Cosmic Laboratory Experiment

[QED]

It seems that one of the most popular reasons for being convinced of the existence of a Deity is the observation that all things ultimately appear to have a cause. Without going as far as calling into question the reasoning that leads to this ultimate cause being sentient, there would appear to be another hurdle for the theist to get over first:

Physicists are beginning to see ways in which new universes may be made in the Laboratory. If we accept that this is possible in principle then we are faced with the possibility that our own universe is the consequence of one such experiment. Of course we might want to reject the idea as being impossible, but nobody that I'm aware of in the relevant fields has come forward with an objection based on any incompatibility with that which is already known. Indeed, the very idea itself has emerged as a by-product of serious research into the nature of our own universe.

So it seems to me that the theologian has no way of discerning between us being the deliberate creation of a Deity or the result of some other random tinkering. Both imply a tinkerer, but only one might be worthy of our worship. How can we be sure that we've picked the right horse?

[Furrowed Brow]

Well. I think we need to get together and set up a prayer group. Each week we shall ask that the funds of the great tinkerers do not run out; so that the experiment does not have to be closed down.

I suspect if the universal tinkerer thesis is true then the tinkerers would not be able to resist encoding some message or whimsy into the universe. Like I hear there are secret games and stuff written into Microsoft Windows.

Maybe we'll find that our genetic code is really the programme from a universal game of pac man, or maybe the tinkerers will try to get messages to us by ensuring there are secret codes in scripture.

[Confused]

I guess once a scientist actually creates another universe, we shall have the answer. However, the latest I heard was that by way of the "M" theory, should we create another universe, it would actually expand in another dimension and not affect our universe at all. If this was to be the case, we wouldn't even realize we created another universe so we still couldn't be considered God in our own rights. Even if we could, then who would be considered the God? It is never just one scientist, but a team of them, all funded by either private/public funding, paid for by our taxes or a companies payroll who likely gets tax breaks so in reality, every person on earth could claim rights to the title of God. Imagine all the Gods that would exist then. It would still negate the concept of only one God as in Christianity unless one person killed every other human on earth to lay claim to the new universe.

Whew, what a concept!

[QED]

I suspect if the universal tinkerer thesis is true then the tinkerers would not be able to resist encoding some message or whimsy into the universe. Like I hear there are secret games and stuff written into Microsoft Windows.

Sure, if it was a willful act of creation. But I think it's far more likely to be an accidental outcome. The reason I say this is that the precision of the fine-tuning of our physical constants implies a great deal of skill and intelligence in their selection -- the very reason so many people assume the existence of an incredibly smart creator. But another way to arrive at these critical values is for them to be selected by us. By this I mean that we can only pop out of universes like this one so if enough "random" universes are generated we could still find ourselves in what appears to be a "tailor-made universe". Astronomer Royal Sir Martin Rees likens this to finding a suit that fits as well as any that was tailor made for us -- so long as enough different sizes are available off the shelf.

Who knows what other types of universe might support other thinkers? We can't assume that we're the only feasible example of self-awareness, not even in our own universe.

[QED]

I guess once a scientist actually creates another universe, we shall have the answer. However, the latest I heard was that by way of the "M" theory, should we create another universe, it would actually expand in another dimension and not affect our universe at all. If this was to be the case, we wouldn't even realize we created another universe so we still couldn't be considered God in our own rights.

I think you're right. Even if it took a great deal of effort for someone to engineer our universe and keep track of it should we automatically worship that person? They may be motivated by megalomania for all we know.

Even if we could, then who would be considered the God? It is never just one scientist, but a team of them, all funded by either private/public funding, paid for by our taxes or a companies payroll who likely gets tax breaks so in reality, every person on earth could claim rights to the title of God. Imagine all the Gods that would exist then. It would still negate the concept of only one God as in Christianity unless one person killed every other human on earth to lay claim to the new universe.

Problems of attribution

[Bugmaster]

By this I mean that we can only pop out of universes like this one so if enough "random" universes are generated we could still find ourselves in what appears to be a "tailor-made universe".

I would go even further, and claim that there's no reason that intelligent life could not evolve in some other universe, with physical constants that differ from ours. It seems to me like there might be many ways to perform self-replicating computation; I don't see what's so unique about our own watery approach.

[QED]

By this I mean that we can only pop out of universes like this one so if enough "random" universes are generated we could still find ourselves in what appears to be a "tailor-made universe".

I would go even further, and claim that there's no reason that intelligent life could not evolve in some other universe, with physical constants that differ from ours. It seems to me like there might be many ways to perform self-replicating computation; I don't see what's so unique about our own watery approach.

Absolutely. I could have made this more explicit by emphasising the "we" in the sentence above:

By this I mean that we can only pop out of universes like this one

Which naturally also permits any other life-forms based on different principles to cohabit our universe. Frank Drake wrote an article titled "Life on a Neutron Star" in Astronomy

An imaginative and tongue-in-cheek suggestion by the radio astronomer Frank Drake, later developed and elaborated into two science fiction novels, Dragon's Egg and Starquake by Robert Forward. In order to convey the idea that a neutron star was more like a planet than a normal star, Drake speculated that life might exist on its solid surface. The creatures he imagined were submicroscopic and made of tightly packed nuclei, rather than ordinary atoms, bound together as "nuclear molecules". Whether such bizarre molecules could exist and combine in ways complex enough to give rise to life is not known. However, if neutron star creatures did exist they would live very rapidly. Nuclear reactions happen much faster than the chemical variety, so that any life-forms on a neutron star would evolve and live their lives a million times more quickly than human beings.

OK, so it's not much more than wild speculation, but I would say that such possibilities are worth bearing in mind as we might otherwise allow our enforced isolation here on Earth (a microscopic sample of the universe) to create just as great an illusion of the way it really is out there.