Thursday, May 14, 2015
Multiverse Non-Explanation and the Fine Tuning of the Universe
Posted by Nick
Lying fool Sean Carroll's "debunking" of the fine tuning argument is actually a complete failure. Typical of atheist "scientists" he finally resorts to the imaginary "multiverse", which explains nothing at all. As respected atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel says, the appeal to multiple universes to explain conditions in this one is a cop-out. His first strategy is to deny there is any fine tuning in the first place, even though that is one of the main motivations for the multiverse speculation, then he goes on to say God doesn't need to "fine tune" anything because, well, He's God, and, as an omnipotent being, can do whatever he wants, while under naturalist materialism, you've got to have the right conditions for life. Well, I suppose God could, but then we wouldn't have a universe governed by laws that we can discover, would we? God could also regularly suspend gravity so that no one ever falls and gets hurt or killed, but again, that would not be the type of universe that suited God's purpose in creating this one. He then goes to the old, tired, argument from scale and how insignificant life is in the enormous universe with billions of galaxies that we can observe. It never occurs to Carroll the lying atheist that God might have a purpose in creating a universe on such a large scale, or that perhaps each of those galaxies has planets similar to earth with rational beings on them, or that God, to prove He is God, would want something grand so that we would know it is the one and only God that created and sustains the universe, rather than some tinpot deist demigod that was only capable of creating a "human-scale" universe that the atheist God mind readers think he should have created if he exists. Would we not feel like rats in a maze in some super advanced technology alien's experiment if the universe was scaled down so that the earth was the obvious center of it, the stars were the size of beach balls and Heaven was "up there" so we could reach it with a rocket? Instead we find ourselves in a seemingly endless universe with unlimited wonders to discover. That makes more sense if God exists than the silly imaginings of liars for atheism. In fact, if the universe was small, that fact would make a thinking person more likely to doubt God's existence, not less. Size, of course, has nothing at all to do with importance, as G.K. Chesterton said: "It is quite futile to argue that man is small compared to the cosmos; for man was always small compared to the nearest tree." Yet, lying atheist Sean Carroll states with confidence "There is nothing in our experience of the universe that justifies the kind of flattering story we like to tell about ourselves." So minds are insignificant? But if there were no minds, there would be no universe to discover or explain, would there? For only rational, thinking beings can discover, observe and explain things. If there was no God (impossible, but for sake of argument I'll suppose it) and also no humans or similar creatures, what could truly be said to "exist"? But if mind is indeed primary, then it all makes sense. Now imagine that there is nothing at all but one tiny pebble floating in space. No stars or planets, no gods or God, no life or minds of any kind. Nothing but that one solitary pebble for eternity. Does it really then exist? But if Sean Carroll the liar is right (of course, he's a liar, so he has to be wrong) then nothing does exist. Not only we as individuals, but our species, our local star the sun, our planet and ultimately our universe itself, will one day cease to be forever, as if they never existed at all, and with no Supreme Being, that would be the case. Yeah, that makes more sense than God. He then launches into an absurd list of "expectations" given theism or atheism (what he prefers to call naturalism) and claims that "over and over" his self-refuting "naturalism" wins every time (what a surprise). I won't go in to now, but save it for another post, as it isn't directly related to the subject at hand. Finally, to emphasize the problem Carroll dismisses so easily (fine tuning) I offer the following video, whose description is thus: At the heart of modern cosmology is a mystery: Why does our universe appear so exquisitely tuned to create the conditions necessary for life? In this tour de force tour of some of science's biggest new discoveries, Brian Greene shows how the mind-boggling idea of a multiverse may hold the answer to the riddle. And of course the tuning is why the non-explanation of a multiverse is offered. By the way, Brian Greene here talks a lot about the unproven non-science of string theory. "...without the hypothesis of multiple universes, the observation that if life hadn't come into existence we wouldn't be here has no significance. One doesn't show that something doesn't require explanation by pointing out that it is a condition of one's existence. If I ask for an explanation of the fact that the air pressure in the transcontinental jet is close to that at sea level, it is no answer to point out that if it weren't, I'd be dead."- Thomas Nagel, Mind and Cosmos.
at 12:36 AM