The existence of God

[polymath257]

And so if the constants were different, we would not have life and nobody would be around to observe that case.

There are lots of alternative possibilities. Here are a few.

1.There is a multiverse with a lot of universes, each of which has its own set of constants and where every possible combination of constants appears in some universe.

In this case, a very small proportion of the universes will have life, but ALL observations by living things will comes from such universes.

2. The constants change from place to place in *our* universe with all the possible combinations happening somewhere. Once again, the part of our universe with constants allowing for life would be very small, but all observations would come from such locations within our universe.

3. The constants vary and their values are pushed by natural laws in a direction promoting complexity. if this happens, the complexity associated with the production of the elements necessary for life and then of life itself would be automatic.

This sounds like making up any conceivable ad hoc scenario to avoid acknowledging the universe is designed.

1. The multiverse hypothesis is almost unfalsifiable, and there is zero empirical evidence to back it up.

2. This can be said whether the universe is designed or not. Some designed artifact like robots can "say" the same thing about humans, all their observations only come from locations where they exist and where humans designed them.

3. Again, irrelevant. A theist can happily argue with you that God made the universe in such a way that complexity increases with time and life eventually arises.

1. A multiverse comes out naturally from most attempts to formulate quantum gravity.

2. Yes, but it does show that the design/chance argument is fallacious.

3. Again, it shows the design/chance dichotomy is fallacious.

If the only 'evidence' for design is that we fit into the universe we see, that seems like incredibly flimsy evidence.

At the very least, there should first be an investigation into what would be possible or expected if there was no design. Then, and only then, could we compare that expectation to what we actually see.

The problem is that there is no way to know what to expect either with or without design.

Design explains nothing. At *best* it is consistent with what we see, but is not implied by it. But then, so is 'no design'.

Of the two alternatives, the one that goes beyond the evidence more is the one that postulates an unobservable consciousness that controls the laws of nature through some unknown mechanism.