March 19th 2009, 05:10 AM #1
"Fine tuning of the Universe is evidence for God" - Is that a god of the gaps argument? (show of 14 March 09)
Listen to it at www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable or via the podcast feed.
Christian Nicholas Beale and Atheist Julian Baggini had a great debate.
I don't understand those who believe the Multiverse hypothesis is a more satisfactory explanation than an omipotent creative intelligence. The Multiverse hypothesis is untestable and unprovable. On that basis God is just as adequate an explanation if not more so, when we factor in other agruments for belief in God..
I have more respect for Julian's agnosticism which says "we don't know" why the universe is fine tuned.
Nonetheless, I don't believe we stop doing science if we say "the best explanation for x is a cosmic designer". We use inference to the best explanation all the time, without thereby saying this "Is 100 percent proved" nothing is ever like that in science. However, to my mind, given the evidence we have, a cosmic designer is a very natural and plausible inference to the best explanation.
It seems to me the only real reason people would prefer an alternative to this is that they have a presuppostion that rules out God from being a viable explanation.Listen to Christians and non-Christians debate on my Radio show at http://www.premier.org.uk/unbelievable
March 19th 2009, 09:28 AM #2
Re: "Fine tuning of the Universe is evidence for God" - Is that a god of the gaps argument? (show of 14 March 09)
Another explanation is mentioned in Wikipedia. Perceived fine-tuning is an artifact of our egotism. It would be more fitting to argue that we are adapted to the universe rather than that the universe is adapted to us.
According to the article about 25% of combinations of natural constant values will result in a universe with stars. Life in some of these universes would be possible based on different biochemistry or even different principles.
This makes the odds against intelligent life in the universe more manageable.
The multiverse hypothesis is not proven today but it may be at a later date. It has even been cited as the only explanation of quantum computing.
March 19th 2009, 11:13 AM #3
By wattsr1 in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 3Last Post: September 16th 2007, 06:55 PM
By wattsr1 in forum Natural Science 301Replies: 10Last Post: April 30th 2007, 03:43 PM
By stevencarrwork in forum Apologetics 301Replies: 8Last Post: August 21st 2005, 05:59 AM