# To those who believe in cosmic intelligent design, how would a random universe differ from our own? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 17, 2011, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862 "2011-10-17T00:40:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 9:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/21 "2011-10-17T09:59:35Z")
Paul Davies addresses this question in _The Goldilocks Enigma (why is the universe just right for life?)_. To give one example of the fortuity of our universe, the reaction 3 He-4 --\> Be-8 + He-4 --\> C-12 is essential to build the higher elements used by life, yet stars would not have a long lifespan if this reaction proceeded quickly. In fact, Be-8 has a half-life of only a few billionths of a picosecond: long enough that carbon is created eventually, but short enough that stars shine with relative uniformity for billions of years. I don’t think anyone can yet explain the half-life of Be-8; it’s presumably an artifact of the precise, but unexplained, physical constants. With different constants, might different elements with different properties take up the task and lead to the critical balance between stability and variety needed for complexity? Maybe; maybe not. But if the physical constants in our Goldilocks universe do happen to have special lottery-winning values, that doesn’t imply a special creator. Perhaps the “Creator” resorted to pure “brute force,” trying infinities of universes with all combinations of parameters. Only the random parameters fortuitous enough to lead to complexity will develop life-forms smart enough to think “How fortuitous our parameters are!” ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 10:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/22 "2011-10-17T10:29:10Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > is essential to build the higher elements used by life Used by carbon-based life. Who’s to say carbon is the only building block life could build itself on ? Isn’t it possible than in another universe with other constants and laws of physics, there would still be life albeit playing by different rules so to speak ? ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 10:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/23 "2011-10-17T10:50:00Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Used by carbon-based life. Who’s to say carbon is the only building block life could build itself on ? Isn’t it possible than in another universe with other constants and laws of physics, there would still be life albeit playing by different rules so to speak ? Asked and answered already: > [@septimus](#): > > With different constants, might different elements with different properties take up the task and lead to the critical balance between stability and variety needed for complexity? Maybe; maybe not. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 2:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/24 "2011-10-17T14:14:43Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > 1. I just have a really hard time accepting that the universe came to be this jaw-droppingly complex randomly. > > I’ve heard a similar sentiment expressed by believers in some sort of cosmic power before. I keep up with creationists quite a bit, and I pick up on this particular thought process frequently. To some people, _complexity_ impllies _design_. My impression is that these people just haven’t been exposed to science, to observing how the real world works. To me, complexity is a mess - it’s the result of a bunch of stuff that just happens. The hallmark of design is typically simplicity. If you listen to creationists, you’ll always hear something like “this particular feature of the lesser spotted weasel-frog is _amazingly_ complex - and evolutionists say that it just happened!” Well, yeah - complexity is exactly what you should expect from a rube goldberg process like evolution! ---
**Author:** ![John\_DiFool](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_difool/32/19543_2.png) [@John\_DiFool](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_DiFool)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/25 "2011-10-17T14:15:00Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I think the more interesting question is, what would an intelligently designed universe look like? > > As is, we may be the only intelligent life in the universe. If there is other life, we’re likely to be so distant from one another as to make the point irrelevant. > > Why create a universe that is 99.999999% vacuum, and where the prospects for anything interesting – like sentient beings – are unlikely to form on any majority of astral bodies? Once may be enough. We don’t know if this is the best of all possible worlds in the sense that you are using; it may be that ensuring the existence thriving life everywhere may be precluded by numerous other factors. A crumb of bread is priceless to a starving man. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 2:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/26 "2011-10-17T14:52:44Z")
In a completely random universe (as opposed to this one which I believe might have been created by\*\* Skald the Rhymer\*\*), the game of golf has only 17 holes. I don’t think there would be any other difference. ---
**Author:** ![shiftless](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9c0ed/32.png) [@shiftless](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shiftless)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 3:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/27 "2011-10-17T15:09:12Z")
The universe is only jaw-droppingly complex to me because I am not smart enough to understand it. I may be stupid but I can’t see how my ignorance is any kind of evidence that a God exists. However simple or complex the universe is, its origin is unrelated to my ability to understand it. ---
**Author:** ![Blaster\_Master](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/cab0a1/32.png) [@Blaster\_Master](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blaster_Master)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/28 "2011-10-17T15:10:28Z")
I think this is a very interesting question, and one I think about a lot, but there’s a few major issues with perspective that I think lead to a lot of answers that don’t really make a whole lot of sense. For one, as was pointed out up thread, what exactly does random mean? I might imagine it means that if we could create a list of every possible physical constant and created a universe for every possible combination, then our universe is just one of a likely infinite number of other possibilities, with likely many other universes not all to different from ours also containing life. But sort of randomness begs the question of no intelligent design so, of course, any deductions from that will favor that assumption. Similarly, if we suppose that only a single universe exists with these precise values of those constants, then it has the opposite affect and tends toward making the universe appear to be intelligently designed. Second, we really don’t know a whole lot about how all of these physical constants interact, nor do we understand a large number of other aspects of what makes our universe tick. It may in fact be that only a very narrow band of these constants is actually consistent in anyway with anything existing, not just with various matter and energy distributions. Third, and perhaps most importantly, using any current knowledge or observations as evidence against design are flat out ridiculous. For instance, imagine we were to visit Earth some billions of years in the past and observe the earlist microbes. Without knowledge of how it would develop, we’d probably see most people argue that the life is extremely primitive and the probability of it developing into anything resembling us would be so vanishingly small as to be irrelevant, and they’d be accurate in those chances but ultimately wrong. And so to argue the same about a relatively young universe, the scarcity of life, and the seemingly under-developing technology and all that is to lose perspective on the true vastness of time and space of the universe. In a random universe, over such vast time scales, we’d probably expect life to randomly appear and reach various states of development countless times over the lifetime of the universe. In a designed universe, we might expect life to form and continue to grow and spread, but in either case, we have no meaningful way from our current vantage point to make any sort of judgments about either of those possibilities or other sort of combinations. It’s like listening to a piece of music and attempting to determine if it was intelligently composed or just a series of random notes, but basing that judgment off of the first brief moments rather than off of any amount of substance of the piece as a whole. In short, I don’t think there’s any meaningful way to differentiate a designed vs. undesigned universe because it requires such a large number of unverifiable assumptions and unobservable observations that I don’t think we can explore those possibilities meaningfully in that way. In fact, even as a theist myself, I think there’s likely no difference and that that is wholely consistent with both possibilities. Obviously, if it is random, then anything that is possible has some probability of occuring. And of a designed universe, any being intelligent and powerful enough to create it could and would so from initial state and, thus, any of his interactions with the universe would be natural. As such, these questions make the most sense, I think, explored in a realm other than science. ---
**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:** [October 17, 2011, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/29 "2011-10-17T15:14:07Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > What? Your whole point is that if conditions are right for life, then it’s strongly hinted that it’s not a coincidence. Why would you suggest that we should feel special, but that the hypothetical space jellyfish may or not may? > > Well, again, “life as we know it” is fairly biased. You’re right that the universe could be too radically different and just a big glob of hydrogen. But there are a lot of other states that could result in some sort of life - not necesarily life as we know it - and they would interpret the universe as being custom designed for them. > > The life fits the circumstances, rather than vice versa. Giraffes couldn’t reasonably say “huh, all these tall trees around here… earth must’ve been custom designed for me!”, as it was the conditions that led to the evolution of giraffes. > > You’re essentially saying there are extreme changes in physics in which it seems unlikely any sort of life could form, therefore universes in which life could form seem to be special and custom-designed. But that ignores that there could be billions of universe configurations that could support life one way or another, and any intelligent life in any of those billion universes could say that it must’ve been custom designed for them. The argument that cosmic intelligent design advocates make does, in fact, address this line of thinking. They do not argue solely that it’s very unlikely that a randomly created universe would permit human life, but rather that it’s very unlikely that a randomly created universe would permit any life at all. As Paul Davies has said: A careful study suggests that the laws of the universe are remarkably felicitous for the emergence of richness and variety. In the case of living organisms, their existence seems to depend on a number of fortuitous coincidences that some scientists and philosophers have hailed as nothing short of astonishing. Anyone who’s followed the debate long enough has seen many examples, such as the one **septimus** already mentioned about the formation of carbon in stars being dependent on physical constants being precisely as they are. That, however, can be countered by pointing out that a universe with totally different constants might permit some other element to play the same role that carbon does. The larger point, which doesn’t get mentioned as often, is that _any imaginable universe_ capable of supporting life has to have certain things. For example, it has to have matter. Without something to make life from, there can’t be life. It has to have the possibility of motion. If matter existed but couldn’t move, there wouldn’t be life. There must be some way for particles of matter to interact with each other. Without interaction between matter, there can’t be life. The laws that govern interaction between matter have to be systematic. If the laws changed all the time, there wouldn’t be life. And these things we can confidently say would be true for any life form. If the universe didn’t have matter, or didn’t permit motion, or matter didn’t interact with other matter, or the laws were not consistent, there would be no humans, no space jellyfish, no talking puddles, none of anything. Yet we can easily imagine universes without matter, or without motion, or without physical laws, and so forth. Such imaginary universes would certainly be much simpler than the universe we live in. Thus, if there were some non-intelligent system that produced a universe with random properties, a universe with no matter or with no physical laws or countless other non-life-bearing universes would seem vastly more likely than a universe like the one we have. > [@](#): > > If you mean that it seems that the universe is custom designed for humans to exist, you’re getting the cause and effect wrong. We came to be because we’re suitable for the universe that exists, otherwise we wouldn’t be here. If some fundamental aspect of chemistry was different that prevented self-replicating life, then we wouldn’t be here to ponder it. Or if the physics were such that a species came to be as some sort of intelligent jellyfish blobs floating through space, those jellyfish would assume the universe was custom designed for them too. That line of argument seems to me more a matter of philosophical preference than anything that can be approached factually. I start with a fact: here we are, with a universe that permits us to exist. Hence it’s worth investigating why that fact is true, in defiance of the seemingly long odds against it. Saying ‘we have to be here or else we wouldn’t be here to ask why we’re here’ doesn’t address the question in my view or the view of many others. (In fact, even Richard Dawkins in _The God Delusion_ says he doesn’t find this satisfactory.) ---
**Author:** ![smiling\_bandit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e9a140/32.png) [@smiling\_bandit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/smiling_bandit)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/30 "2011-10-17T15:26:02Z")
> [@Sage\_Rat](#): > > I think the more interesting question is, what would an intelligently designed universe look like? > > Why create a universe that is 99.999999% vacuum, and where the prospects for anything interesting – like sentient beings – are unlikely to form on any majority of astral bodies? You are looking at the question from your personal biases, though. Who is to say the universe is very large, or has a lot fo empty space. To a truly objective being, seeing all that goes on, the universe might be a vast and busy thing, filled with constant flowing energy. Even the “vaccuum” is actually pulsing force on its own. And even past that, is the universe large or small? The concept of size is a comparitive one. To us, it appears large. But to something else, whjy would it appear so? To a creature very different from man, the entire cosmos might appear quite cozy and snug. Now, to answer the OP directly: I do not. Without some form of special creation, I do not believe there would be any universe, or anything at all. Even the very concept of nothing could never come into being. No random universe at all. Edit: You could still have a universe created by randomization with some earlier special creaiton, but this only pushes it back farther. And while that wouldn’t neccessarily have to come from God per se, if it doesn’t it would be something even more unfathomable. ---
**Author:** ![LonesomePolecat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a88e57/32.png) [@LonesomePolecat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LonesomePolecat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 3:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/31 "2011-10-17T15:28:25Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > The other possibility is that there are multiple universes and that in all of the ones where physics are too wonky for life, there is none - and all the ones that are suitable for some sort of intelligent life all have species thinking everything was designed for them. I fail to see how this is any less metaphysically extravagant than intelligent design. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/32 "2011-10-17T18:35:30Z")
Tbh I think you’re on to a loser here, given how often cosmologists are given to invoking the anthropic principle to explain observations that are a little too perfect, it seems that the macrostate of the universe doesn’t really look very random. That’s not to say that the anthropic principle is _wrong_, just that this probably isn’t the best argument against an intelligent designer. ---
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/33 "2011-10-17T18:43:00Z")
How would anyone know the answer to the question in the OP? ---
**Author:** ![Mosier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ea924/32.png) [@Mosier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mosier)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/34 "2011-10-17T19:31:27Z")
> [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](#): > > How would anyone know the answer to the question in the OP? That’s kind of the point. If a random universe is indistinguishable from a created universe, “look at how ordered the universe is” is a pretty weak argument for creationists to hang their hat on. ---
**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/35 "2011-10-17T19:33:13Z")
> [@Mosier](#): > > That’s kind of the point. If a random universe is indistinguishable from a created universe, “look at how ordered the universe is” is a pretty weak argument for creationists to hang their hat on. But they have a book with the answer in it. ---
**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/36 "2011-10-17T20:11:42Z")
> [@These are my own pants](#): > > That’s not to say that the anthropic principle is _wrong_, just that this probably isn’t the best argument against an intelligent designer. The anthropic principle is not intended to be an argument against an intelligent designer. It’s an argument against “the fact that we’re here implies an intelligent designer.” It just shows that any coincidence of natural law, no matter how seemingly unlikely, says nothing at all about the question. Admittedly, some atheists try to use it as proof of the non-existence of god, but all they are doing is making the same leap of faith based on it, that some theists do when arguing that the seeming unlikelyness of our presence proves the existence of god. ---
**Author:** ![Asympotically\_fat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e47c2d/32.png) [@Asympotically\_fat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asympotically_fat)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/37 "2011-10-17T20:38:59Z")
> [@Cheshire\_Human](#): > > The anthropic principle is not intended to be an argument against an intelligent designer. It’s an argument against “the fact that we’re here implies an intelligent designer.” It just shows that any coincidence of natural law, no matter how seemingly unlikely, says nothing at all about the question. > > Admittedly, some atheists try to use it as proof of the non-existence of god, but all they are doing is making the same leap of faith based on it, that some theists do when arguing that the seeming unlikelyness of our presence proves the existence of god. I can see why you’ve read my post that way, but I never meant to imply it was. By “this” I mean that the universe is too random to be plausibly created by an intelligent designer. Let’s take the flatness problem in cosmology, I’m not sure the anthropic principle is necessarily a great solution to this problem (okay whislt a plausible life supporting universe might need to be quite flat, does it really need to be _that_ flat?). Of course most prefer cosmic inflation to solve that problem, with the advantage of that it solves other problems in cosmology too, but on the other hand it can have it’s own fine tuning problem and in many ways is quite ad hoc. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/38 "2011-10-17T20:42:05Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **ITR champion** : > The larger point, which doesn’t get mentioned as often, is that any imaginable universe capable of supporting life has to have certain things. For example, it has to have matter. Without something to make life from, there can’t be life. It has to have the possibility of motion. If matter existed but couldn’t move, there wouldn’t be life. There must be some way for particles of matter to interact with each other. Without interaction between matter, there can’t be life. I can envision an intelligent entity composed entirely of gravitational fields, with no matter at all. Heck, I can even envision it composed of purely classical fields, with no need for quantum mechanics, or for the field to in any way be composed of particles. For that matter, I could also envision such an entity existing in our own Universe, and being completely oblivious to us and all we’re made of. Such an entity would necessarily think on much longer timescales than we do, but what’s time to a field entity? ---
**Author:** ![Alonzo\_John\_Blitz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/85e7bf/32.png) [@Alonzo\_John\_Blitz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alonzo_John_Blitz)\ **Post date:** [October 17, 2011, 9:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/39 "2011-10-17T21:27:42Z")
CHRONOS: …but what’s time to a field entity? Indeed. Pizza delivered within an aeon or it’s free? ---
**Author:** ![fumster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@fumster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fumster)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2011, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862/40 "2011-10-18T06:07:14Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > But surely there are sets of physical laws which would not lead to anything resembling intelligent life. How does one properly weigh one set of physical laws against another? Hawkins talks about this in his latest book. His contention is that all possible universes that could exist, did exist. In some of these the physical laws ended up causing that universe to implode, in others it caused the universe to expand without forming stars and planets, and in others we get what we have now. It makes my head hurt, but it makes a certain sense. There is no one in the universes without life to wonder why their universe was designed so that life did not appear. In every universe _with_ intelligent life they wonder why it was designed so perfectly for them. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/to-those-who-believe-in-cosmic-intelligent-design-how-would-a-random-universe-differ-from-our-own/599862.md?page=3)