Scientific athiests, do you believe in multiple universes?

By scientific athiests I am referring to those that believe that science shows that there is no God.

The universe is finely tuned. This has been known by scientists for quite some time. The fine tuning of the universe is not easily explained away by chance, but requires either something which tunes it, or a large number of universes so that the chance becomes much more probable.

If you do not beleive in an large number of universes, how do you explain the minscule probability associated with a universe that can support life?

If you do believe in a large number of universes, is this not a belief that requires as much faith as any belief in God?

Update:

I knew I would get the god of gaps argument, but this argument if fundamentally flawed. Since we see complex organization from the smallest atom to the entire universe, there is no gap, and indeed it should be called the science of gaps, since it is only your philosophy that has so many gaps.

Update 2:

Thinker, Are you just trying to show that your name is a misnomer?

Answer the question are don't, but insults are not necessary and do not show the inquisitive mind that your name proclaims to have.

Update 3:

Reddas, I have studied and written a published paper on chaos theory. You are mistaken.

Update 4:

Creationist, in that I believe in a god, yes. Creationist in that I believe in 7 day creation or that creation should be taught in school, no.

Update 5:

Puredag,

That is a flawed argument. The tuner is not at all limited by the instrument. The tuner has the ability to create a new instrument, destroy the instrument they have, etc. Most anyone can tune my trumpet, but does my having a trumpet in any way limit you?

Update 6:

Acid,

You abuse logic. The universe appears to be finely-tuned. You only state that it isn't, and give infinitisimal explanation. By your logic, the Mona Lisa may indeed not have been painted by Da Vinci but has come about by some ants trailing over paint and then over the canva. This is indeed infinitisimally probable, and the Mona Lisa does indeed exist. Thus, in your mind you have proven your point. You have not.

Update 7:

Richter,

http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/

While this argument has been used in the past, it has never received a satisfactory explanation and is still known to be true among astrophysicists. I am certainly not stating that I am terribly original. but you still have yet to come up with a good counter to the argument of fine-tuning. The multiverse idea is the best I have heard, though entirely unscientific.

Update 8:

Drmultiverse,

How exactly does quantum mechanics give evidence of a multiverse? Do you have any sources, because I would love to read about this?

Update 9:

Mez,

if you truly don't know as you say, then you truly don't know if there is a god and you would be considered an agnostic, in which case I was not addressing the question to you.

Update 10:

Miss Information,

The evidence of a lack of a god? You can provide evidence of the nonpresence of something? I don't think so. You can say there is no evidence to suggest that there is a god, but the evidence of a lack of a god, you certainly do not have.

Update 11:

Further drmultiverse just disproved your other statement.

17 Answers

Relevance
  • Anonymous
    10 years ago
    Best answer

    Absolutely, I believe the only rational explaination for quantum mechanics is some form of the Many Worlds Interpretation. In Fact I believe quantum mechanics is strong evidence for a multiverse.

    Faith is belief without evidence, and since I interpret QM as strong evidence for a multiverse no faith is required.

    The region we observe IS strongly tuned for life however it is also clear to me that this is simply a selection effect.

    You asked for a source: A good book for lay people that explains some of the ideas is:

    Source(s): The fabric of reality: the science of parallel universes-- and its implications By David Deutsch
  • 10 years ago

    I think it's an idea that's fun to think about, but I don't put any weight into ideas that are unsupported by evidence and/or observation.

    As to the fine tuning argument, it should be noted that a supposed tuner is bound by natural laws. For example, it's been stated that if the strong force were any stronger or weaker, life would not be possible. That would indicate that a tuner would have no other option in setting these numbers in order to make this possible.

  • Actually, what I think is that its likely that there are billions of universes out there and the fact that this universe is so finely tuned for life is because out of all those billions of universes this is the only one we could exist in in the first place.

    However, since there are no evidence to support that hypothesis, I don't accept it as the truth, I just think its likely.

    What makes you think I have to make a choice either way? We don't know, and I'm contend not to know right now. We don't need to have an answer to every scientific mysteries out there, neither are we required to fill our gaps of knowledge with unprovable concepts, whether its the existence of multiverses or existence of a Creator.

  • Anonymous
    10 years ago

    No atheist will ever say that "science shows that there is no God" They will only say that the evidence for a lack of a god is stronger than the evidence that there is.

    Multiverse is a theory postulated by several scientists and it is still being developed so no one believes in it but some believe in the possibility of one.

  • What do you think of the answers? You can sign in to give your opinion on the answer.
  • 10 years ago

    "The universe is finely tuned. This has been known by scientists for quite some time."

    Actually, the concept of a fine-tuned universe is not widely accepted amongst scientists, and is considered by many to be a more academically-veiled "god of the gaps" argument.

  • 10 years ago

    na ca mat-sthāni bhūtāni

    paśya me yogam aiśvaram

    bhūta-bhṛn na ca bhūta-stho

    mamātmā bhūta-bhāvanaḥ

    And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

    The Lord says that everything is resting on Him (mat-sthāni sarva-bhūtāni). This should not be misunderstood. The Lord is not directly concerned with the maintenance and sustenance of this material manifestation. Sometimes we see a picture of Atlas holding the globe on his shoulders; he seems to be very tired, holding this great earthly planet. Such an image should not be entertained in connection with Kṛṣṇa's upholding this created universe. He says that although everything is resting on Him, He is aloof. The planetary systems are floating in space, and this space is the energy of the Supreme Lord. But He is different from space. He is differently situated. Therefore the Lord says, "Although they are situated on My inconceivable energy, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead I am aloof from them." This is the inconceivable opulence of the Lord.

    In the Nirukti Vedic dictionary it is said, yujyate 'nena durghaṭeṣu kāryeṣu: "The Supreme Lord is performing inconceivably wonderful pastimes, displaying His energy." His person is full of different potent energies, and His determination is itself actual fact. In this way the Personality of Godhead is to be understood. We may think of doing something, but there are so many impediments, and sometimes it is not possible to do as we like. But when Kṛṣṇa wants to do something, simply by His willing, everything is performed so perfectly that one cannot imagine how it is being done. The Lord explains this fact: although He is the maintainer and sustainer of the entire material manifestation, He does not touch this material manifestation. Simply by His supreme will, everything is created, everything is sustained, everything is maintained, and everything is annihilated. There is no difference between His mind and Himself (as there is a difference between ourselves and our present material mind) because He is absolute spirit. Simultaneously the Lord is present in everything; yet the common man cannot understand how He is also present personally. He is different from this material manifestation, yet everything is resting on Him. This is explained here as yogam aiśvaram, the mystic power of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

  • 10 years ago

    You sound just like a typical creationist. The universes is not "finely tuned" just for us flawed beings. One of ideas that is likely to have happen is chaos theory.

  • 10 years ago

    "By scientific athiests I am referring to those that believe that science shows that there is no God"

    I doubt you'll get any takers. Science has as much to say about your and all gods as it has about fairies.

    You also seem to abuse the anthropic principle and misunderstand the difference between probability and actuality. The chance that the entire universe unfolded as it did to produce me watching you post this tripe is infinitesimal, yet here I am. The chain of events which led to this particular outcome is incalculable.

  • 10 years ago

    "The universe is finely tuned"

    The universe is NOT finely tuned. Gamma ray bursts, black holes, and colliding galaxies along with asteroids strikes are proof of that.

    "This has been known by scientists for quite some time"

    You just lied about what scientists know.

    Your premise of a finely-tuned universe is flawed. Therefore your whole argument is flawed.

  • 10 years ago

    I am aware of the theories of such claims, but I do not have any proof of a multiple universe. I will have to answer a resounding NO.

Still have questions? Get answers by asking now.