God vs. The Multiverse (based on Stephen Meyer's book Return of the God Hypothesis)

This post is a modified version (shorter, to fit the word limit here) of my blog post : God vs. the Multiverse

Let me know what you think about Meyer's book, about the multiverse, and about fine-tuning as evidence for God.



Explanation of this blog post series:

Back in April, I received my copy of Stephen Meyer’s new book: Return of the God Hypothesis, Three Scientific Discoveries that Reveal the Mind Behind the Universe. In his book, Meyer provides powerful scientific evidence for the existence of God. I highly recommend the book. In this blog post I attempt to summarize some of the material in his book.


Extreme Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Life as Evidence for God

(This section of the blog post is based on chapter 7 and chapter 8 of Meyer’s book)

Our physical universe is governed by laws of physics . These laws of physics include constants. As far as scientists can understand, these constants could have had different values.

In addition to physical constants, scientists believe that there was a set of initial conditions at the beginning of the universe. These initial conditions have to do with things like how much matter and energy was in the universe and how this matter and energy was distributed throughout space.

Beginning around the 1950’s, scientists began to discover something amazing and unexpected. Many of these physical constants must have very precise values, the exact values they actually do have, or our universe would not be capable of supporting life like us. Also, the initial conditions in the universe had to be very precisely (super, amazingly precisely) right in order to produce a universe that would allow life to exist.

This situation, where the constants of physics and initial conditions of the universe are just right to permit life, is called “fine tuning.” If you don’t believe in God, then it appears that we got really, really lucky.



One of the first scientists to discover fine-tuning was astrophysicist Fred Hoyle (pp. 130-135). Hoyle was trying to figure out where all the carbon in the universe came from. Hoyle realized that only if carbon had a very specific higher energy state might fusion in stars be able to produce it in significant quantities. He predicted that carbon must have such a state and his prediction was later confirmed. Later, after more and more fine-tuning discoveries were made, Hoyle stated:

A common-sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question. (pg. 139)​

No one thinks that we could have gotten lucky enough to get all the fine-tuning factors right in our universe so that it can support life. That much luck is unbelievable. Fine tuning suggests that there is Someone Who existed before the universe and Who established the laws of physics and initial conditions to achieve a goal: to create a life-friendly universe where we can live. This should lead to worship.

Tragically, there are other scientists who are committed to a materialistic worldview, where matter and energy is all there is. Do these scientists not know about fine-tuning? They do, but they believe that something other than God can explain the fine tuning of the universe. The most popular alternative to God is the multiverse.

How the multiverse is used to explain fine-tuning

(Most of the rest of this blog post is based on chapter 16 of Meyer’s book)

Imagine if instead of someone buying one lottery ticket and winning the lottery, they bought a trillion tickets, each with a different number, and won. We would no longer consider that luck. Some scientists say that the multiverse can work the same way to explain fine tuning. In order for the multiverse to work this way:

1. There must be an incredibly huge number of separate universes (way more than a trillion trillion trillion) and

2. These universes must have different values for the physical constants and different initial conditions for the amount and distribution of matter

In such a multiverse, the vast majority of them would be lifeless and totally incapable of supporting life. But every now and then, just by chance, we would expect there to be a “goldilocks universe” like ours where all the numbers are just right to allow life to exist in it.

Four of the reasons Meyers thinks that the multiverse is not as good an explanation for fine tuning as God is

#1. The principle of Ockham’s razor states that “when attempting to explain phenomena we should, as much as possible, avoid ‘multiplying (theoretical) entities’” (pg. 335).

The God hypothesis requires just one explanatory entity that we cannot see – God. The multiverse requires a vast number of unseen (and unseeable!) universes plus universe generating mechanisms.

Or you could believe in God.

#2 We should prefer explanations that match “what we already know about the causal powers of various kinds of entities” (pg. 338)

We already know that intelligent beings can finely tune things. It makes sense that an intelligent Creator could fine tune the universe for life. We have no experience with non-intelligent entities like inflation fields or vibrating strings being able to fine tune things.

#3 The multiverse cannot explain fine tuning because the various mechanisms proposed for causing the multiverse themselves would require a huge amount of fine tuning (pp 339-343)

In my opinion, this argument is very strong. If the multiverse itself requires fine tuning to produce life permitting universes, then we still have strong evidence for God.

Meyers gives a lot of details about the fine tuning required for a multiverse to work.

#4 The cosmological models (inflationary cosmology and the string landscape) that multiverse generating mechanisms are based on might not even be correct

Please don’t think that Meyer (or myself) thinks it is actually likely that there really is a multiverse. We don’t. Not only that, but the theories that underlie commonly proposed multiverse generating mechanisms are far, far from widely accepted, well established, proven theories. Meyer provides examples of specific issues with these theories.


Why do some physicists promote the multiverse so vigorously if it has so little evidence to support it and it is such a poor explanation for fine tuning?

Meyer briefly addresses the question of why some scientists continue to promote the multiverse as an explanation for fine tuning. He provides quotes that indicate that part of the motivation may be a desire to avoid acknowledging that fine tuning points to God. Here is a quote that Meyer shares:

“Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs . . . in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism . . . moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Retired Harvard evolutionary biologist Richard Lewontin.​

Concluding Thoughts

Here is my best effort to summarize the arguments in this blog post, which in turn summarize several chapters of Meyer’s book:

The fine tuning of the laws of physics and the initial conditions of our universe provides stunningly strong evidence for God, and the main scientific counterargument, namely the multiverse, utterly fails to provide a better explanation.

With regard to Meyer’s excellent book, Return of the God Hypothesis, I hope that this blog post will (1) serve as a helpful summary of some of the material for those who are unlikely to read the book and (2) motivate others to read the book.

Related blog posts for further reading:

Michael Behe has also given strong scientific evidence for God in a series of three books. I summarize the arguments of those three books here:

Behe’sThree Mighty Blows Against Darwinism

I’ve written posts about how the following show evidence of design and give glory to God:

The Sun

The Earth

The smallest cells

Cells in general

Viruses

 

I think that you, I, and Meyer all agree that the multiverse fails as an explanation for fine turning and that God is the correct explanation. But I'm not sure what your main point is in your comment or who you are arguing against?