PDA

View Full Version : When Science Points to God



FlaGator
11-24-2008, 10:16 AM
I found this one Townhall this morning. (I'm no vacation this week... so more of this stuff).


If you want to know why atheists seem to have given up the scientific card, the current issue of Discover magazine provides part of the answer. The magazine has an interesting story by Tim Folger which is titled “Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator.” The article begins by noting “an extraordinary fact about the universe: its basic properties are uncannily suited for life.” As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

Too many “coincidences,” however, imply a plot. Folger’s article shows that if the numerical values of the universe, from the speed of light to the strength of gravity, were even slightly different, there would be no universe and no life. Recently scientists have discovered that most of the matter and energy in the universe is made up of so-called “dark” matter and “dark” energy. It turns out that the quantity of dark energy seems precisely calibrated to make possible not only our universe but observers like us who can comprehend that universe.

Even Steven Weinberg, the Nobel laureate in physics and an outspoken atheist, remarks that “this is fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident.” And physicist Freeman Dyson draws the appropriate conclusion from the scientific evidence to date: “The universe in some sense knew we were coming.”



Read it all here (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_points_to_god?page=full&comments=true)

wilbur
11-24-2008, 10:34 AM
I found this one Townhall this morning. (I'm no vacation this week... so more of this stuff).

Read it all here (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_points_to_god?page=full&comments=true)

I think you'll find a lot of the fine tuning speculation is built upon much incredulity.

A few people have attempted to put the argument to the test and designed simulations that mix up the various constants and have found that stars of varying lifetimes can form in universes with differing comsological constants:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900-is-our-universe-finetuned-for-life.html



DON'T take our starry skies for granted. If you were unlucky enough to be living in some other universe, you might have nothing to stare at but black holes.

At least, that's the view of a new study that examines the nature of other universes that might support life and suggests that our cosmic habitat is nothing special after all - wondrously starry skies apart.

The idea that certain aspects of our universe make it uniquely suited to life has never been properly tested, says Fred Adams of the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor. "You hear people say our universe is fine-tuned for life, that stars are rare and couldn't form if certain things were different," he says. "The truth is, no one has done the calculations." Adams has now rectified that situation and found that it is not unusual for stars to form that can support life.

xavierob82
11-24-2008, 10:53 AM
If it wasn't for all the universal constants not having the precise numerical values that they do, the universe would not exist, and therefore there wouldn't be observers to measure. Therefore the idea that it is just coinidence, is pretty much a nonsensical issue.

And we already know what "dark matter" consists of. It is mostly unremarkable, non-zero mass particles--some of which are yet undiscovered--such as neutrinos. There is nothing "dark" or mysterious about it.

Any science that attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of a deity, is not science.

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 11:00 AM
]If it wasn't for all the universal constants not having the precise numerical values that they do, the universe would not exist,and therefore there wouldn't be observers to measure. [/B] Therefore the idea that it is just coinidence, is pretty much a nonsensical issue.

And we already know what "dark matter" consists of. It is mostly unremarkable, non-zero mass particles--some of which are yet undiscovered--such as neutrinos. There is nothing "dark" or mysterious about it.

Any science that attempts to either prove or disprove the existence of a deity, is not science.

Which is the point. Thanks for verifying it.

wilbur
11-24-2008, 11:07 AM
Which is the point. Thanks for verifying it.

Would multiverse theory disprove god?

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 11:10 AM
I think you'll find a lot of the fine tuning speculation is built upon much incredulity.

A few people have attempted to put the argument to the test and designed simulations that mix up the various constants and have found that stars of varying lifetimes can form in universes with differing comsological constants:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926673.900-is-our-universe-finetuned-for-life.html

Whether stars can form or not doesn't mean that live can form. There are some interesting change behavior inside certain stars that allow for the formation of carbon. Without this "lucky break" within stars, carbon would not have been created and life would have never formed


While investigating the nuclear reactions that lead to the formation of carbon in the stellar cores, [Fred] Hoyle was struck by the fact that the key reaction proceeds only because of a lucky fluke. Carbon nuclei are made by a rather tricky process involving the simultaneous encounter of three high-speed helium nuclei, which then stick together. Because of the rarity of triple-nucleus encounters, the reaction can proceed at a significant rate only at certain well-defined energies (termed "resonances"), where the reaction rate is substantially amplified by quantum effects. By good fortune, one of these resonances is positioned just about right to correspond to the sort of energies that helium nuclei have inside large stars. 14
The element of carbon, which occurs naturally on Earth in the form of coal or diamond, actually formed in the nuclei of giant stars. As a result of these stars exploding as novas, masses of carbon and other elements were hurled into space, subsequently reaching other stars and planets, of which our Earth is one.
Such a chemical reaction is beyond by coincidence-it's impossible! But since Paul Davies is a sworn materialist, he tries to explain it away with a pointless and irrational reference to "good fortune." Davies is aware of this miracle and does not conceal his bewilderment when explaining this process, but nevertheless adopts such unscientific and irrational terms as "lucky fluke" or "good fortune," simply because he rejects Creation.


Whole article is here (http://www.harunyahya.com/books/science/chain/chain2b.php)

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 11:11 AM
Would multiverse theory disprove god?

Can you show me some evidence of another universe?

wilbur
11-24-2008, 11:14 AM
Can you show me some evidence of another universe?

Nope.... but again, if I could, would it be evidence against God?

The fine tuning argument will simply fall back a level should the mutliverse be shown to be true.... "God fine tuned the multiverse".

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 11:23 AM
Nope.... but again, if I could, would it be evidence against God?

The fine tuning argument will simply fall back a level should the mutliverse be shown to be true.... "God fine tuned the multiverse".

Depends on the evidence. I can't draw conclusions on speculation that is based on zero evidence. I come to the conclusion that God exists based on tangible clues and my interpretation of the clues in toto and not on an individual clue. Kind of like a court case full of circumstantial evidence.

wilbur
11-24-2008, 11:31 AM
Depends on the evidence. I can't draw conclusions on speculation that is based on zero evidence. I come to the conclusion that God exists based on tangible clues and my interpretation of the clues in toto and not on an individual clue. Kind of like a court case full of circumstantial evidence.

But your seeing clues where there isnt any reasonable justification to see them... and when someone bothered to do some actual testing of the fine tuning theory.. as the article I linked to shows, it is found that the fine tuning that is assumed necassary doesnt actually seem to be necassary. The tuning can be much less precise.

jinxmchue
11-24-2008, 03:12 PM
Would multiverse theory disprove god?

Why, pray tell, is it called a "theory" (thus placing it on the same level as your vaunted theory of evolution) when there is absolutely no evidence to present for it?

wilbur
11-24-2008, 03:17 PM
Why, pray tell, is it called a "theory" (thus placing it on the same level as your vaunted theory of evolution) when there is absolutely no evidence to present for it?

I was loose with words... I also referred to fine tuning above as a 'theory'... but I should have used hypothesis, even though I thought it was clear.

And not all theories are created equal.. many are more tentative and less supported than others... especially the more esoteric theories in physics. So to speak of two theories, and infer they are automatically on the 'same level' just based on their status as theories, is incorrect.

Odysseus
11-24-2008, 03:32 PM
Why, pray tell, is it called a "theory" (thus placing it on the same level as your vaunted theory of evolution) when there is absolutely no evidence to present for it?

You don't consider the various DC Crisis and Marvel What If books evidence? :eek: :D

wilbur
11-24-2008, 03:38 PM
You don't consider the various DC Crisis and Marvel What If books evidence? :eek: :D

Unfortunately, Marvel comics are a little more reality based than the god-hypothesis.

patriot45
11-24-2008, 03:43 PM
Unfortunately, Marvel comics are a little more reality based than the god-hypothesis.

I can't believe you haven't been hit by lightening yet!

wilbur
11-24-2008, 04:14 PM
I can't believe you haven't been hit by lightening yet!

Perhaps that is a clue! But seriously... it is funny to me when people snicker and laugh at those crazy ol'scientists and some of their stranger fringe theories... there was plenty of it in the article in the OP, and in a couple posts... like scientific theories and hypotheses are all just desperate attempts to deny the obvious reality......

that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... ;P

Odysseus
11-24-2008, 05:36 PM
Unfortunately, Marvel comics are a little more reality based than the god-hypothesis.

Ah, that explains it. You've gotten your theological upbringing from back issues of Son of Satan and Tomb of Dracula!

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 07:17 PM
But your seeing clues where there isnt any reasonable justification to see them... and when someone bothered to do some actual testing of the fine tuning theory.. as the article I linked to shows, it is found that the fine tuning that is assumed necassary doesnt actually seem to be necassary. The tuning can be much less precise.

Actually you don't want them to be clues because it requires you to refute them and since you can't you reclassify them. Many scientists, even atheist scientists see them as clues. Are you saying you know more than they do? Computer modeling? Like the computer modeling the proves global warming or the one that proves over population or the one that proves that the speed of light was faster in the past than it is now or the ones that prove multiverses. Computer models can prove or model anything that a scientist wants to prove when he or she pre-sets the input to get the results he or she desires. There are computer models that show the olds of this universe we live in is but impossible if it weren't for the chain of coincidences that form our reality. You choose to ignore those but believe "one" that gives a small amount of plausibility to your beliefs.

FlaGator
11-24-2008, 07:27 PM
Perhaps that is a clue! But seriously... it is funny to me when people snicker and laugh at those crazy ol'scientists and some of their stranger fringe theories... there was plenty of it in the article in the OP, and in a couple posts... like scientific theories and hypotheses are all just desperate attempts to deny the obvious reality......

that a cosmic Jewish Zombie who was his own father can make you live forever if you symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him you accept him as your master, so he can remove an evil force from your soul that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree... ;P

I don't laugh at them because quite often I see what they propose as more evidence of the existence of God. Atheists still struggle with the plausibility of the Big Bang and personal I love to watch them dance with the issue. I especially enjoy watching when they try to explain things like the presence of DNA on Earth as being introduced my space aliens. Now we have the multiverse theory to rationalize God out of the picture when there is no evidence or clues of the existence of even one more universe. You joke about the Marvel Comic Book universe but it seems that many atheists live in a comic book universe when anything can be explained even if they have to make up some more irrational than a creator God. You provide absolutely no proof that God doesn't exist and then deny the evidence that He does and to top it off you accuse theists of being irrational an yet have no rational basis for your belief. Ironic isn't it??

wilbur
11-25-2008, 06:16 PM
I don't laugh at them because quite often I see what they propose as more evidence of the existence of God. Atheists still struggle with the plausibility of the Big Bang and personal I love to watch them dance with the issue.

Who has struggled with its plausibility? I certainly don't, although my knowledge of the physics and cosmology involved isnt anywhere approaching expertise. Any theist claiming the big bang supports the idea of God is simply asserting certainty where they cannot or should not do so.... quite a systemic problem with theism in general.



I especially enjoy watching when they try to explain things like the presence of DNA on Earth as being introduced my space aliens.

I don't know of any who have seriously put forward such a claim. Dawkins never put it forth as a serious hypothesis, if he's who your referring to with this.



Now we have the multiverse theory to rationalize God out of the picture when there is no evidence or clues of the existence of even one more universe.


Personally, I think the article in Discovery was done very poorly, and seemed to needlessly stir up controversy. Science mags arent immune to that kind of stuff. Multiverse is only one possible explanation for the alleged fine-tuning... but I don't see how it's really incompatible with theism anyways.... we'd simply have to re-adjust and reconcile (yet again) just how much of an incomprehensibly small portion we are of the creation of a theist's god of preference... when compared to the rest of existence.

Whenever we investigate or study a particular aspect of nature... and we see remarkable coincidence, or some sort of precise symmetry that we cannot explain, we generally assume that there is some yet unknown natural mechanism that caused it. Yet when cosmologists and other scientists apply the same methodical naturalism to certain aspects of the universe (such as the cosmological constants), theists seem to get agitated, and resort to accusations of scientists just refusing to accept their own quite extraordinary and unsupportable claims.



You joke about the Marvel Comic Book universe but it seems that many atheists live in a comic book universe when anything can be explained even if they have to make up some more irrational than a creator God. You provide absolutely no proof that God doesn't exist and then deny the evidence that He does and to top it off you accuse theists of being irrational an yet have no rational basis for your belief. Ironic isn't it??

Not at all. What you are engaging here is presuppositionalism... a whole branch of apologetics that simply tries to avoid having to demonstrate evidence of God's existence (and indeed even might say its really not possible) and simply attempts to make it axiomatic.... a tactic to avoid having to support ones claims. I think acceptance of the god-explanation is a hypothesis requiring evidence... its not something you get to presuppose.

I've explained why fine-tuning isnt really any evidence. I've explained that we can rightly point to any object in existence and claim that the universe had to be fine tuned for it... there is no particular reason to assume cognizant life was the reason, and not a necessary, but corollary consequence, except a pathological desire to think its all about us. I pointed you to information where someone actually attempted to model what universes would look like when one tweaks the cosmological constants, and actually found quite a dynamic range of values that could produce universes very similar to this one. Granted its only a model, but thats really the only possible way to investigate such a thing at the moment. It's sure a lot more than the claims from incredulity that the constants simply cannot be changed.

Trying to calculate the probability of the cosmological constants being as they are, is a little like trying to calculate your odds of winning a card game when you don't even know what the rules of the game are.... or even if anyone else is playing.

In the end, I feel that I can share with you and others the wonder and amazing mystery of fine (or possibly not-so-fine) tuning of the universe... and do look forward to any of the hypothesis that will arise in the future... yet do not have to concede a single favorable thought to the theists wishful god-explanation.

Goldwater
11-25-2008, 06:26 PM
I do enjoy your banter.