God vs The Multiverse

Click here for God vs The Multiverse: a rational argument for the Existence of One God who intelligently designed one universe.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

God vs The Multiverse (Part 27: Summary of Stage Three)

Since this is the final post of the proof, we are going to quickly summarize the first two stages of the proof and present a more elaborate summary of the third stage.

In Stage One, we established that the constants of nature and the initial conditions of the big bang were fine tuned for the purpose of producing an ordered universe, with a hierarchy of complex structures on all orders of magnitude.  This is based upon the fact (that is accepted by almost every physicist and cosmologist) that if the constants or initial conditions were significantly different from their known values, our entire universe would be an unstructured, chaotic soup of elementary particles instead of the interesting complex universe that we exist in.

In Post 17, we showed that although the fine tuning naturally points to an Intelligent Designer, there are three, and only three, possible alternative explanations for this fact.  Throughout Stage One we explained why almost all scientists reject two of the alternatives: the Master Mathematical Equation, and the possibility that the constants and initial conditions are themselves Necessary Existences.  The remaining alternative explanation for the fine tuning was random chance with infinite tries (the multiverse).

In Stage Two, we exposed major problems with the multiverse, and undermined the 'supports' of multiverse theory.  Even though multiverse theory is embraced by most scientists (rather than an Intelligent Designer), it is a fundamentally flawed theory that upon deeper investigation, fails as an explanation.  We summarized most of these difficulties and failed supports in Post 17.

It remained for us to show how it was possible to formulate the explanation of an Intelligent Designer, in a way that did not suffer from the critical flaws that scientists lodge against God.  We want to stress again that we are not simply accepting an Intelligent Designer as the explanation for the fine tuning because it is the only viable possibility remaining.  Rather, in addition to being the only possible explanation left, the fine tuning in Stage One directly points to Intelligence as its natural explanation.

We began Stage Three by presenting (in Post 18) the God of Abraham, which we formulated as One Simple Necessary Existence.  We showed how this ancient concept of God is free from the many questions that atheistic scientists raise against God, and is the proper explanation for the fine tuning.

Specifically, in Post 19, we answered:
  • 1) Who caused God?  
  • 2) If God has no cause, then why does He even exist?

In Post 20we answered:
  • 3) Who designed the complex intelligent designer?
  • 4) Why is God this way rather than some other way?
  • 5) How do you know there aren't two or more Gods?

In Post 21we answered:
  • 6) What does the word 'God' even mean?  It merely signifies an empty mysterious Being, which does not explain how order, complexity, and fine tuning come from this Being!
  • 7) How could the God of Abraham (One Simple Necessary Existence) possibly be the Intelligent Designer of the universe?  Doesn't saying that God is Intelligent, necessarily imply complexity in His Absolutely Simple Essence?

In Post 22, we explained how the God of Abraham is an intellectually satisfying idea, even though it does not cater to a person's primitive desires for gods that he can identify with.  However, for an emotionally mature person, the God of Abraham is an emotionally satisfying idea.

The main idea throughout Stage Three was to differentiate between God's Essence and His actions.   The separation between the Absolutely Simple Existence and the universe He created, is the critical philosophical concept from which everything else follows.

God's Essence is Absolutely Simple, and therefore, intrinsically does not lend itself to being understood in terms of anything simpler.  The idea of a fundamental principle is something integral to modern science, as well as any system that follows from first principles.  By definition, something fundamental can not be understood in terms of something simpler.  We illustrated this key point with analogies from the fundamental particles and the fundamental interactions of modern physics (in Post 18 and 21).

The only possible knowledge about the Essence of One Absolutely Simple Necessary Existence is negative knowledge.  This means that we can know that He is not two; His Essence has no complexity; there is no other cause for His Existence; He Exists in Reality, and is not a figment of the imagination.

However, we can have positive knowledge about God's complex actions.  We developed this idea in the second part of Stage Three.  We can study the laws of nature and the universe that results from those laws, and see God's infinite intelligence manifest throughout His creations.  We can see the infinite power of the God of the Universe, when we realize that He created everything from absolute nothing.

We observe that the King of the Universe's actions result in order and stability, and we therefore say He acts harmoniously and justly.  As humans are also a small part of the design, this recognition obligates us to act in line with our design and purpose.  This does not mean that the laws of nature exists solely for the purpose of making human beings.  On the contrary, the true anthropic principle that a person should believe is that a human being is just a small part of the vast cosmic design for the universe as a whole.  Nevertheless, we are a part of the whole, and as such, we should act accordingly.

Throughout the proof, we have emphasized that we as human beings have the freedom to ascertain what we believe to be true and real. This can not be denied without skeptically denying the truth-discerning ability of the mind itself.  We have the internal perception that we are free to choose to live according to the dictates of our minds, and we are also free to reject our minds and live according to our emotions and desires. This proof, as well as any other proof of anything, rests upon this assumption.

One final point.  We are not missionaries, and we have no desire to intellectually or emotionally bully anyone into believing something they do not truly accept.  The question of God vs the multiverse, is something that you can not rely upon authorities to decide for you.  You can only rely on your own mind and choose freely for yourself.  We hope that this proof has helped to give you the knowledge that is a prerequisite for an informed free choice.


  1. We would like to thank all our readers for participating in these posts. We know that the proof as a whole was longer than many of you expected (about 3 and a half months, and 28 posts), and we appreciate how many of you hung around for the entire time. Your comments and questions greatly enhanced the comprehensibility of the arguments, as well as forcing us to clarify and refine our points. Very often we modified the posts in response to the excellent discussions that ensued in the comments section.

    We are certain that future readers will benefit greatly from not only reading the posts themselves, but from looking through your extensive comments. Our one request is that you try to leave any future comments on the post that most appropriately relates to your specific question or comment, in order to most benefit those who follow you. For general questions on any of the three main stages, please use the summary posts at the end of each stage (post 6, 17, and 27). You can use this post for general thoughts about the proof as a whole.

  2. What do we do with this? - Zev

  3. There are three basic reasons why this "discovery" doesn't invalidate our main line of reasoning.

    1) The article is speculating that the cause of the bright spots is a collision with another universe. Perhaps there is a less exotic reason for explaining the pattern in the CMBR. To count as evidence for another universe it must be compelling that that is the correct explanation.

    2) Even if we grant that it is evidence for another universe, it does not indicate the existence of a near infinite number of universes which is necessary to explain incredibly precise fine tuning.

    3) Even if we grant that it is evidence for an infinite number of other universes, it in no way shows that these other universe have different laws and constants of nature that ours. In fact, the simple conclusion to draw would be that the laws and constants of the other universes are the same as ours since they can causally interact with our universe.

    This is a critical step to undermine our line of reasoning for design. Without showing the laws and constants vary, the most this could be is evidence for many ordered worlds, which we have already shown (that while it is a fascinating issue in its own right) is irrelevant to the argument of design from the fine tuning of the constants and initial conditions.

    1. If the claim holds up, doesn't the article claim that the particulars might show that the constants of the other universe are different? And if drastically different would indicate, that if not an infinite multiverse, at least one with wide variation?

    2. The article claims that it's possible the other universe has a greater ratio of baryons (ordinary matter) to photons (light particles) than our universe. This ratio is a key number in big bang nucleosynthesis (BBN) which determines the ratio of light elements left over after the big bang. As of now, it is not understood what determined the initial baryon abundance in the early universe.

      Many models of BBN assume that the ratio is approximately constant throughout the universe (based upon the cosmological principle that the universe is homogeneous). However, there are problems with this assumption as certain observations, like the abundance of lithium-7, which are not consistent with the observed baryon ration. There are therefore non-standard big bang nucleosynthesis models which attempt to correct for this discrepancy.

      In short, the baryon ratio itself is not a fundamental constant of nature like the mass of an electron or the fine structure constant. The baryon ratio could vary without the laws of nature varying (and it is for that reason we didn't base our argument on a number like the baryon ratio).

      It's much more akin to the initial conditions of the universe. You can think of the baryon ratio like a ratio of two ingredients in the primordial universe. Having different ratio values wouldn't mean different laws and constants of nature, but rather different starting conditions for each universe.

      That being said, there is an important point that we made a mistake about in the above comment. If scientists could show there really are an infinite number of other universes, we would have every reason to believe that each universe has different initial conditions, and that would solve the problem of the low entropy of the big bang. However, it would not do anything to indicate that the fundamental laws and constants of nature themselves vary, which is essential to undermining the argument from the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants and laws of nature.


In the words of Agur bin-Yakeh: "We welcome all comments, questions, contributions, and critiques - but if you insist on posting anonymously, PLEASE use a pseudonym rather than posting as "Anonymous," since this makes it much easier to carry on a normal discussion. Thank you!"