Quote from ShoeshineBoy:
This is simply not true. Again, this is why they are searching for multiple universes so desperately.
Here's the real situation:
1. This universe came out perfectly tuned for life.
2. Quantum-based materialist solutions have not panned out as feasible.
3. This leaves materialist scientists with only one hope at this time: the idea that there are a vast number of universe and ours just happens to be the one with parameters/constants/coefficients tuned for life.
But #3 would not even be necessary if #1 were not true. Nobody would even be worried about #3 otherwise.
Okay...
The implication of #1 requires the premise of a designer. This is true, because if there are no other universes, then there is no way to compute the probability that the universe might have turned out differently. This is true, because in order to compute a probabiity, you need an ensemble, i.e., sufficient number of independent trials of universal development with which to calculate a probability of a cosmological constant of 10^-120.
As a further demonstration of why #1 is incorrect is to consider some other place in our existing universe as it compares to our own planet. We view our Earth as incredibly special because it has an atmosphere and life, etc. But, why is it any more special than say, the center of the Sun, or the surface of Triton?
The answer is: because it's where we are located to type about it. Our fascination with the "specialness" of this place is entirely anthropic. Objectively, every point in the universe is unique -- we just choose to view our place as the most special.
Concerning #2, quantum solutions predict that the vacuum energy of the universe should be wildly greater than it is. But, that could be because there is dark matter and/or energy or some other particle or physical property that we have yet to include in the calculus.
By attributing this lack of information to God, you make the same assumption as has every human since the beginning of time: wherever nature is unknown, God is there to fill in the gap. This is just religion, not science.
Concerning #3, string theory is not the only theory that explains the cosmological constant. Only last week, physicist Garrett Lisi published "An Extraordinarily Simple Theory of Everything." It quite literally ties the entire known universe together with some very elegant mathematics, and without the introduction of God.
String theorists, naturally, are unimpressed -- however, a lot of classical physicists find Lisi's work inspired. The jury is still out, but the point is that to state unequivocally that the cosmological constant is proof of divine intervention is demonstrably false, as long as there is ANY other natural explanation available.
I submit that God would limit itself were it to permit proof of its existence. The ability to measure or fix God's existence renders God instantly natural and part of the universe.
Some say that God is one with the universe, so there's nothing unnatural about the creator's existence. Regardless, science cannot measure God, and without a measurement there is no availability for any conclusion re God, other than through faith.
Thus, the argument is always the same: one either believes, does not believe, or leaves the question open because of a lack of sufficient information.
The difference is that the believer no longer requires further information, so he/she terminates the search. The non-believer also requires no further information. Only the person who remains open continues to search for greater knowledge.
And, in the end, that's all there really is to keep life interesting.
