There is something important here even though

I can't quite put my finger on it.

Over on evolution blog I got into a discussion about fine tuning. I made the unusual argument, because it bears repeating, that the appearance of cosmological fine tuning is real. And that it is not an argument that applies only to life "as we know it" but any life at all. But your garden-variety non-scientist layman will almost always argue as if only theists see fine-tuning—when, in fact, atheistic scientists see it just as clearly as we do. The explanation is in dispute, not the phenomenon.

Then, inevitably, the argument shifts to some variant of "well maybe there will be a theory that derives the constants." As always, I dutifully point out that if we ever do discover a fundamental theory that explains the constants, then given what we know and agree, that habitability is sensitive to their values, we have just then arrived at the most compelling cosmological design argument possible, short of God's personal appearance. Namely: habitability is built into the fabric of spacetime.

So far, no big deal. I can make this argument without even looking. I've made it so many times, I even bore myself when I feel obligated to make it again.

But this particular thread took a somewhat unusual turn.

Here is what happened. There was general acknowledgement that the alternative to design is multiple universes. Furthermore, there was agreement that other universes cannot be detected—i.e., multiverse theories, like ID, are not testable. As usual I argued that we can then conclude that multiverse theories are no more scientific than ID.

So with that in mind, we pick of the conversation. Someone by the name of Owlmirror writes, to me:

but they [multiple universes] are logically more consistent and coherent than your even more hypothetical and unfalsifiable external creator/desginer.

And (emphasis added)

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own causality is preserved.

And, as to why the cosmological ID argument is inferior to the theory that the universe was created, in negative time, by its most advanced inhabitants (emphasis added)

[Comological ID] is not causally complete. The origin of the creator is open: Where did it come from? How did it come into existence? How did it get the power to create universes? How did it gain the knowledge to fine-tune universes such that life would arise? Why does it not interact with the universe in a detectable manner? What is its purpose in creating the universe?

For [Back to the future], all the questions are answerable: The creator(s) came from the universe itself. It/They evolved, as all life did, from lifeless matter over billions of years, eventually gaining intelligence equal to ours, and eventually surpassing our current understanding at the cosmological level. It/They got the power and knowledge to create universes and manipulate space-time from studying this universe (and possibly others), and since it knows that this universe's cosmological constants are what is required for itself/themselves to evolve, that's what would be used in creating the universe. The creator(s) would not interact with the universe (other than creating it) because it/they would not want to disrupt the causal chain that lead/will lead to its/their eventual existence. And finally, it/they simply want to bring about its/their own existence.

Well, alllll-righty then!

And the ubiquitous Science Avenger added, in response to my question: why are multiverse theories more scientific? (emphasis added)

So, even assuming that the physical constants can vary and there were/are no other universes, an explanation that would make better sense than an external creator is that the universe itself will eventually give rise to an evolved species that will gain the intelligence and power to affect space and time, and send power and information back in time to cause the universe to come into existence such that their own causality is preserved.

And so on, and so on, with inevitable references to abstracts that speculate (but offer no test) that the universe might be its own mother. Future creatures will eventually create the universe we're in—or the universe created itself—anything but God.

As I have argued, repeatedly, atheism is not religion. But that doesn't mean atheists cannot make overtly religious arguments. Appealing to untestable explanations for the creation of the universe is not distinguishable "in kind" from attributing creation to God. Both Owlmirror and Science Avenger, I assume, are atheistic. But their arguments, in this case are as religious as mine. Try as they might, they cannot make a compelling case that, rationally speaking, appealing to untestable (but scientific sounding) theories is any better than appealing to design.

A self-consistent atheist, it seems to me, would argue: don't talk to me about design or about multiverses or about creatures creating their own universe—if you can't test it, it's all the same, it's all equally bad.

As to why anyone would rather believe that advanced creatures creating their own universe billions of years in the past is preferable to attributing it to God—well this Calvinist is not surprised. No one seeks God, no not one.

I wonder if even more advanced creatures will decide they can do even better, and re-recreate the universe (back in time) even if it means earlier species (who had already recreated the universe) will not actually come into existence—or if there will be some sort of universal law against that sort of thing. Thou shall not re-kickstart the universe just to rid thyself of minor inconveniences like Oprah, especially if means entire galaxies along with their inhabitants will not come into existence.