Scroll to top

Debunking Other Explanations


Science Is About Facts And Evidence, Not Opinions And Beliefs

15 minute read plus 5 videos

All Facts Point To God; Is There Another Explanation?

 

If you’ve read the other God Created The Universe material you know there are a few dozen mathematical formulas that we can use to describe how the universe works.  Incorporated in those formulas are corresponding constants that are finely tuned to an inconceivable level of precision.  You also know that there are literally hundreds of other finely tuned factors corresponding to our place in the universe and how the earth is formed and functions around us – hundreds more finely tuned factors.   Based on the mathematical probabilities of all these things coming together in one universe, we can easily say that it’s impossible that such a universe was created by mere chance.

Yet here we are!

Many noted scientists cited in this material have said, “it’s as if the universe was designed to support life on earth.”  Any time we see the obvious signs of design we know there must be a designer.  And when we see the works of a designer who is all-powerful and operating at a universal level we know that designer is God.

The First Set Of Possible Alternate Explanations

The complete set of fine tuning arguments, developed in the other God Created The Universe articles, drives some people crazy because the facts and evidence are incontrovertible, obvious and compelling.  They go to great lengths to explain away those facts and the impossibility that they all came together to support life on earth.

Here, we’ll take a look at those proposed explanations.  First, let’s quickly dispel three of them:

It "Must Be"

The finely tuned universe “must be” this way.  That is, the universe must have been created with fine tuning in place and can’t have been created any other way.  This argument was brought up by Dr. William Lane Craig in the 2nd video of The Finely Tuned Laws of Nature Part II material.  In all honesty, there’s no evidence that anyone with a reputable background actually believes and supports this conjecture; Dr. Craig discusses it as a point of philosophy and logic in order to make his real point that the finely tuned universe was designed by an intelligent entity.

This potential explanation is easily refuted; it should be self-evident that there’s nothing in the universe forcing any of the finely tuned factors to be what they are.  For instance, there’s nothing requiring the gravity constant to be so finely tuned nor our solar system to be located in a habitable part of the Milky Way.  Sure, if any of finely tuned factors were not as they are then the universe and/or earth would be quite different – likely making life impossible.  But there’s nothing forcing them to be as they are.

Random Chance

We’re just that lucky.  That is, the finely tuned universe, our place in it, and how the earth is formed and functions all happened by chance and nothing more.  As we see from all the facts and evidence presented in God Create The Universe material, this is impossible.  The mathematical probabilities and likelihood of all those factors coming together to support life is zero.  There are no conceivable facts, evidence or justification for the belief that it was pure, random, undirected chance.

Miscellaneous Opinions

If you search the Internet, you’ll find a set of people presenting their random opinions and beliefs.  Note the lack of facts and evidence to back them up.  Those opinions and beliefs are of no consequence here: people are free to believe as they choose.  We are here to examine facts and evidence for the existence of God, not evaluate people’s religious opinions.

The Next Set Of Possible Alternate Explanations

Here are two other well-known explanations atheists use when attempting to explain our fine tuned universe:

  • Multiverse Theory: We live in the one lucky universe that’s finely tuned and able to support life among an infinite number of parallel universes created during the Big Bang
  • Computer Simulation: We aren’t real.  Instead we live inside a computer that simulates our lives and everything around us including a universe that appears to be 13.8 billion years old

Multiverse Theory

Imagine an infinite or very high number of universes each of which representing a possible combination of the cosmological constants associated with the finely tuned laws of nature.  Can this be used to explain our finely tuned universe?

This video presents a good summary of the multiverse theory

Multiverse Theory

Conclusions from the video

  • If we have an infinite number of universes then all possible combinations of the cosmological constants exist in at least one of those universes
  • With a large set of universes, the probability that one exists sufficiently fined tuned like ours to support life becomes more realistic
  • One of those infinite number of universes has values finely tuned to support life – the one we see and live in

Refuting The Multiverse Theory

Some call this explanation a “theory”, others a “prediction”.  Whether it’s a “theory” or “prediction” doesn’t really matter.  Both terms help make this explanation sound scientific.  Plus, there’s a bunch of sophisticated theoretical mathematics to support it.  But is it a reasonable scientific explanation?

No Multiverse Evidence

Watch the last two minutes of this 8:17 video for a summary of the case against the multiverse theory starting at 6:17.

Side Note: the first part of the video is extra credit – it summarizes the fine tuning argument discussed in other God Created The Universe material; feel free to check it out if you want more perspectives on that content

Conclusions from the last two minutes of the video

  • There’s no evidence nor facts supporting the multiverse theory
  • There’s no evidence that multiverses exist with different values for the constants included in the laws of nature
    • Said differently: the math showing multiverses exist may be correct but it’s pure opinion and speculation to say that the cosmological constants vary in those other universes.  There’s no evidence of this whatsoever and there likely never will be unless we figure out how to move between universes
  • A significant amount of fine tuning is required in the early universe to support the creation of multiverses – making them unlikely
  • Experts interviewed in the last two minutes:
    • Dr. Frank Tipler, theoretical physicist and author from Tulane University
    • Dr. Stephen Meyer, Cambridge University PhD and author

Dr. Meyer only briefly mentions the fine tuning required to support the creation of multiverses.  For those who want a complete explanation, check out  this article from Uncommon Descent by professor and author Dr. Robin Collins.  Be forewarned: it gets a bit technical

Computer Simulation

Are we living inside a Matrix-like computer simulation?  Elon Musk thinks so.  He’s a smart guy for sure but let’s get that from a more reputable scientist.  Here’s Neil deGrasse Tyson giving a summary of the logic in this short 2 1/2 minute video.

Computer Simulation

Conclusions from the video

  • Computing power today can be used to create simulated worlds
  • Imagine a future when computing power is much greater.  A programmer might be able to create a world with its own laws of chemistry and physics and with characters that display human capabilities including free will
  • Characters in the simulated world have computers and can create their own simulated worlds.  Those embedded simulated worlds can have their own simulated worlds.  And so on.
  • Every time something weird happens, like a disruptive leader takes charge, it could be that the programmer got bored and decided to shake things up for their own entertainment

Here’s a very good article on this subject with discussions from other notable scientists regarding their beliefs that we’re operating in a computer simulation.  Physicist Paul Davies argues against it because a fake universe leads to fake physics which makes science as we know it absurd which, in turn, puts him out of a job!

Refuting The Computer Simulation Hypothesis

If we do, indeed, live in a computer simulation with its own laws of chemistry and physics then it’s likely we’ll have no way of knowing that and likely we can’t do anything about it.  As such, we can’t really say “it’s impossible”;  there’s no evidence nor are there viable probability models to refute the hypothesis.

That said, there’s also no evidence that we do live in a simulation.  Despite all the arguments and logic, there are no facts leading to this conclusion.  It’s all pure conjecture, opinions and personal beliefs.  The focus on all the material presented on this website is using scientific facts and evidence to prove the existence of God.  In the absence of any such facts or evidence, belief in a computer simulation theory sounds more like mythology or religion than good science.

The other simple way to refute, and thus discard, the computer simulation theory is ask, “Who created the universe, physics, chemistry, laws of nature, finely tuned cosmological constants, and life itself to support the existence of the computer programmer who/that created the initial simulation?”  An intelligence is required to create such a simulation.  Either that intelligence created the simulation at some finite time in its own finely tuned universe or the simulation has always existed and was thus created by an intelligence outside the universe.  For the first case, all the fine-tuning arguments presented here for the existence of God apply – the simulation and its intelligent creator did not arise by chance.  For the latter case, an all-powerful, all-knowing entity operating outside the bounds of the universe sure sounds like our definition of God!

One more time: where are the facts or evidence that point to why we should believe the creation myth surrounding the computer simulation hypothesis?  Is it possible people are drawn to this concept simply because it sounds like a cool science fiction movie?

Other Attempts To Refute Fine Tuning

Sean Carroll

Lastly, here are two additional sets of arguments that attempt to refute the fine tuning facts and evidence for the existence of God.  The first is from noted Caltech theoretical physicist and author, Sean Carroll.  The other is from noted atheist orator and author, Richard Dawkins.

This 8:45 video of Sean Carroll moves very fast and includes many arguments.

Conclusions from the the video

Here’s Sean Carroll’s own summary, pulled from his very in-depth blog post on the debate partially represented in the video:

  1. We don’t really know that the universe is tuned specifically for life, since we don’t know the conditions under which life is possible
  2. Fine-tuning for life would only potentially be relevant if we already accepted naturalism; God could create life under arbitrary physical conditions
  3. Apparent fine-tunings may be explained by dynamical mechanisms or improved notions of probability
  4. The multiverse is a perfectly viable naturalistic explanation
  5. If God had finely-tuned the universe for life, it would look very different indeed

Refuting Dr. Carroll’s Arguments

The most important thing to recognize is that, despite their apparent breadth and speed, most of Carroll’s arguments are based on opinion – especially about God.  Opinion about how God should act, what God should create, how God should create, how God’s universe should exist according to Carroll’s expectations, etc.  As if God should answer to Carroll.  As if Carroll understands every aspect of the universe and life and thus can judge God as wrong, inefficient, unjust, etc.  Carroll’s hubris is considerable but, again, mostly just his opinions.

Carroll does attempt to refute a few facts here and there but those arguments are trivial when compared to the hundreds of finely tuned elements in the universe cited in the God Created The Universe material here.

Finally, Carroll calls out the “simple explanation” for a finely tuned universe – the multiverse conjecture.  As we have seen above, this is easily refuted as bad science.

Here’s another, more complete refutation of Sean Carroll’s arguments: “Debunking The Debunker: How Sean Carroll Gets The Fine-Tuning Argument Wrong” from Uncommon Descent.

Richard Dawkins is perhaps the most outspoken atheist – or at least one of the most well-known – so understanding his perspective on fine tuning is essential.

Conclusions from the video

  • Dawkins discusses each of the possible fine tuning explanations cited above
  • He hones in on the multiverse explanation as his favorite but without much of a fact-based justification
  • He also notes that his favorite overall explanation for the existence of the universe – outside of the fine tuning discussion – is that it just is.  No explanation, no justification, no facts, no evidence, no science.  The universe is just because it is.
  • Note Dawkins frequently expresses his own opinions without much justification other than to describe arguments as “satisfying”, “elegant”, etc.

Richard Dawkins

Refuting Dawkins

  • Since Dawkins doesn’t introduce any new arguments for the existence of a finely tuned universe, no additional refuting arguments are needed
  • Dawkins’ arguments can be set aside since they are based solely on his own preferences, opinions and beliefs, not facts and evidence

Conclusion

We know, from the material cited in the God Created The Universe articles, that there are a few dozen mathematical formulas used to describe how the universe works and we know those formulas include constants that are finely tuned to an inconceivable level of precision.  We also know that there are hundreds of other finely tuned factors corresponding to our place in the universe and how the earth is formed and functions around us. The mathematical improbabilities of all these things coming together into one finely tuned universe clearly prove that it’s impossible for such a universe to be created by mere chance.  The only viable explanation for the existence of such a universe designed to support life on earth is God acting as an all-powerful designer who can operate outside the bounds of our universe.

Here are the other alternate explanations for our finely tuned universe:

  • The universe must be this way
    • Debunked: there’s nothing in the universe forcing any of the finely tuned formulas or factors to be what they are
  • Random chance; we’re just that lucky
    • Debunked: From all the facts and evidence presented in God Create The Universe material we know this is impossible. The mathematical probabilities and likelihood of all those factors coming together by chance to support life is zero
  • Miscellaneous opinions
    • Debunked: random opinions and beliefs lack facts and evidence to back them up.  Those opinions and beliefs are of no consequence here: we are focused solely on facts and evidence
  • Multiverse theory
    • Debunked: There’s no evidence that multiverses exist with different values for the cosmological constants – it’s pure speculation based on no facts
    • There’s no evidence nor facts supporting the multiverse theory in general
    • The multiverse theory, if it exists, requires a significant amount of fine tuning itself
  • Computer simulation
    • Debunked: there’s no evidence that we live in a simulation
      • There are no facts leading to this conclusion – it’s all pure conjecture, opinions and personal beliefs
    • Who created the universe, physics, chemistry, laws of nature, finely tuned cosmological constants, and life itself to support the existence of the computer programmer who/that created the initial simulation?
      • An all-powerful, all-knowing God operating outside the bounds of the universe is the only viable explanation

Arguments from two noteworthy atheists, Sean Carroll and Richard Dawkins, are included.  Conclusions from those arguments are:

  • Sean Carroll presents little new evidence and no new scientific explanations for fine tuning
    • He prefers the multiverse theory debunked above
    • He expresses many of his own opinions for how God “should have” designed the universe
      • Carroll displays great hubris by putting himself in a position to judge God as wrong, inefficient, unjust, etc.
    • Carroll does attempt to refute a few facts about fine tuning but those arguments are trivial when compared to the hundreds of finely tuned elements in the universe
  • Richard Dawkins doesn’t introduce any new explanations for the existence of a finely tuned universe
    • Dawkins’ arguments are based solely on his own preferences, opinions and beliefs, not facts and evidence

The key take-away here is that all alternate explanations for the existence of our finely tuned universe are easily debunked.  The only viable explanation for the existence of a finely tuned universe designed to support life on earth is God acting as an all-powerful designer operating outside the bounds of our universe.

That's The End Of God Created The Universe. Check Out The Final Summary

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *