by jimwalton » Wed May 13, 2020 3:28 pm
> The analogy seems to fail to account for the idea of multiple universes.
Except that multiverses is fanciful speculation without a stitch of scientific evidence. How can that carry weight? Even the possibility (and we dare not say probability or plausibility) of other universes has no bearing on the fact that our universe, our particular universe, has so many characteristics of being fine-tuned (10 aces).
And suppose there are many universes. That has the implication, then, that the probability that our universe is fine-tuned for life, perhaps even as miniscule as the multiverse theory itself. It makes sense that if there is a living God, He would want there to be life (and even intelligent, personal life) somewhere in his creation. So why is there life in our particular universe? The wild speculation of other universes has no effect on the fact that we have drawn 10 aces.
> One can imagine all sorts of explanations that explain our universe without resorting to a divine being,
Yes, one can always imagine. But our quest is to infer the most reasonable explanation.
> Multiverses seem a better explanation for our universe existing than a creator does, with the same amount of supposition.
Actually it does not have the same amount of supposition. There are logical and scientific evidences for a timeless causal mechanism, an intelligent source to our intelligence, a personal source to our personality, and a purposeful source for the purpose we see. Those are not just wild suppositions, but logical sequences. The multiverse theory, however, is an empty bag—pure speculation without a shred of evidence.
> But any combination is as likely as any other.
If we're playing poker, and each time I deal I get 4 aces and 1 wild card, you'd get mighty suspicious. But I can logically assuage your fears by claiming "Any combination is as likely as any other." Once you'd think it was dumb luck. Twice you'd suspect me of cheating. The third time you'd come after me, and you know it. "Any combination is as likely as any other" doesn't cut it.
> why does the rarity of life in the universe point to fine tuning of the universe for life specifically?
We can't just take life for granted. It's vibrant on this planet, but to our knowledge, nowhere else. Even in a universe fine-tuned for life, life is a rare gem in a vast expanse. Is the most reasonable answer, "We're just lucky because he we are!"? My perspective is "no." To me the evidence points clearly in the direction of an intelligent, personal, purposeful source. I can tell you don't, and that's OK. We each analyze the data and evidence and draw conclusions. But what you can't do is say that my conclusion has no basis. It has just as much basis (and even far more, but my research) than the position taken by scientific naturalists.
> from the evidence that the universe was created by some intelligence to specifically the Judeo-Christian God
I don't recall saying anything about the Judeo-Christian God, though I'd have to reread the posts. I'm not aware that I've made any assertion to that particular end. All I've sought to establish is the scientific and logical conclusion of a creator.
> This also seems to have a large anthropocentric bias, since we are assuming we are what God wants specifically, intelligent, social, self-aware beings.
This sequence is a rational sequitur of life as we know it: propagation of more with similar characteristics to us. And if we add personality and intelligence to the mix, even more so. In addition, science tells us that information data (DNA) comes from previous informational data. So many things in the cosmos "reproduce," so to speak, after their kind. Consciousness yields consciousness. (Science can't yet sufficiently explain how consciousness arose out of non-consciousness.) Intelligence comes from previous intelligence. It's not a stretch, nor is it biased, to presume that a living, personal, moral, purposeful, intelligent God wouldn't desire to create something (someone) that was living, personal, moral, purposeful, and intelligent.
> Without resorting to Christianity specifically, why does God want animals capable of relationships?
For reality to exist, there have to be subject/object relationships (rather than a monadic unity). Some kind of universal singularity would allow for no diversity, knowledge, or personality. Therefore, since there is diversity and not monadic singularity, and since there is personality and not a void of non-personality as ultimate reality, then subject/object relationships are not endemic to the cosmos, but also ontologically necessary. And since they are ontologically necessary, it's no surprise that if there IS a God, He would want animals capable of relationships.
> but that's a product of our evolutionary history, our less intelligent evolutionary cousins (who are still fairly intelligent by mammalian standards, granted) are also social animals capable of relationships so it doesn't seem it's specifically human intelligence that produced our sociality.
This is one possible explanation, but I think theism gives a more complete and more satisfying explanation.
> We've been speaking of God in the singular, implying monotheism, why should an intelligence that exists alone (barring having three separate natures that are none-the-less part of the same thing and of the same metaphorical substance according to most Christians) want companionship?
Now we're getting to more Christian thought. If God is not Trinitarian, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible for a lack of subject/object relationships, as previously explained. If God is monadic rather than trinitarian, then a unified singularity is the structure of reality, and there can be no such thing as diversity and no such thing as personality. Joe Boot says, "In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. This is why the Trinity is so important in tackling the philosophical problem of the one and the many." Without such an understanding and reality, then nature itself is no possible.