Does anyone actually believe in God or are they just afraid...

Last week, in Nice, France, I was privileged to participate along with 30 scholars, mostly scientists and mathematicians, in a conference on the question of whether the universe was designed, or at least fine-tuned, to make life, especially intelligent life. Participants — from Yale, Princeton, Harvard, Berkeley, and Columbia, among other American and European universities — included believers in God, agonistics, and atheists.

It was clear that the scientific consensus was that, at the very least, the universe is exquisitely fine-tuned to allow for the possibility of life. It appears that we live in a “Goldilocks universe,” in which both the arrangement of matter at the cosmic beginning and the values of various physical parameters — such as the speed of light, the strength of gravitational attraction, and the expansion rate of the universe — are just right for life. And unless one is frightened of the term, it also appears the universe is designed for biogenesis and human life.

Regarding fine-tuning, one could write a book just citing the arguments for it made by some of the most distinguished scientists in the world. Here is just a tiny sample, collated by physicist Gerald Schroeder, who holds a Ph.D. from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he later taught physics.

Advertisement


Michael Turner, astrophysicist at the University of Chicago and Fermilab: “The precision is as if one could throw a dart across the entire universe and hit a bullseye one millimeter in diameter on the other side.”
Paul Davies, professor of theoretical physics at Adelaide University: “The really amazing thing is not that life on Earth is balanced on a knife-edge, but that the entire universe is balanced on a knife-edge, and would be total chaos if any of the natural ‘constants’ were off even slightly.

Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writes that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at its creation is “one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.” That is “a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.”

Steven Weinberg, recipient of the Nobel Prize in Physics, and an anti-religious agnostic, notes that “the existence of life of any kind seems to require a cancellation between different contributions to the vacuum energy, accurate to about 120 decimal places.” As the website explains, “This means that if the energies of the Big Bang were, in arbitrary units, not:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

But instead:

1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000001

There would be no life of any sort in the entire universe.”

Unless one is a closed-minded atheist (there are open-minded atheists), it is not valid on a purely scientific basis to deny that the universe is improbably fine-tuned to create life, let alone intelligent life.

Additionally, it is atheistic dogma, not science, to dismiss design as unscientific. The argument that science cannot suggest that intelligence comes from intelligence or design from an intelligent designer is simply a tautology. It is dogma masquerading as science.

And now, many atheist scientists have inadvertently provided logical proof of this.

They have put forward the notion of a multiverse — the idea that there are many, perhaps an infinite number of, other universes. This idea renders meaningless the fine-tuning and, of course, the design arguments. After all, with an infinite number of universes, a universe with parameters friendly to intelligent life is more likely to arise somewhere by chance.

But there is not a shred of evidence of the existence of these other universes — nor could there be, since contact with another universe is impossible.

Therefore, only one conclusion can be drawn: The fact that atheists have resorted to the multiverse argument constitutes a tacit admission that they have lost the argument about design in this universe. The evidence in this universe for design — or, if you will, the fine-tuning that cannot be explained by chance or by “enough time” — is so compelling that the only way around it is to suggest that our universe is only one of an infinite number of universes.

Honest atheists — scientists and lay people — must now acknowledge that science itself argues overwhelmingly for a Designing Intelligence. And honest believers must acknowledge that the existence of a Designing Intelligence is not necessarily the same as the existence of benevolent God.

To posit the existence of a Creator requires only reason. To posit the existence of a good God requires faith.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/351319/why-some-scientists-embrace-multiverse-dennis-prager

 

wow... an amazing except from very well known physicist Lee Smolin. I read it on google books.

one excerpt is this... but it is really very interesting when he goes over the options you have to explain the fine tuning.

Lee Smolin ---- just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. ..... The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229."

note... there are only 10 to the 80 protons in the entire universe and only 10 to the 22 stars.

he then lists your responses to such knowledge... you have 3 choices according to his book...

1. a god who created the world this way... he says this is mysticism in the sense that it makes answers to scientific questions dependent on a faith about something outside the domain of rationality.

2. speculation about a multiverse of at least 10 to the 229 universes it becomes probable that at least one will contain starts. But again the problem is that this makes almost anything possible. to argue for this he says is not to reason, it is simply to give up looking for a rational reason.

b. hope for a single unique mathematically consistent theory of a whole universe... but he said if this happens you would still have to become a mystic because even God would not have a choice.

3. His other theory is that the parameters change over time as the result of a process that happened in our past. He admits his proposal is speculative and may even sound desparate.




http://books.google.com/books?id=zd...comes to about one chance in 10^229."&f=false



Lee Smolin just how probable is it that a universe created by randomly choosing the parameters will contain stars. Given what we have already said, it is simple to estimate this probability. ..... The answer, in round numbers, comes to about one chance in 10^229."

 

To understand the start of a new universe one needs to understand the end of one. For in the end of one begins another. A snake swallowing it's own tail. A quantum consumption and resurrection where nothing ever truly ends nor begins.

 

Jem - as someone who is interested may I ask a couple of questions....

If the universe is so large and was created with some fine tuning - why is the universe such an inhospitable place for life as we know it, and given the size of the universe why are we so presumptuous to assume that the universe was made for us - as humans?
We are by no means perfect etc and if anything couldn't we simply be a by product considering we actually make up a very small part of the earths biosphere and the universe and in a great quote I loved by Richard Attenborough (I cant find it) about how insignificant we are and that the world would be better off without us?
I guess the question boils down to one of the presumption that humans are ultimately what the universe was built for - this to me seems inherently where faith/skepticism collide?
thanks.

(as you are knowledgeable on this could you answer this in laymans terms - some of the stuff I have previously read just becomes circular and ultimately boils down to 'faith' ) (and for the normal trash talk from others - not interested. thanks)

 

Since scientists are clueless about the composition of more that 95% of the known universe, why do you think any of them has a clue about how it came into existence?

 

Ah, ye olde infinite monkey theorem. You might find the "probabilities" section interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem#Probabilities

 

How about understanding the composition of the universe first?

 

I am not sure science has an answer to your questions. It has been searching for a grand unifying theorem to explain why the big bang resulted in a universe so finely tuned that it contained the building blocks for life. (martin rees book Just 6 numbers was one of the first showing how fined tuned we are for life).

I think it was the initial hope of string theory to explain why the constants are so tuned. But string theorists adjusted to their math and accepted the fact that string theory stated there 10 to the 500 solutions to the big bang. When Polchinsky found the 10 to 500 solutions, Susskind essentially speculated all those solutions really happen. And, we just happen to be in one of the only universes which could sustain life as we know it.

Others would still like to see a grand unifying solution found. ... something which finds that after the big bang the universe had to be this way.

IMO, if you wish to know why our universe is so special and why our constants are so finely tuned... you can go with string theory and say we are one of almost infinite universe, or you either have to hope science finds and grand unifying theory and/ or figure there was / is a Creator.

 

No big deal in universe terms. The chances of any single person being born can be calculated to 10 ^265,000 which far outstrips some Universe probability guesses.

It's not possible to properly calculate probability when all required parameters are not known, and as far as the universe goes, all the required parameters to calculate its probability are not known.
Using big probability numbers to describe a universe coming into existence is often used merely as a front to highlight some different point.

As much as is known affirms the probability of a universe as inevitable. According to Stephen Hawking and of course all of science, the universe is a result of the inevitable laws of physics.

 

You don't think the worlds mathematicans and physicists understand you simplistic objection? You have trolled out that bullshit before and it has been dismissed over and over by scientists. Surely if every person was born or if almost infinite hands are dealt ala string theory then you can say no big deal.... but if there is only one universe and against almost infinite odds it is the one which supports life... it looks like were were selected.

You clearly do not understand the subject or are just still trolling.