Manny’s answer to “I've read many of your book reviews about science, metaphysics, and the multiverse so I'm just wond…” > Likes and Comments

But isn't it the case that if there's no evidence to suggest something like it, the assumption is there's nothing?

I mean, we only think things exist if we have a suggestion or hint of the existence of something actually existing.

There's no suggestion that tooth fairies exist, so our standard assumption is they don't. Russell's teapot is a fine example of this line of thinking.

Absolutely. But the apparent fine-tuning does in fact give you a reason to think that something odd might be going on here that's hard to explain. If children's teeth kept vanishing from under pillows and money appeared in exchange, and careful investigation ruled out the parents as suspects, I would certainly entertain the hypothesis that tooth fairies could be responsible. There's a case to answer.

Why does the fine-tuning of nature's constants need an explanation, though?

I could easily argue that this is an illusion - an overactive psychological (human) disposition to see causal mechanisms everywhere.

There's absolutely no reason why causal mechanisms -
which we observe here on earth - apply to the universe as a whole. Maybe it's just the way it is, period.

I admit that this is (intellectually) an unsatisfying answer, but truth doesn't care about our feelings...

That's one possible response. But many well-informed scientists think it's insufficient.

I'm just saying there's a case here. It's not random speculation about interplanetary teapots. Of course, having a case doesn't mean you'll convince the jury.

But the original question involved the existence of God...

My point is, we don't need a creator for this universe to exist (the way it is)- this is 'merely' projecting new theories (i.e. God) backwards in time (i.e. 13.72 billion years ago). If the old testament were never written, there would be no God-hypothesis.

We only assume the universe has a beginning/is created because this is an extrapolation from daily observations to the entire universe. I haven't seen any convincing argument to support this extrapolation, though.

So how is this insufficient? The best we can say about the existence of the universe is that it's there the way we observe it to be. This doesn't (logically) equal saying there's a creator.

And even if there would be a case for a 'creation' (i.e. fine-tuning), in light of our current background knowledge of physics, the multiverse theory is the more likely theory, compared to a conscious, yet immaterial God.

Can you please recommend me some works of these scientists who claim the "no fine-tuning assumption" is insufficient?

Well, if a conscious agency did in fact create the universe, I'll call it God for want of a better term.

Obviously the various kinds of multiverse theory have considerable plausibility. But they aren't a slam-dunk, and some reputable people are unhappy about accepting them.

If you want to read up on this stuff, A Fortunate Universe is responsibly written and up to date.

Thanks, I will add it to my reading list! Looking forward to reading it. :)

Bertrand Russell, was not only a philosopher but had some fame in matters mathematical. By my lights, this makes him a shade more respectable that less polymathic philosophers.

His flash of insight regards the "ontological argument" is somewhat famous.

Stolen from:

https://theimaginativeconservative.or...


Bertrand Russell, as a young philosopher, experienced the same enthusiastic, although brief, acceptance of the ontological argument. In his essay “My Mental Development,” Russell recorded his epiphany: “I remember the precise moment, one day in 1894, as I was walking along Trinity Lane, when I saw in a flash (or I thought I saw) that the ontological argument is valid. I had gone out to buy a tin of tobacco; on my way back, I suddenly threw it up in the air, and exclaimed as I caught it: ‘Great Scott, the ontological argument is sound.’ ”