Evolutionists like to point out, “it’s not that simple”, however making it defying the laws of physics doesn’t mean it’s a viable alternative. Amanda Gefter who wrote one of most bizarre articles I have ever seen in New Scientist.
All sides generally of the debate, believe, the Universe is finely tuned as though it were created for us. It doesn’t mean all believe the Universe was made for a purpose, for many it wasn’t, but may appear that way.
The multi-universe hypothesis is one of the explanations that some evolutionists have accepted for being a possible reason why the Universe is so precise.
The other of course is God or some sort of unknown intelligent agent, being the originator of the Universe! But now another idea (a third option) suggested a number of years ago, and is now trying to make itself more mainstream.
For all your jargon fans out there the technical term for this idea is the “Participatory Anthropic Principle.” But unlike previous naturalistic explanations coming from a proponent of evolution, this has occultism written all over it.
“What might a third option look like here? Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. It’s an idea that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too.
Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the universe is well suited to us.”
How many evolutionists are laughing at the Participatory Anthropic Principle coming from John Wheeler who is a well-known physicist, who was also the first scientist to coined the word “black hole.”
Amanda Gefter tries to argue if God is the other alternative then it’s not science. But she is totally wrong on this issue, no human intelligence can fine tune the Universe regardless if it’s intentional or not and certainly science can accommodate God as an explanation for the Universe!
Anthropic Principle is true science…
In the occult, it is believed that things could be created with the human mind with the help of using spells to create objects even thunderstorms. The other aspect of occultism is making things happen with the mind only for example, being able to move objects without anything physically moving them. All of these ideas are from the occult are similar to that of those who are suggesting the “Participatory Anthropic Principle.”
As far as the other secular alternative. Multi-universes cannot be proved nor disproved because of the limitations of science which doesn’t have the ability to investigate it.
Physicist Andrei Linde admits the concept of the multi-universe is not scientific but it’s the only viable explanation in his opinion that is able to explain fine tuning of the Universe. What he really means in his secular bias, it’s a way to replace God for an explanation and justify using a non-scientific proposal.
We know for a fact, the Anthropic Principle reveals a highly complex and precise design which shows a pattern of specificity pointing to one Creator and that Creator of course is God!