- Oct 2, 2011
- 6,061
- 2,229
- Country
- Canada
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
Dr Francis Collins said:
Option 1 pertains to the concept of the multiverse. Option 2 describes God as the intelligent designer of the current universe.
Let proposition P1 = We observe a universe compatible with our existence.
Collins and supporters of Option 2 are surprised that P1 is true.
Why should anyone be surprised at all to find P1 to be true? By definition, if we had not existed, we wouldn't have been observing this universe. It is unnecessary to affirm or deny multiverse for P1 to be true.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary to find a scientific theory to justify P1 ("barring a theoretical resolution"). P1 is true by definition. Logically, we do not need to search for a natural mechanism to support the fine-tuning of the universe in order to justify P1.
Dr. Collins’ framing of the issue as a dichotomy between the multiverse and God reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of P1 and the role of the anthropic principle. Neither the multiverse nor divine design is necessary to explain why we observe a universe compatible with our existence. The weak anthropic principle provides a sufficient explanation: we observe this universe because it supports life, and we could not observe otherwise.
If the gravitational constant changes slightly, life as we know it wouldn't exist.
Right.
Now, imagine that this universe, as we know it, had not existed. In its place, a universe with a slightly different gravitational constant exists, and life thrives in that universe. The intelligent life of that new universe will assert the same statement: If the gravitational constant is changed slightly, life as they know it wouldn't exist.
Note that I have not appealed to multiverse. I only appeal to P1.
That's a false dichotomy.
Option 1 pertains to the concept of the multiverse. Option 2 describes God as the intelligent designer of the current universe.
Let proposition P1 = We observe a universe compatible with our existence.
Collins and supporters of Option 2 are surprised that P1 is true.
Why should anyone be surprised at all to find P1 to be true? By definition, if we had not existed, we wouldn't have been observing this universe. It is unnecessary to affirm or deny multiverse for P1 to be true.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary to find a scientific theory to justify P1 ("barring a theoretical resolution"). P1 is true by definition. Logically, we do not need to search for a natural mechanism to support the fine-tuning of the universe in order to justify P1.
Dr. Collins’ framing of the issue as a dichotomy between the multiverse and God reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of P1 and the role of the anthropic principle. Neither the multiverse nor divine design is necessary to explain why we observe a universe compatible with our existence. The weak anthropic principle provides a sufficient explanation: we observe this universe because it supports life, and we could not observe otherwise.
If the gravitational constant changes slightly, life as we know it wouldn't exist.
Right.
Now, imagine that this universe, as we know it, had not existed. In its place, a universe with a slightly different gravitational constant exists, and life thrives in that universe. The intelligent life of that new universe will assert the same statement: If the gravitational constant is changed slightly, life as they know it wouldn't exist.
Note that I have not appealed to multiverse. I only appeal to P1.
