Why is a multiverse more likely than a Designer?

Question

Or why is a Designer more likely than a multiverse?

((Designer as in a general intelligence responsible for the structure and laws of the universe, no specific deity))

Answer 1

Multiverse ? I though I was in the astronomy section . As a Christian it is hard to believe that there are other universes out there because the bible says we are special and if there was more than just one of me , you kind of lose that specialness about your self and uniqueness .
As an avid comic book enthusiast , The thought is simply wonderful to behold . If it came down to it . God takes precedent and if there is a multi-verse , then he created it too .

Answer 2

I don't have any faith in a "multiverse": but it is a rational corollary to the "Many Words" interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. As model it does help explain some of the math and experimental findings but Multiverses, String and M-theories are really just hypothetical so far.
Remember that a theory without an experiment is just faith, and nobody has figured out any experiments that could test these ideas yet.

So Multiverses and Designers are about tied on the proof function and the Multiverse ideas only have the advantage of raising much more interesting questions than the God hypothesis does.

Note also that M-theories proposal of Multiple Universes does solve some of the problems in trying to explain why Gravity is such a weak force in our universe, but again, there is no way to test the idea yet.

Answer 3

The multiverse is more likely as a prediction as if a collision between two membranes, or "branes", produced one universe there is no reason that other collisions would not produce more.

A Designer is unlikely as there is no supporting evidence for one.

Edit:
Consider that ID was not published as a scientific work i.e. it was not submitted for peer review etc, instead it was mass marketed for the lay person. This should be an indication of its validity and perhaps its motivation.

Answer 4

sorry for the cut and paste, but these are Hume's 6 reasons:

1 For the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose".
2 Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognise human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But in order to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to why we ought to compare the world to a machine — as in Paley's watchmaker argument — when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal.
3 Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer?
4 If a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well-ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?
5 Often, what appears to be purpose, where it looks like object X has feature F in order to secure some outcome O, is better explained by a filtering process: that is, object X wouldn't be around did it not possess feature F, and outcome O is only interesting to us as a human projection of goals onto nature.
6 The design argument does not explain pain, suffering, and natural disasters

I have seen no proof of a 'multiverse' either, it seems a bit kooky, but I think there must be exterior forces other than the ones we percieve, perhaps dark matter is the starting point to the theory.

Answer 5

Well a Multiverse is something we humans created and so is a designer. The Multiverse is the only one of the two that we know exists outside of our minds. So, Multiverse it is.


Added: Oops, I thought you were talking about the "Virtual Game Software". lol

Answer 6

Believing in a 'designer' occurs because humans tend to project their own attributes onto a personified deity because they lack self-awareness.

A multiverse is more likely to me (not the cosmic kind) because I have personally experienced reality shifts in which one perceived 3D experience is replaced by another - based on a shift in consciousness. There are definitely multiple dimensions that are accessible through unconflicted states of mind, i.e. choice.

Answer 7

The idea of a designer and a multiverse go together beautifully if you really ponder the subject. But I don't want to write a long answer of why because most folks on here probably aren't interested.

Answer 8

i thought the multiverse was the infinte number of universe covering all possibilities, like if you made a different chose here or there in the past the future would have been different.

there is no such thing as a Deisgner, its just the nature and laws of objects and measures. nothing governs them or made them they just are.

b/c if you think about it measures are really just somthing humans made up so that we have a reference to other object.

example - Time.

Answer 9

there is approximately a hundred billion galaxies. the main possibly explanation for experimental consequences is an very nearly infinite multiverse of continuously diving universes. examine in seach of Schrodinger's cat by utilising Gribbin or the fabric of certainty by utilising Deutsch to confirm extra approximately those thoughts. **staring on the different solutions makes me ask your self what you meant once you asked the question. The perpendicular (because of the fact they are blatantly no longer parallel) universes suggested in quantum mechanics are very diverse from the 'different universes' spoken approximately by way of black holes or on different branes.**

Answer 10

How about a universe being more likely than either one?
A multiverse is a science fiction proposal for alternate events in time leading off in different directions (compare to heaven as an alternative) and is about as likely as L.Ron Hubbard's Scientology SF junk being valid.
Designer is not intended by those who favor it to be non-specific - they want the Christian God to be the creator, slightly fogged over to get it past the separation of church and state in schools. They don't like the results of the Rules of Evolution (a better name than Theory of ...)