you say, it has not been “proved because math”… Here’s what was said in the blog post:

Well, excuse me if I don’t have a lot of confidence in your appeals to a vast number of supposed universes we can’t see based on some hypothetical mathematical model. Especially when the same scientific community can make such a titanic mistake for so long when it comes to measuring the properties of the one universe we can in fact detect. It sounds to me like you are resorting to desperate escapism to avoid the knowledge of God. Your belief that these universes exist is on pretty shaky ground- and the existence of multiple universes in itself doesn’t rule out the fine-tuning argument for the existence of God anyway, those universes would also have to have certain properties and not others).

I think that choosing to say “proves” here in this thread, was an unfortunate slip and doesn’t really convey what was intended:

It’s a shame that the conversation went awry… it was an interesting topic.

@PdotdQ Is there physical evidence (or indications) for the multi-verse? Or is it a plausible hypothetical intended to counter a design argument? Or something other?

Something other. A multiverse is a prediction of some physical theories.

Note that a multiverse in this sense may not have universes with different physical constants.

1 Like


Yes, and there are many unanswered questions and unknowns about multiverse hypotheses. We simply don’t know anything at this stage. The problem here is our resident interlocutor seems to be of the misapprehension that the God-hypothesis has a leg up here, as if that isn’t ALSO a merely hypothetical explanation for the observed phenomenon.

1 Like

Understood. Thanks. I think that this is a situation where the doctrine of parsimony is relative. One who is a believer feels as though God creating one universe, as is, is the most simple and obvious alternative, especially when compared to (admittedly, situationally defined) something that creates an infinite number of universes on its own. From a Christian perspective, God spoke the universe into being for a purpose (us) so a finely-tuned cosmos points to this same God. For an unbeliever, this position would seem most obscure and forced.

People are looking at one another’s responses to the fine-tuning problem, and ironically, having the same reaction, which is to favor one option as making perfect sense and rejecting the other, outright. Thanks, as always, Rum. The point you make about God also being a hypothetical explanation gets lost on us sometimes.

1 Like

There is physical evidence for the multiverse in the sense that some of our theories that can predict our current Universe also predict a multiverse. Note that these theories are not the only theories in the game. There is no evidence if by evidence you mean directly detecting these multiverses.

That article is wrong, or at least misleading. Please read e.g. chapter X of this paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1902.03951.pdf


20 posts were split to a new topic: R_speir: questions about cosmology and dimensions