# Multiple universes don't refute intelligent design **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 10, 2008, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100 "2008-11-10T20:45:31Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/21 "2008-11-11T02:38:11Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > If infinite probabilities produce infinite universes than some of those universes would indeed conclusively refute intelligent design. How? I can see it providing an alternate explanation, but I don’t see how that would mean refutation. ---
**Author:** ![Discordia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b9e5f3/32.png) [@Discordia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Discordia)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/22 "2008-11-11T02:38:55Z")
Are you really a science teacher? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/23 "2008-11-11T02:42:49Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > How? I can see it providing an alternate explanation, but I don’t see how that would mean refutation. For an example, in a subset of those alternate universes, God shows up and denies having anything to do with designing biological features on organisms ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/24 "2008-11-11T02:46:07Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > For an example, in a subset of those alternate universes, God shows up and denies having anything to do with designing biological features on organisms But then surely intelligent design would only be refuted in _those_ universes? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 2:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/25 "2008-11-11T02:53:26Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > For an example, in a subset of those alternate universes, God shows up and denies having anything to do with designing biological features on organisms That assumes that God is possible, and real somewhere, **and** that there’s a reason to take his word for it, or for being a god at all. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/26 "2008-11-11T03:09:48Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > But then surely intelligent design would only be refuted in _those_ universes? What, that’s not enough for you? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/27 "2008-11-11T03:14:31Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > That assumes that God is possible, and real somewhere, **and** that there’s a reason to take his word for it, or for being a god at all. It’s a pretty safe assumption that God is possible in an alternate universe. Alternate Universes do not necessarily have to have the same constants or governing principles as ours. It’s not that tough, it just requires a little imagination. For example, in a universe where God evolved into God **after** he created the universe and set it into motion, it works just fine. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/28 "2008-11-11T03:20:52Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > What, that’s not enough for you? Well, it doesn’t really help \*us \*out much. By the same token, there would presumably be universes where God turns up and takes total credit. So it would be just as correct to say that those infinite universes would conclusively support intelligent design, too. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/29 "2008-11-11T03:31:58Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > It’s a pretty safe assumption that God is possible in an alternate universe. Not really; God as typically portrayed isn’t logically possible; and in many cases probably impossible within any plausible set of physical laws. > [@Scylla](#): > > Alternate Universes do not necessarily have to have the same constants or governing principles as ours. They certainly are limited by logic, which rules out many people’s version of God. And we don’t know the limits of possible of physical laws, but God as most people see him is sufficiently out there that it’s unlikely he can exist anywhere. That infinity of other universes could have a much less than infinite range of variation in physical laws as well. > [@Scylla](#): > > It’s not that tough, it just requires a little imagination. > > For example, in a universe where God evolved into God **after** he created the universe and set it into motion, it works just fine. Most people wouldn’t call that God. And that sort of “God” would be an “It” not a “He”, since there would be nothing for a “Him” to be male with. And that sort of “God” would still be quite limited. And it would also still beg the question of where God came from. God is sufficiently implausible that it’s unlikely he exists in any universe. ---
**Author:** ![1010011010](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ea666f/32.png) [@1010011010](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1010011010)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/30 "2008-11-11T03:34:29Z")
> [@Pochacco](#): > > How lucky were are to live in a universe with a creator who possessed both the power and motivation to bring about our existence! There are infinitely many possible creators, but we wound up with _exactly the right one_. Clearly such a thing couldn’t have happened by chance – the creator must have had an intelligent designer! I really enjoyed this and wish to declare my intention to steal it. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/31 "2008-11-11T03:42:46Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Well, it doesn’t really help \*us \*out much. By the same token, there would presumably be universes where God turns up and takes total credit. So it would be just as correct to say that those infinite universes would conclusively support intelligent design, too. Yes they would. Sorry it doesn’t satisfy you. I’ve done all the hard work. All you have to do is determine whether we inhabit a universe that refutes, supports, or one that is inconclusive concening ID. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 3:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/32 "2008-11-11T03:48:30Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Not really; God as typically portrayed isn’t logically possible; and in many cases probably impossible within any plausible set of physical laws. Fuck “plausible.” I don’t need that, just “possible.” Positing infinity, plausible is meaningless. > [@](#): > > They certainly are limited by logic, Only in that subset of universes wherein logic valid. > [@](#): > > Most people wouldn’t call that God. And that sort of “God” would be an “It” not a “He”, since there would be nothing for a “Him” to be male with. And that sort of “God” would still be quite limited. And it would also still beg the question of where God came from. Looks like a Scotsman fallacy, but I’ll play along for a little. > [@](#): > > God is sufficiently implausible that it’s unlikely he exists in any universe. So you say. Since you didn’t like my example of “God,” why don’t we test your hypothesis in your terms: You define “God,” and I’ll define a universe wherein “God” is consistent. Fair? ---
**Author:** ![Hawkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@Hawkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkins)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 4:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/33 "2008-11-11T04:14:16Z")
Simply put, the Creator hypotheses is not required whether there is one universe or an infinite number of them. Our universe could simply be a bounce from a previous universe. And if so, where does it end? Or rather, begin? Stephen Hawking’s proposal of the no boundary conditions carries some weight in certain circles. Maybe there was no beginning. Maybe the universe always existed. We don’t know if that’s true, but this idea shows that a creator is not required. And if multiple universes exist, I see no reason why this implies a creator. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 4:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/34 "2008-11-11T04:21:20Z")
> [@Hawkins](#): > > Simply put, the Creator hypotheses is not required whether there is one universe or an infinite number of them. Neither are carrots. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 4:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/35 "2008-11-11T04:28:53Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Fuck “plausible.” I don’t need that, just “possible.” Positing infinity, plausible is meaningless. Incorrect; an infinite number of universes doesn’t mean an infinite range of physical laws. > [@Scylla](#): > > Only in that subset of universes wherein logic valid. Meaning all of them. > [@Scylla](#): > > You define “God,” and I’ll define a universe wherein “God” is consistent. Fair? No, since I’m not the one claiming that god is possible in the first place. [QUOTE=Scylla] Neither are carrots. [/QUOTE] Carrots, however provably exist. And even if they didn’t, they violate no physical laws nor do they violate logic. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@Hawkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkins)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/36 "2008-11-11T05:23:19Z")
Hey, hold on a sec. \*\*Scylla \*\* might be right about the carrots. At least I hope he is. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/37 "2008-11-11T05:37:00Z")
Multiple universes don’t refute Intelligent Design, because Intelligent Design is unfalsifiable, unscientific, and therefore a colossal waste of everyone’s time. Multiple Universes also don’t refute the notion that human thought is actually the byproduct of tiny invisible newts or dwarves that fly around our heads invisibly and sing thoughts into our brains. I think that when you have a really bad headache, it’s actually a newt/dwarf fight. Those bastards are mean, I’ll bet. You can read about it in my Book of Tiny Amphibia, related to me by a burning shrubbery while I was on the way home from the bar one night. At least I think it was a burning shrubbery. Come to think of it, I might have been trying to make a large bong out of a garbage can and a garden hose. But still, you must believe in the holy newts, or my friends and I will hunt you down. Besides, it’s good for the children. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@Hawkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkins)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 5:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/38 "2008-11-11T05:45:21Z")
**Sam** , we’re having a serious discussion here. If you don’t want to touch on the carrot thing, fine. But don’t derail this thread with stupid, irrefutable logic. We take a dim view of that. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 8:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/39 "2008-11-11T08:12:37Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Our universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of ourselves. Prove it > [@](#): > > That is to say, there are many things that have to be just as they are, and we wouldn’t exist otherwise. This is not the same as what you said earlier. The first statement implies intent, whereas this statement could be true without causality. > [@](#): > > The most common, and common sense, response to this series of facts is to believe that the universe was created by an intelligent being who intended for intelligent life to live in the universe. “Common sense” proves nothing. “Common sense” tells you the Earth is flat, the sun really rises and sets, and heavier things fall faster than lighter things. This is just the _argument from incredulity_ fallacy rephrased. > [@](#): > > I find none of these arguments convincing. What would convince you? And why do you cherry-pick the arguments you are not convinced by, and ignore the Quantum argument others have mentioned? > [@](#): > > If our fine-tuned universe was birthed off of a multiverse, it raises the obvious question, “Who fine-tuned the multiverse?” You have yet to prove fine-tuning. I declare there is no such thing. Argument from incredulity combined with the anthropic tautology doesn’t a proof make. To quote the Uncyclopedia, it amounts to “I think, therefore I think I’m the best”. But this puts Descartes before the horse - the Universe isn’t fine-tuned to produce us. We are fine-tuned to fit the available Universe, which is not the same thing at all. ---
**Author:** ![Hawkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/278dde/32.png) [@Hawkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hawkins)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 8:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/40 "2008-11-11T08:49:54Z")
**MrDibble** , your post is brilliant and I wish I wrote it. You followed the three C’s of effective communication. 1. You were Concise. 2. You were Correct. 3. And you were Correct. A tip of the hat to you, sir. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=3)