The Human Principle refers to the assertion that these 'fine-tuned necessary conditions for the survival of life' must be met for living things, especially human beings, to survive in the universe. Since the human principle was first named by Australian physicist Brandon Carter (1942-) in 1974, there have been various versions of the human principle, but at least until now, no one has scientifically refuted the 'principle'. Even Richard Dawkins acknowledges the importance of the human principle in modern cosmology.
The works of scientists are widely accepted as theistic interpretations of the human principle: 'It is no coincidence that human beings and living things survive only on the Earth, it is due to the intentional plan of the Creator and meticulous design of the designer'. In the end, it became an opportunity for many theistic scientists and believers to use it as a decisive tool in defending their faith.
One example of the theists' fervent welcome of human principles is the John Templeton Foundation's annual Templeton Prize, called the Religious Nobel Prize for people who have contributed greatly to the field of religion. Paul Davis (1995), John Barrow (2006), and Martin Rees (2011), major figures in publicizing fine-tuning and human principles.
Richard Dawkins once ridiculed Paul Davis for winning the Templeton Award: "Most physicists use religious metaphors from time to time. Paul Davis' book The Mind of God seems to wander between Einsteinian pantheism and vague deism. The book earned him the Templeton Prize (a fairly large annual prize awarded by the Templeton Foundation, usually awarded to a scientist who has said a good thing about religion)".
These works of scientists are widely accepted as a theistic interpretation of the human principle: 'It is no coincidence that human beings and living things survive only on the Earth. It became an opportunity for many theistic scientists and believers to use it as a decisive tool in defending their faith.
Circumstances being what they are, scientific atheists must prepare their theoretical grounds to support the truth of their atheism by using this human principle, which has not been scientifically refuted. The ‘atheistic cosmology’ that was born from this background is the ‘multiverse theory’ that is widely known these days.
There are many different versions of the multiverse but in common, it starts with the idea there is not one universe, but there are countless universes, and one of them is the universe that we live in. Each universe is created by rapidly expanding through a process called the Big Bang, just like soap bubbles made by children in amusement parks, which later disappear.
This multiverse idea arose by combining the widely accepted human principle with the conventional concept of the rapid expansion of the universe right after the Big Bang. Some theoretical physicists at the time believed that the concept of the inevitable creator or designer of the universe would be unavoidable if only our universe existed and assumed there were infinitely many universes to avoid the inevitability of the creation of the universe.
The argument for multiple worlds starts from the same fact. There may be many such universes. And the characteristics of the universes are thought to be very different from each other. One or more of these universes will have life-permitting properties. Our universe looks as if it was designed. But in fact, the universe is just the kind of thing to be expected over time. Canadian philosopher John Leslie said: "Give him a typewriter and give him enough time, and even a monkey will compose a sonnet."
In this way, if we argue that one of our universes, which satisfies human principles, was born accidentally, we can explain the human principles of our universe based on coincidence. Can we say that the multiverse theory is scientific and persuasive?
