# 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:** 2\ **Page:** 7
**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 15, 2008, 3:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/121 "2008-11-15T03:08:10Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > By what standard is God stranger? It is true that God is a spirit being not subject to the physical laws that the physical world operates under. Pretty much those, as well as composition and state of existence. You’ve been disagreeing with the idea that there could be odd forms of life in universes quite different to our own, but at least those possible beings are proposed to have physical substance to them. It’s been suggested that proposed beings might exist under very different physical laws in a very different universe, yet you believe in beings that are entirely unaffected by physicality. I’d certainly say that God and spirits are considerably stranger ideas. > [@](#): > > However, people all over the world and all throughout history have had interactions with spirit beings. Hence the existence of spirit beings is not a far-fetched hypothesis. Regardless of whether you agree with it, it is a hypothesis that follows in a natural and straightforward way from the experiences, studies, and traditions of humankind. Nonsense. A couple of centuries ago, you could have said the same about slavery being a-ok. People have thought the Earth was flat, so regardless as to whether you agree, it is a natural and straightfoward hypothesis. Up until this last century there wasn’t much in the way of experiences, studies, or traditions of evolution. Or, perhaps, we might not assume that the experiences of humans are the be-all and end-all that is required for a hypothesis to be reasonable. Besides, I have experiences with physical beings all the time. Our experiences, studies, and traditions to do with physical beings are considerably larger and more certain than those we have of spiritual beings. I’m sure that even you would agree that that history of believing in experiences of spiritual beings is far from putting together a whole picture of whatever the spiritual situation is like; ergo, it is reasonable to assume physical beings could exist elsewhere, even with a certain amount of unknowns. > [@](#): > > By contrast, the existence of an infinite number of parallel universes does not follow from anything in human experience. And the existence of complex, intelligent life forms in universes with different sets of physical laws does not follow from anything in human experience. And the existence of a single, finely-tuned universe does not follow from anything in human experiences, or, probably more importantly, in _universal_ experience. I see you’re now raising the bar to “complex, intelligent life forms” in other universes, a really rather impressive step from someone who claims dodging as a sign of weak arguments at the drop of a hat; but i’m afraid we do have that experience, in that we exist. We have experience that life can exist, and in many different forms, and in many different environments. It is as natural an assumption that it could under other circumstances as it is that spiritual beings exist in a realm we know nothing of nor in a form only the mad claim is truly understood; even more so, since we have rather more concrete evidence that _we_ exist. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [November 15, 2008, 3:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100/122 "2008-11-15T03:09:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why does the universe need a lot more fine-tuning? Why should the fact that only a small portion of the universe is habitable mean argue against an intelligence making it habitable? Because you said that _the universe_ was fine tuned for our existence, not the planet. > [@](#): > > Only a small portion of my house is habitable for fish, but does this mean that I’m hostile to fish? On the contrary, if you observed that there is a small portion of my house consisting of water inside a glass tank, with an oxygen pump and a pH meter, where food is provided daily and the tank is cleaned weekly, you’d probably conclude that an intelligent being had set that portion up specifically for fish. And you’d be correct. Yeah, but it’d be pretty silly to suggest that the entire house had been built just for that fish, wouldn’t it? > [@](#): > > And in the case of God creating the universe, we know that God’s powers of creation are infinite. We don’t actually know that, thanks. You believing that is quite a bit different from us knowing it. > [@](#): > > Hence there would be no question of God wasting effort on creating zillions of star systems that do not house intelligent life. That would not, in any way, affect the fact that he created a place where intelligent life can exist. If you’re starting with the premise that God exists, yes. But if you’re attempting to use the existence of the universe, and our existence within it, as proof that he exists, I think its fair game to question why there’s so much universe, and so little us. If every planet was teeming with life, that would be some evidence that the universe was designed specifically to give rise to life. The fact that life appears to be relegated to one insignificant corner of it rather argues that life is an accident, not a goal. > [@](#): > > Or perhaps what you’re upset about is that humanity can’t easily colonize the rest of the universe. I’m not really upset about anything. I’m amused by some stunningly poor logic and argumentation, but I’m not angry about it. > [@](#): > > But God does not desire that we do that. He never endorses growth for the sake of growth. He wants us to focus on helping each other, not on building high-tech toys and blasting off for other solar systems. Really? As I recall, the Bible makes a bit of noise about being fruitful and multiplying, and spreading the word of God as far as possible. Seems to me that God would want to encourage us to get out there an evangelize some Alpha Centurians. But then, I’m not religious myself, so maybe I’m misunderstanding that part. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/multiple-universes-dont-refute-intelligent-design/472100.md?page=6)