PDA

View Full Version : “Our universe is perfectly tailored for life","Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle.



megimoo
11-18-2008, 06:01 PM
Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology

“Our universe is perfectly tailored for life"..."Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle.

Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation:"...

A protein that can tie a figure-of-eight knot (picture) blindfolded with no hands: amazing. The Darwinians can’t even do that eyes-open with their baloney.

If you have never read Paul’s treatise to the Romans, you should see how very modern it sounds in light of this article. Notice especially Romans 1:18-24. Send your local multiverse cosmologist a “No Excuses” T-shirt.

Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology

Does the fine-tuning of the universe require belief in God? Or will multiverse theory allow for a self-perpetuating, eternal, godless cosmos? Tim Folger explored this topic in an interview with Andrei Linde, a cosmologist currently at Stanford, in Discovery Magazine. The opening line sums up the controversy: “Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.”

Folger and Linde stated repeatedly and emphatically that our universe appears designed. They discuss the multiple fine-tuning coincidences, like the mass of protons, that would rule out stars and life if they were just 0.2% more massive than they are. “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible,” Linde says. Folger asserted that physicists dislike coincidences. To avoid them, some cosmologists have been driven to postulate that our universe may be just one of many. We just inhabit one of the very, very rare lucky ones where the constants of physics came together by chance to permit life:

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi*verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non*religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”–the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
“For me the reality of many universes is a logical possibility,” Linde says. “You might say, ‘Maybe this is some mysterious coincidence. Maybe God created the universe for our benefit.’ Well, I don’t know about God, but the universe itself might reproduce itself eternally in all its possible manifestations.”
Those interested can read the whole article, where Linde and others elaborate on the pros and cons of the multiverse hypothesis. One line on page 3 stands out. Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University in London, said, “you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don’t want God, you’d better have a multiverse.” Linde admitted in the end that he cannot predict whether the multiverse hypothesis will gain traction any more than he can know anything at all: “What can you predict? What can you know about the future?”

The prophet Amos teased those in his day thinking wrongly about the day of the Lord’s judgment: “It will be as though a man fled from a lion, and a bear met him!” he said. “Or as though he went into the house, leaned his hand on the wall, and a serpent bit him!” (Amos 5:19). If Linde thinks he can escape God by running toward naturalistic cosmology, the bear of ultimate questions will gnaw on the bones of his speculation. If he runs into the house of the multiverse, the serpent of ultimate causation will bite his circular reasoning. The multiverse cannot escape from the question, “Why is there something instead of nothing?”

The multiverse conjecture abandons science and reason. It throws up its hands and puts faith in the Stuff Happens Law: anything can happen, anywhere, anytime, without any reason, and we can never know why (see 09/15/2008 commentary). Linde may feel comfortable that this law fits in with his own Hindu background, but he cannot call it science. See the 10/23/2008 commentary about the “naturalism-of-the-gaps” fallacy.

A feeling of desperation runs through the article: isn’t there some way we can escape the obvious that God created this fine-tuned universe? Their cure is worse than their ailment: stuff happens. May as well give up on rationality altogether with that kind of explanation. The Stuff Happens Law may disqualify as a scientific law, but the Law of Human Depravity has 100% predictive success. Paul explained, “there is no one who understands, no one who seeks God. All have turned away, they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one” (Romans 3:11-12). Without God providing a way back to reason through His Son Jesus Christ, (Romans 5), we would be running from God from one fantasy to another forever.





http://creationsafaris.com/crev200811.htm#20081117a

wilbur
11-18-2008, 09:52 PM
I would really think that if by some chance we found ourselves in a universe that wasnt fine tuned for life... that it would be much more convincing evidence for the existence of a creator. ;)

This Discovery article seems to misquote the anthropic principle a bit... That any universe we find ourselves in would have to be have characteristics that would make our life possible.... otherwise we wouldnt be living in it to see it.

As for the rest of the article on the creation site... so much nonsense I simply don't have the energy to deconstruct it right now.... they even brought up the 'naturalism-of-the-gaps' stupidity.... there is a reason early scientists were called 'naturalists' and sometimes still are...

As for the multiverse theory supposedly being the 'abandonment' of science... who on earth has claimed its anything more than a highly speculative hypothesis at the moment? There's nothing wrong with speculating, wondering, and imagining possibilities... all very necessary things. When we start claiming our speculations are unassailable fact, then we have problems (ie this is exactly what most people do in regards to god).

Just like many Christians don't seem to have a problem with alien life as a possibility, I don't see why multiverse theory would be any different? Seems like the article frames a bit of a false dichotomy.

If multiverse theory is false, it doesn't make God automatically true, and if mutliverse theory is true... it doesn't automatically negate a creator.

asdf2231
11-18-2008, 09:57 PM
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Motivational/bigbang.jpg

megimoo
11-18-2008, 10:08 PM
http://i99.photobucket.com/albums/l307/asdf2231/Motivational/bigbang.jpg

In the begining there was nothing and nowhere to put it until the CREATOR created a point source of energy ,That exploded into all of this !

wilbur
11-18-2008, 10:28 PM
In the begining there was nothing and nowhere to put it until the CREATOR created a point source of energy ,That exploded into all of this !

What created the creator?

Actually, in the beginning there was... wait... we don't actually know yet, do we?

megimoo
11-18-2008, 10:32 PM
What created the creator?

Actually, in the beginning there was... wait... we don't actually know yet, do we?How far back would you care to go ?

wilbur
11-18-2008, 10:49 PM
How far back would you care to go ?

Help me out... I'm not following you here..

FlaGator
11-19-2008, 06:47 AM
What created the creator?

Actually, in the beginning there was... wait... we don't actually know yet, do we?

First cause doens't need a cause. We've discussed this before. If God had a creator then that Creator would be God and thus first cause.

megimoo
11-19-2008, 08:31 AM
Help me out... I'm not following you here..Watch my lips.Who created GOD,Who Created The Second GOD who Created The first GOD? Ad infinitum !

wilbur
11-19-2008, 09:49 AM
First cause doens't need a cause. We've discussed this before. If God had a creator then that Creator would be God and thus first cause.

Well, that doesnt really help much... all that does is leave you with some nebulous conception of some undefined force... could just as easily be impersonal and non-cognizant as it could be anything else.

It still doesnt really work anyhow, because that first-cause argument relies on the assumption that everything that exists must have a cause, but then requires us to make a special exception for your concept of god.... just because. It refutes itself.

FlaGator
11-19-2008, 10:29 AM
Well, that doesnt really help much... all that does is leave you with some nebulous conception of some undefined force... could just as easily be impersonal and non-cognizant as it could be anything else.

It still doesnt really work anyhow, because that first-cause argument relies on the assumption that everything that exists must have a cause, but then requires us to make a special exception for your concept of god.... just because. It refutes itself.

From a logical standpoint every effect must have a cause, but a cause need not be the product of a previous effect. Logically it doesn't refute itself because it isn't self contradictory. A cause can not be the cause of itself. That is self contradictory. It would in effect be both cause and effect in the same relationship. This is not possible, logically speaking. However logic is not broken by saying that a cause may not itself have a cause, only effects require a cause.

If you validate the truthfulness of the above statement then you can have a God that does not have a creator. It doesn't violate the rules of logic and is not a self referencing contradiction.

wilbur
11-19-2008, 11:13 AM
From a logical standpoint every effect must have a cause, but a cause need not be the product of a previous effect. Logically it doesn't refute itself because it isn't self contradictory. A cause can not be the cause of itself. That is self contradictory. It would in effect be both cause and effect in the same relationship. This is not possible, logically speaking. However logic is not broken by saying that a cause may not itself have a cause, only effects require a cause.

If you validate the truthfulness of the above statement then you can have a God that does not have a creator. It doesn't violate the rules of logic and is not a self referencing contradiction.

It refutes itself, because the point of the first cause argument is to be a proof of god. The argument tries to assert that god is the only option for a uncaused cause, but then opens the door for just about any something to be the uncaused cause... and this whole god idea becomes just one of many possibilities, but no more plausible or likely than any of them.

noonwitch
11-19-2008, 11:25 AM
Einstein believed in God, so did Galileo. Both believed that scientific inquiry was a search for God in it's own way, by discovering the laws of the universe God created.

M21
11-19-2008, 11:55 AM
There's a very good DVD out about this very subject that you might find interestin. It's title is The Privileged Planet (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/)



Synopsis For centuries scientists and philosophers have marveled at an eerie coincidence. Mathematics, a creation of human reason, can predict the nature of the universe, a fact physicist Eugene Wigner referred to as the "unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics in the physical sciences." In the last three decades astronomers and cosmologists have noticed another, seemingly unrelated, mystery. Contrary to all expectations, the laws of physics seem precisely "fine-tuned" for the existence of complex life.

<snip>


For some reason our Earthly location is extraordinarily well suited to allow us to peer into the heavens and discover its secrets.<snip>


Elsewhere, you might learn that Earth and its local environment provide a delicate, and probably exceedingly rare, cradle for complex life. But there's another, even more startling, fact, described in The Privileged Planet: those same rare conditions that produce a habitable planet-that allow for the existence of complex observers like ourselves-also provide the best overall place for observing. What does this mean?
<snip>

FlaGator
11-19-2008, 12:32 PM
It refutes itself, because the point of the first cause argument is to be a proof of god. The argument tries to assert that god is the only option for a uncaused cause, but then opens the door for just about any something to be the uncaused cause... and this whole god idea becomes just one of many possibilities, but no more plausible or likely than any of them.

The point of any arguement is to prove something. So because the argument happens to point to the existence of God, you deem it invalid? The point of the infinite universe argument was to negate the need for a creator God. So was that argument logically invalid as well?

When the uncaused cause (we'll call Him prime cause) argument is invoked it is used in concurrence with the fact that the universe appears to have been tweeked in order to allow life to form. If the prime cause effects the creation of a universe that appears designed. We assume that the prime cause is intelligent because the effect shows signs of intelligent construction. The problem you have is that you view all these arguments and points as individual explanations that need to be disputed instead of viewing them as a coherent collection of clues that point to the conclusion of a Creator God/Prime Cause.

FlaGator
11-19-2008, 12:33 PM
Einstein believed in God, so did Galileo. Both believed that scientific inquiry was a search for God in it's own way, by discovering the laws of the universe God created.


Einstein was a deist, Galileo was a theist. There is a big difference in the two views.

FlaGator
11-19-2008, 12:37 PM
There's a very good DVD out about this very subject that you might find interestin. It's title is The Privileged Planet (http://www.privilegedplanet.com/)



Also read Paul Davies, The Mind of God. Davies is a theortical physicist who, when he looked at the way the universe was constructed and how there were so many links in the chain of events that lead to the creation of life, concluded that the most probable answer was that the universe was designed. For the universe to be designed, he said, it would need a designer.

wilbur
11-19-2008, 10:59 PM
The point of any arguement is to prove something. So because the argument happens to point to the existence of God, you deem it invalid? The point of the infinite universe argument was to negate the need for a creator God. So was that argument logically invalid as well?


The point of the first-cause syllogisms to show that there is one reasonable possibility and all other possibilities are implausible. But it does just the opposite. It allows anything to be possible, and just ensures that we call what ever thing or event preceded the universe as god, arbitrarily.



When the uncaused cause (we'll call Him prime cause) argument is invoked it is used in concurrence with the fact that the universe appears to have been tweeked in order to allow life to form. If the prime cause effects the creation of a universe that appears designed. We assume that the prime cause is intelligent because the effect shows signs of intelligent construction. The problem you have is that you view all these arguments and points as individual explanations that need to be disputed instead of viewing them as a coherent collection of clues that point to the conclusion of a Creator God/Prime Cause.

One of the biggest problems with the design argument is this similar to the first cause argument... if something exists, we can rightly say the universe must have been fine tuned for its existence. Instead of narrowing the possibilities, it leaves the door open wide for any of them to be true. There sure are a hell of a lot more stars in the universe than humans... so we can say the universe was fine tuned for stars, while we are simply a necessary a side effect. Maybe it was fine tuned for dung beetles... The fine tuning argument works equally well for any object or concept that exists in this universe... therefore it provides evidence equally well for anything we can imagine. It's only through our own arrogance that we assume its all about us.

Any possible universe has a range of possibilities for entities that can exist within it. Existence of any of those entities within that universe would be proof that the universe was designed with them in mind according to the design argument... therefore any possible universe would lead you to the same conclusion... that it was designed... the actual value of the constants matters little in this regard.. we can actually leave the whole fine-tuning bit out of it, and reduce the entire fine tuning argument to a simple statement that says 'since things exist, there is a god'. Not a very strong argument.

You could even toy around with it a bit and say the universe is fine tuned for suffering and death, and infer that any God who created it is pleased by suffering, pain and destruction. We can then infer that good and righteousness only exist in order for perfect gratuitous pain and loss to be fully realized or some such thing. Even our intellects are of a special design, so that we could fully comprehend suffering that befalls us... a necessity for achievement of perfect suffering. This evil god is just as plausible as your own using the fine tuning and first cause arguments. So if one wants to be especially generous.. the most certainty the first cause and fine tuning argument can get you to is some form of weak deism.