Can God Fit Into a Many-Universe Hypothesis?

Play-doh

I am having trouble agreeing with the fine-tuning argument. It makes sense that the world is designed so perfectly for our living that it would seem as if there was a Creator that designed it for us, but at the same time, it would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. There would be many universes that could exist that could sustain human life.

I don't agree with the structure of the argument that instead of looking at the possibility of chance in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis, only the high improbability of the atheistic single-universe hypothesis is presented. But then again, saying that the fine-tuning data is not improbable under theism or atheistic many-universe hypothesis wouldn't make for a very interesting argument or attempt to argue anything. I just find the argument, in the way it is structured, as weak. We could be living in the one universe (or one of several universes) where the universe has come together to support human life.

Building off this thought, could God or a god exist in a many-universe hypothesis? Could one universe have Buddhism to be the major (and very real) religion, but in another universe, God exists to rule over that universe? Or—if there is a deity—if it exists in one universe, must it exist in all universes as well? But would that then take away from the idea of many universes in the truest sense of the idea—that there must be a universe where a god exists and another where it does not?

I find it possible that many different universes could exist and am, myself, a theist. I wonder, however, if it is possible to believe in such a structure of the universe (universes) and life.

I am truly curious and just want to hear what thoughts you all have.

Devans99

I would have one overarching God creating the multiverse. The multiverse and universes would all be fine tuned for life.

Atheists use the Strong Anthropic Principle and say that all the universes should be different with nearly all being non-life supporting. I would counter:

- We have a sample size of 1 saying ALL universes are life supporting. There is no good reason to belief otherwise
- All universes start in a similar state, go through similar phase transitions and end up at the same temperature and density so they should all come out as life supporting.

It's also clear, if we are in a multiverse, the the multiverse itself has been fine-tuned to create life supporting universes.

Relativist

↪Play-doh

It would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. There would be many universes that could exist that could sustain human life. "

We can live in a world that is a product of chance even if there is just the one universe. The fine tuning argument depends on the unstated premise that life is a design objective.

If there is no design objective then we are a product of chance. So what?

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Devans99

No good reason to believe otherwise? Only if you either lack the capacity to reason at all, or choose not to. (Choosing not to is both a respectable and viable option; it's called faith. But if it's a matter of faith, you really shouldn't be making unqualified categorical statements.) — tim wood

Your statistics is faulty; if 100% of sampled universes are life supporting, you would come to the conclusion that 99.999% of universes are not life supporting?

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Devans99

this universe does not support life to a degree far exceeding your 99.999% — tim wood

This universe is remarkable in its life sustaining abilities. Nearly all hypothetical universes one can construct in the mind consist just of particles bouncing off each other endlessly - no adhesion. The fact that the atom holds together at all in our universe is just remarkable; the strong and electromagnetic forces have to be just right for atoms to be stable. There are many other examples of fine tuning for life but this is the wrong thread for them.

Deleted User

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Michael Ossipoff

I am having trouble agreeing with the fine-tuning argument. It makes sense that the world is designed so perfectly for our living that it would seem as if there was a Creator that designed it for us, but at the same time, it would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. There would be many universes that could exist that could sustain human life. — Play-doh

Creation is an anthropmorphic notion. Theism needn't include a belief that God created this physical world. The Gnostics don't believe it, for example. Neither do I, though I'm a Theist. Theists feel that there's reason to believe that Reality is Benevolence, but the existence of the infinity of possible physical universes and hypothetical experience-stories needn't be regarded as part of that Benevolence....but rather as an inevitability, while, overall (even if not in every one of the infinity of experience-stories), things are good.

Things, overall, are pretty good. As good as they can be, given the infinity of hypothetical experience-stories in all sorts of hypothetical physical universes. In fact I suggest that things are very good, overall. ...in spite of the local not-so-good-ness in some of the hypothetical life-experience-stories.

Building off this thought, could God or a god exist in a many-universe hypothesis? Could one universe have Buddhism to be the major (and very real) religion, but in another universe, God exists to rule over that universe? Or—if there is a deity—if it exists in one universe, must it exist in all universes as well? But would that then take away from the idea of many universes in the truest sense of the idea—that there must be a universe where a god exists and another where it does not? — Play-doh

But don't all Theists agree that, when God is referred to, Reality itself is being referred to? ...Reality being benevolent...Benevolence itself?

All of Reality doesn't refer to some subset consisting of a particular possibility-world, a particular hypothetical physical universe such as ours.

Michael Ossipoff

Devans99

In fact I suggest that things are very good, overall. ...in spite of the local not-so-good-ness in some of the hypothetical life-experience-stories — Michael Ossipoff

And (as the Beetles sung) things are getting better all the time...

Rank Amateur

I see no philosophic difference at all between faith based theism and faith based belief in a multi-universe. Neither is in any way at all a matter of fact, and both have reasoned arguments for or against their possibility.

As an aside, as a skeptical theist - i think the argument from design fails. It fails because it is based on an assumption that we humans can say anything at all of value about the nature of God. It is just another anthropomorphic statement - that because all the pieces fit as we perceive and measure them - than God designed them - remarkably just as we would - if we could.

Relativist

↪Rank Amateur

"I see no philosophic difference at all between faith based theism and faith based belief in a multi-universe"
I agree. The fact that some atheists feel compelled to propose multiverse as a naturalist alternative to God shows they have fallen for some faulty logic. If the universe was not designed, then we exist by chance. The fact that there is a narrow range of values that are life permitting has no relevance if we're the product of chance. It only has relevance if you assume the universe was designed for life: it suggests God had to be careful in crafting those constants.

Michael Ossipoff

↪Devans99

And (as the Beetles sung) things are getting better all the time... — Devans99

Well, things were certainly getting better for the Beatles (...in spite of "The Tax Man").

...but not societally. But nothing can be done about that. I just meant that things are good overall, though not societally.

Michael Ossipoff

lupac

Building off this thought, could God or a god exist in a many-universe hypothesis? Could one universe have Buddhism to be the major (and very real) religion, but in another universe, God exists to rule over that universe? Or—if there is a deity—if it exists in one universe, must it exist in all universes as well? But would that then take away from the idea of many universes in the truest sense of the idea—that there must be a universe where a god exists and another where it does not? — Play-doh

Getting back to your main question, I don't think there could be. One reason being that many conceptions of God are contradictory. For example, if the Judeo-Christian God is the God in any universe, then they must be the God of all universes. If that were the case, then the Hindu gods could never exist in any universe UNLESS God, for whatever reason, decided to create a Pantheon of lesser gods. In any case, there would still be the one highest God.

I see where your thought process is going though; if there are an infinite number of universes, then there should be infinite possibilities. For example, there could be a universe where the two of us were both Batman, and we had to fight it out to see who gets to marry the Joker. So why wouldn't it be the same for the divine? Wouldn't there be different divine rules in different universes?

I think the major 'problem' of your reasoning is which comes first, the universe or the God? If the universe comes first and the universe produces a divine aspect of itself, then yeah, I think there could any combination of true religions depending on what universe you're in. But if you believe that God comes first and then creates the universe(s) then no, there can only be one (or many if you're into that) over all universes.

adhomienem

It makes sense that the world is designed so perfectly for our living that it would seem as if there was a Creator that designed it for us, but at the same time, it would still be possible in the atheistic many-universe hypothesis that we live in a world created by chance. — Play-doh

If you're granting that the appearance of fine-tuning in this world makes it possible that a Creator exists, then, and if you equate that Creator with the GCB, you're granting that a Creator exists for all possible worlds according to the modal ontological argument:

1. If it is possible that the GCB exists, then there is some possible world in which the GCB exists.
2. The GCB is a necessary being, by the fact that it is greater to necessarily exist than not.
3. If the GCB exists in some possible world, then, it necessarily exists in all possible worlds.
4. The GCB, then, exists in all possible worlds.

And that makes sense, given the definition of GCB: if it existed in only this world, and there were many universes, than those universes would be outside of its power. But as the maximally powerful being, nothing can be outside of its power.

So either you have to claim that the Creator of this world is not the GCB, or grant that the Creator exists in all possible worlds. But how would a Creator of this universe not be the Greatest Conceivable Being? The Creator would, at the very least, have to be the Greatest Conceivable Being of its universe, because it would be greater than everything conceived in that universe. But going back to the argument above, if it is the GCB in one world, it necessarily is the GCB in all possible worlds.

Relativist

If you're granting that the appearance of fine-tuning in this world makes it possible that a Creator exists, ... — adhomienem

You're conflating epistemic possiblity with metaphysical possibility. Your argument depends on this being true:

1. If it is metaphysically possible that the GCB exists, then there is some metaphysically possible world in which the GCB exists.

But we don't really know that it is metaphysically possible. If physicalism is true, then it is metaphysically impossible for a God to exist.

Can God Fit Into a Many-Universe Hypothesis?

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions