Cube

You're right, there couldn't be if we accept that as the definition of universe. But if there is a multiverse that spawns numerous different universes including our own, then our universe can no longer be said to be all-encompassing and there would be an "outside of the universe."

We might be saying the same thing from different angles, so let me put it in a way that I think we both might agree on:

1. We don't know if there is anything "outside/beyond" our universe. We have no way to tell. We cannot definitively state that there is no "outside/beyond" our universe, but neither can we definitively state that there is.

2. As far as we know, our universe (i.e., spacetime and all matter-energy within it) is all there is. But we don't actually know. (We don't even know the full extent of our own universe--the speed of light makes it impossible to know).

3. An "outside/beyond" our universe could exist in theory, but we currently have no proof that it does.

Does that work?

This debate isn't just biological evolution. The universe is friendly to life in that it contains the correct elements, has the right gravitational constant, etc.

   No, not from my point of view.

   Let me try another angle now...  If we discover something 10 miles out side our known universe, we really didn't, because by the definition of universe that is impossible. In reality, our universe just got 10 miles bigger.

   By the same token, I reject the idea of "multi-verse", because it would simply be a part of the "Universe".

   That's kinda what "Uni" means, isn't it?

   And it may seem like I'm playing with semantics, but this discussion is a beautiful example of why using the proper definition matters. It allows us to avoid wasting time talking about some physical thing "outside the Universe" being the Creator of the Universe, and thus avoiding the logical law that nothing within a system can be the Creator of the system.

   It short-cuts us to the fact that the creation cannot be a natural event, even by laws of nature undiscovered.

But the point I'm trying to get across is that the fine-tuning argument doesn't have anything to do with biological evolution at all.  So, the fine-tuning argument does not make it "absurd to argue in favor of evolution" (as you claim), because the fine-tuning argument has nothing to do with evolution.

Also, the fine-tuning argument is not so much an argument that the universe is "friendly to life." The implications actually go far beyond that. A slight change in values of the physical constants wouldn't just make the universe "unfriendly to life," it would make it impossible for our universe to exist at all!

The problem is buy-in. You're not going to achieve a consensus on that. There are too many people who will disagree with you. Also, if definitions matter, then I'm obliged to point out that by definition, a multiverse is not part of the universe. By definition, it's the other way around: our universe is part of the multiverse and is just one of potentially an infinite number of universes. In fact, according to one conception, our universe (and other universes) pinch off from the multiverse as a result of cosmic inflation events that create a potentially infinite number of universes that are each separate, closed systems that cannot interact with each other. If true, then it's false to say there's "nothing outside our universe."

   Once upon a time there was a small Jewish village in the Middle Ages. The extremely old high priest was dying and a few other priests and his family and the village doctor were gathered around him by his death bed. The entire village had gathered at his house to pay their respects and , more importantly. To hear his last words.

   His wife told him "Honey, everyone has come to get one last piece of wisdom from you before you die". He said "I don't have anything to say". She pressed him and so did the other priests and finally he struggled to sit up in bed and he whispered... "Life is like a cup of cold milk and a cookie".

   His wife asked the doctor "What did he say", and the doctor said "He said 'Life is like a cup of cold milk and a cookie'". The priests asked her and she told them and the people behind the priest asked them and so on out the bedroom door , through the house, down the stairs and sidewalk and down the street and to the outer edge of the village .

   In no time there were t-shirts and bumper stickers printed with the new phrase everywhere.

   A little boy at the end of the line asked the woman in front of him "What did he say" and she replied "He said 'Life is like a cup of cold milk and a cookie".

   The little boy said "What does that mean?" and the woman said "I don't know" and asked the man in front of her and he asked the man in front of him and so on back up the line and into the house and finally to the bedside where the wife asked "Honey, the whole village wants to know what that means, Life is like a cup of cold milk and a cookie?".

   So the old man's struggled one last time to sit up and with his last gasping breath he said...

   "All right, so it's not like a cup of cold milk and a cookie.... sue me!" And he died.

   Sometimes we all accept something just because of our respect for the person who said it.

   This multi-verse idea is one of the stupidest things I've ever heard and I look forward to someone more respected than Hawkins to say so so we can quit talking about it.

Ok, but that is just your personal opinion that you can't prove empirically.

There are prominent physicists on both sides: some who believe there is a multiverse and others who don't.  But once again, the point is that we don't know.

The bottom line is this: no one can definitively say one way or the other whether or not there is a multiverse or other universes separate from and "outside/beyond" our own universe. 

You might be right that there is nothing "outside" our universe. And personally, I agree with you. But neither you, nor I can prove it.

If the universe could not create itself then something else did that transcends it, alternatives to that are what?

Atheists must assert as a brute fact an uncaused, non-contingent universe or multiverse that has always existed

  It is my personal opinion, but it's not just my personal opinion.

Ok, assume that the multiverse exists. What created that?

   Exactly. Even if this crazy "multi-verse" idea was true, it would do nothing for this conversation.

Who created God?

I can suggest anything so can anyone else but logically we must have some fundamental truths that can be looked at in order to come up with something that confirms everything we know is true so we can eliminate conflicting opinions. If the universe can not create itself something other than that did it. 

He is eternal.

1. Nothing can create itself--agreed

2. Something can't come from nothing--agreed

3. Everything in existence is either contingent (it's possible for it not to exist) and therefore requires a cause, or it is non-contingent (it's not possible for it to not exist), and therefore does not require a cause, but is itself uncaused and has always been in existence. 

4. To avoid an infinite regress, *everyone* must ultimately posit as a brute fact an uncaused, non-contingent that has always been.

*By brute fact, I mean a fact that is asserted as true, but that can't be explained:

For the atheist that brute fact is: "The universe (or multiverse) just 'is' and has always been"

For the theist that brute fact is: "God just 'is' and has always been."

Neither finds the opposing side's brute fact to be a satisfactory answer. So, how does one objectively decide between the two options? 🤔 

*Logically, to advocate for theism, I think one has to somehow demonstrate that the universe (or multiverse) is contingent (i.e., it is possible for it to not exist). If that can be demonstrated, then the universe (or multiverse) requires a cause external to itself to explain its existence. So how does one demonstrate this? 🤔 

   That's exactly correct, but the problem goes one step further back than that.

   The issue really is that if the natural cannot create itself, then something unnatural (the proper word is "supernatural", but that triggers people) had to.

   It is not good enough to say something else material and natural somewhere else created everything because that only kicks the can one step farther down the road (besides the fact that "Universe" means everything that is and so there is no such thing as some natural thing outside the Universe and also ignoring the fact that there is no logical distinction between "the Universe" and "our Universe").

I think you are incorrect when I say the universe can not create itself that is exactly what I mean. The only solution is a cause that transcends the whole thing.