# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/41 "2008-11-11T11:28:30Z")
I’ve always thought of the Anthropic Principle as the ‘Puddle Theory’. The puddle in the road thinks, ‘my, how wonderful it is that this pothole was formed in exactly the right shape to hold me.’ As far as God and the Multiverse, as I understand it, God must exist _outside_ the Universe, so how can he exist in some universes but not others? ---
**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, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/42 "2008-11-11T12:52:32Z")
> [@Hawkins](#): > > **MrDibble** , your post is brilliant and I wish I wrote it.[…] > > A tip of the hat to you, sir. :o ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/43 "2008-11-11T16:04:07Z")
> [@Hawkins](#): > > You followed the three C’s of effective communication. > > 1. You were Concise. > > 2. You were Correct. > > 3. And you were Correct. The 5 d’s: Dodge, duck, dip, dive and dodge! (you may wonder about the relevance but to me it’s obvious: the repetition in both phrases indicates a clear bug or flaw in the underflying framework of the universe. I think this is exactly the type of evidence that can be used to prove or disprove a creator). ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/44 "2008-11-11T18:24:12Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Citing just one example, the mass ratio of the proton to the electron has to be almost exactly 1836. And 1836 was the year Charles Darwin returned from his voyage on the _Beagle_. That cannot be coincidental, can it? I didn’t think so. (The Texans out there could probably think of one or two earth-shattering events in 1836) ---
**Author:** ![hotflungwok](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/edb3f5/32.png) [@hotflungwok](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hotflungwok)\ **Post date:** [November 11, 2008, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/45 "2008-11-11T20:11:33Z")
Everything has already been pretty much covered. I do have to say that it still baffles me when people trot out old and long defeated arguments and go ‘Ta-da!’. It’s quite wearing to have to repeat the same counter arguments over and over knowing that they’re being ignored or misunderstood or misinterpreted. ---
**Author:** ![jackdavinci](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackdavinci/32/3259_2.png) [@jackdavinci](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jackdavinci)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/46 "2008-11-12T02:14:10Z")
While some of your complaints about other people’s theories may or may not be legit, your own theory suffers from two problems: > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Our universe is fine-tuned to allow the existence of ourselves. That is to say, there are many things that have to be just as they are, and we wouldn’t exist otherwise. While technically true, that’s not as significant as it seems. If the universe were ‘tuned’ differently, it’s entirely possible that some _other_ form of sentient being would exist. That we are a possible lifeform for our universe is arbitrary. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > A ‘mother universe’ with the capability to produce child universes still needs fine-tuning to produce a universe fit for life. That’s just patently false. Especially under the infinite universe theory. If you have a machine producing every number, it’s nothing special for a particular number to show up eventually. On top of which, the range of numbers considered winning numbers is probably much larger than you are imagining. Even assuming there was no evidence at all whatsoever of multiple universes, so what? There’s definitely no evidence that there is only one universe. And it doesn’t make logical or conceptual sense for the multiverse to be so arbitrarily limited as to have only one finite and time limited universe. So while multiple universes don’t refute intelligent design, yes they do refute the _need_ for intelligent design. Not that a single universe needs one either mind you. ---
**Author:** ![Rand\_Rover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/db5fbb/32.png) [@Rand\_Rover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rand_Rover)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 3:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/47 "2008-11-12T03:26:47Z")
So, ITR Champion, are you throwing in the towel or what? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/48 "2008-11-12T19:16:58Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > All the evidence found shows that our existence is limited to an insignificant area in the universe and we only showed up in a very small time frame. > > If there is a god like the bible mentions; we are, based on all evidence, an afterthought. This argument fails both on Biblical terms and on logical ones. The Bible does not say that God views the human race as an afterthought, but rather says clearly that God cares a great deal about the human race. If you don’t believe me, read the Gospel of John, for starters. In logical terms, relative size and duration of something does not define its significance. The microchip inside the computer that I’m typing on is extremely small and has only existed for a very short time, yet it is perhaps the most significant object in the room. > [@](#): > > In the meantime, it has to be noticed that in the very short historical and prehistorical human records available, multiple religions have appeared, so multiple universes remain a problem for the religious. If all were Deistic in nature I would continue to give them some thought, as it is, many religions like the ID proponents are insisting that god is continuously intervening, they are not realizing that this idea is contradictory to the idea that the universe was designed for life from the beginning (if we accept for a moment the presence of an intelligent designer). > > For if the universe was set for life a very good designer would not need to intervene later, a later intervention implies a bad designer or one that is not very capable. That makes no sense to me, only a deistic god would be possible here. A god that did set everything in motion with blind designers that eventually got some things right. Once again, this fails the test of basic logic. In many human enterprises, it is necessary to establish appropriate circumstances when starting, and to make changes through the duration of the enterprise. For example, a painter carefully makes a canvas that is just right for the painting he wishes to paint, but even after the that, he still needs to apply the paint. This does not mean that the painter can’t exist. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/49 "2008-11-12T19:27:10Z")
> [@Rand\_Rover](#): > > I thought the idea of TMU was to refute the necessity of a creator, not to refute the existence of a creator. The necessity of a creator is refuted by the possibility of many universes; for this purpose, there’s no need to demonstrate the actuality of many universes. I’m not sure I parse this. Are you saying that as long as we can devise an “idea” W for how X can happen without Y, we need to investigate the question of whether W is a _good_ idea, or even whether W exists at all? > [@](#): > > Also, to go on a slight tangent, if you belive the universe must have had a creator, what’s you basis for not believing that the creator must have had a creator? The ability to create itself is not necessary to the ability to create the universe (so a creator of the universe is not necessarily self-creating). We know that the universe had a beginning. It’s called the Big Bang. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Since the universe had a beginning, there must be some cause for its beginning. Nothing begins without a cause for its beginning. For the creator, there’s no evidence that the creator ever had a beginning. Hence there’s no reason why the creator must have had a creator. (In fact, Genesis 1:1 says, “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” This implies that said creation was the first event that ever happened in any cause-effect chain, so nothing ever caused anything before God created the universe. Hence, God had no creator, assuming that this verse is being interpreted correctly.) ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/50 "2008-11-12T19:40:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Since the universe had a beginning, there must be some cause for its beginning. Nothing begins without a cause for its beginning. No. We know that uncaused events happen all the time. There is no requirement that the big bang had a cause. > [@](#): > > For the creator, there’s no evidence that the creator ever had a beginning. Technically, I guess it’s true that we have no evidence for the creator’s beginning, _since we have no evidence for a creator_. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/51 "2008-11-12T20:27:41Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m not sure I parse this. Are you saying that as long as we can devise an “idea” W for how X can happen without Y, we need to investigate the question of whether W is a _good_ idea, or even whether W exists at all? That should, obviously say, “…we need _not_ investigate…” ---
**Author:** ![RaftPeople](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@RaftPeople](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RaftPeople)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/52 "2008-11-12T20:36:23Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > We know that the universe had a beginning. It’s called the Big Bang. The evidence for it is overwhelming. Since the universe had a beginning, there must be some cause for its beginning. Nothing begins without a cause for its beginning. We absolutely do not know the universe had a beginning. Furethermore, we absolutely do not know the big bang happened. It seems to fit the evidence, but it’s not a done deal. There are a number of theories, including a cyclical expansion and collapse. Finally, we don’t know if things happen without a cause. It sure seems like they must, but then what is the cause of the various quantum events that appear to be random? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/53 "2008-11-12T20:48:30Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > This argument fails both on Biblical terms and on logical ones. The Bible does not say that God views the human race as an afterthought, but rather says clearly that God cares a great deal about the human race. If you don’t believe me, read the Gospel of John, for starters. I did, not a convincing argument. > [@](#): > > In logical terms, relative size and duration of something does not define its significance. The microchip inside the computer that I’m typing on is extremely small and has only existed for a very short time, yet it is perhaps the most significant object in the room. Gee, where is all the talk about “Kings of creation” or “chosen people”? The fact is that the future microchips will make us dislike the current models. Time is not on your side as the gaps of the “god of the gaps” are shrinking as time goes. > [@](#): > > Once again, this fails the test of basic logic. In many human enterprises, it is necessary to establish appropriate circumstances when starting, and to make changes through the duration of the enterprise. For example, a painter carefully makes a canvas that is just right for the painting he wishes to paint, but even after the that, he still needs to apply the paint. This does not mean that the painter can’t exist. Monkeys an even cats can “paint”. And even on the human side plenty of practice is needed, on the few times I entertain the possibility of a deity, I have to conclude he/she/it is still practicing and many who are stuck with past “styles of painting” will not like what is coming. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/54 "2008-11-12T20:49:34Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The Earth is the only place in our solar system (as far as we can be sure right now) that is suitable for life to exist. You’ll note that in all those other places in our solar system, where it is not possible for life to exist, there are no people standing there bitterly complaining about how unsuitable are the local conditions for their existence. > > It is only possible to make the observation that the universe is suitable for our existence _in_ a universe where those conditions already exist. Look, this argument has been made ad nauseum, but it isn’t a respectable argument for reasons that many people have set forward. We are here, in this universe. We have eyes, ears, and other sense organs to study the universe. We have brains to think with and make conclusions. If we make a reasonable conclusion that the universe has many physical constants, each set exactly where they need to be for us to appear, then that demands an explanation. Simply saying that it had to be that way because we wouldn’t be here asking the question otherwise is not an adequate explanation. As best we can tell, we’re in the only universe. As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Your argument is a philosophical dodge, a refusal to tackle the question. Consider this. Suppose one guy buys a single lottery ticket in every state with a lottery, and happens to win them all. A panel of experts is convened to explain why this happened. Ten days later, the experts come back and declare, “We would only have been convened to discuss this question in a universe where conditions were suitable for that guy winning all the lotteries.” Satisfactory? Of course not. One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. The first, if it ever happened, would demand a meaningful explanation. The second, which happened, also does. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/55 "2008-11-12T20:51:27Z")
So to sum up. You are trying to refute one unprovable half baked hypothesis with another unprovable half baked hypothesis? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/56 "2008-11-12T20:57:20Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. Your argument is a philosophical dodge, a refusal to tackle the question. As others pointed, this question is being tackled. > [@](#): > > Consider this. Suppose one guy buys a single lottery ticket in every state with a lottery, and happens to win them all. A panel of experts is convened to explain why this happened. Ten days later, the experts come back and declare, “We would only have been convened to discuss this question in a universe where conditions were suitable for that guy winning all the lotteries.” Satisfactory? Of course not. 😕 It is highly unlikely, however AFAIK the current universe does NOT forbid this from taking place. > [@](#): > > One guy winning all the lotteries flies against everything we know about probability. So does one universe winning all the necessary physical constants. The first, if it ever happened, would demand a meaningful explanation. The second, which happened, also does. And there are explanations for that that do not require god, that remains a fact. As much as you do not like it. ---
**Author:** ![Terrifel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/c68b51/32.png) [@Terrifel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terrifel)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/57 "2008-11-12T21:12:25Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > For the creator, there’s no evidence that the creator ever had a beginning. Hence there’s no reason why the creator must have had a creator. You yourself argued otherwise in the OP, when you claimed that our universe is suspiciously fine-tuned for life and intelligence to exist. Supposedly any significant deviation from these conditions would make intelligent life impossible. So how does this creator exist outside our universe? In what way is its existence any different from these other hypothetical multiple universes? If the creator exists and has intelligence, then by your own line of argument, conditions must have been fine-tuned for that intelligence to exist. Therefore the creator must have also had a creator. If it is necessary to invoke intelligent design for our existence, then it is necessary to invoke intelligent design for the creator’s existence as well. On the other hand, if an intelligent creator can exist without its environment having been intelligently designed, then the same goes for intelligent life in our universe. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 9:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/58 "2008-11-12T21:15:09Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So to sum up. You are trying to refute one unprovable half baked hypothesis with another unprovable half baked hypothesis? Yes, that pretty much sums it up. Has nobody around here done any reading about Hinduism or Buddhism? There’s more than two possible solutions here, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/59 "2008-11-12T21:17:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > We are here, in this universe. We have eyes, ears, and other sense organs to study the universe. We have brains to think with and make conclusions. If we make a reasonable conclusion that the universe has many physical constants, each set exactly where they need to be for us to appear, then that demands an explanation. Simply saying that it had to be that way because we wouldn’t be here asking the question otherwise is not an adequate explanation. As best we can tell, we’re in the only universe. As best we can tell, the universe is fine-tuned for our existence. That is not “the best we can tell”. The best we can tell is that there’s no reason to assume we are the desired result, so the universe had the conditions specially tailored for us in advance. We have “eyes, ears, and other sense organs to study the universe” because Natural Selection has selected certain mutations over others because they were best suited for the environment. The best we can tell is the opposite of what you assert- we are fine tuned for the available universe. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [November 12, 2008, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/60 "2008-11-12T22:13:06Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > So to sum up. You are trying to refute one unprovable half baked hypothesis with another unprovable half baked hypothesis? Hey, it’s an improvement. At least in this thread he isn’t accusing Darwin of being a pedophile or whatever. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=4)