The fallacy you are committing there is known as “God of the Gaps.” It’s a favourite of creationists and other religious apologists.
@Faizal_Ali Just curious, but wasn’t it you who brought up theism first in this thread?
Yes, it was.
So, I preface this with the caveat that I’m not sure if the fine-tuning argument as it commonly is argued is a good argument for the existence of God. But it doesn’t necessarily need to be a science stopper, as long as you formulate at the level of metaphysics, not physics. You can posit God as an ultimate explanation for the existence of the universe while also scientifically investigating if he did it through a multiverse or not. It’s no different than how my belief in God behind the natural world doesn’t stop me from doing science.
Your hidden assumption is that natural law acts as a “creative entity,” rather simply functioning regularly, to account for all we see. That does not replace the reality of God accounting for how nature got the way it is, nor how it maintains such regularity. Natural laws are descriptions of normal functioning behavior, not entities in their own right. There is thus no “God of the gaps,” as there are no gaps in God’s sufficient causality.
“Natural law of the gaps” is just as ridiculous a fallacy to me.
1 Like
How do you know what is unnecessary or not? If a multiverse is true, pretty much anything is possible and has happened in some universe.
Things like “necessity” are not properties of matter.
This is because laws are not causal.
Not independently causal, no.
Ok…
So what would make a god necessary in such a scenario?
just recently I bumped intyo it on youtube science shows. its just plain bonkers and hilarious BUT it shows how once one error is made a line of reasoning leads to more.
Jeff Zweerink puts it this way:
It is important for believers to differentiate between multiverse models that advocate strict naturalism and those that promote the Creator. In order for a strictly naturalistic multiverse model to provide an adequate explanation for the universe and our existence, it must meet a number of requirements.
First, any naturalistic multiverse model must be self-contained. It cannot exhibit a beginning or true design because each requires an external agent—a Beginner or a Designer. Any proposed model must explain the apparent design acknowledged by the scientific community without allowing any aspect of the model to reflect actual design.
Second, a successful model must account for all relevant observations and data. In other words, any proposed multiverse model must naturally produce a region that looks like the observable universe. In addition, since any multiverse would, by definition, lie forever beyond the reach of observation, any model must make predictions about what scientists will detect in our observable universe. Otherwise, no scientific tests can verify or falsify the model.
Third, the model must provide a mechanism that produces a sufficient variety (for probability’s sake) of universes. Unless a model meets this requirement, it cannot explain the fine-tuning observed in the known universe—specifically in the laws of physics, the fundamental constants, the characteristics of the Milky Way Galaxy, and the features of the solar system’s Sun, Earth–Moon system, other planets and moons, and more.
Fourth, our universe must be one of the possible universes in the model.
Fifth, for a naturalistic multiverse model, life must be solely physical. Although this requirement flows from the first, it bears separate mention. All naturalistic multiverse models I have encountered so far implicitly make the assumption that life is completely physical. However, if human life possesses a nonphysical component, such as the image of God, then no amount of tweaking the laws of physics and rearranging the stuff of the universe will produce a human being.
1 Like
Not true. At least, I have not seen this demonstrated to be true. Would you care to try?
So what? Theists routinely claim God cannot be verified or falisified by science. They don’t see this a as a weakness of their model.
That fine tuning simply arises as a matter of chance. In an infinite number of universes, it is no surprise to see one particular universe display a given set of features.
And since the multiverse is a prediction of hypotheses derived from observations of our universe, this is no problem.
Which it is. So, again, no problem.
Who is this Jeff Zweernik? I can’t say I am very impressed by these arguments.
You asked:
I answered from an article that was written by Jeff Zweerink who is an astrophysicist which describes the requirements for a naturalistic multiverse. Presumably, according to the author, one that does meet these requirements would make God or a god necessary. This literally answered the question that you asked. A multiverse that met those five requirements would not make a god necessary in that scenario.
I am no physicist, cosmologist or scientist at all, but what causes you to state so confidently that this is no surprise? Why must an infinite number of universes (if there were such a mechanism to create them) possess an infinite set of characteristics, such that ours was just one of them? How could you possibly know that a mechanism that might generate an infinite number of universes wouldn’t simply create one or two or three kinds?
And I demonstrated why his argument was lousy.
Why would it do that?
I don’t believe that you did. I believe that you stated such.
Why would it not? Why, if some mechanism exists that poofs out universes, must each be like a snowflake? Completely unlike the others? Must it be so to explain away fine-tuning?
It need not be so. But it must only be limited to a few kinds if the “fine tuning” argument is to have any legs at all. That is, if “fine tuning” even exists in the first place.
You seem to be confused as to where the burden of proof lies in this discussion. It lies with the one asserting that a “fine tuning” exists which necessitates the existence of a god. There is a lot of heavy lifting required to support that assertion, which no one has even approached achieving. That the multiverse hypothesis is so probable makes that heavy lifting all the more heavier.
1 Like
You seem to be confused as to the nature of my post. The purpose was not to present a critique of the multiverse, it was to directly answer your question. Jeff Zweerink was not defending one kind of multiverse vs. another. Rather he was stating that, in his opinion, a naturalistic multiverse would have five characteristics.
Then you proceeded to explain why he was wrong and that he was not very impressive. Again, your question was this:
I responded with Dr. Zweerink’s response, that, again, in his opinion, a naturalistic multiverse would have five specific attributes. So, in a multiverse scenario that did not meet those conditions, God may be necessary.
2 Likes
His opinion is worthless, for the reasons I have given.
“May be necessary” does not mean “Is necessary.”