Isn't it logical that the more universes there are, the more likely it is that this particular one could be the result of chance? If there are infinite universes, then this one is guaranteed, right?
"...belief in an omnipotent omniscient creator of the world does not in itself have any moral implicationsâit's still up to you to decide whether it is right to obey his commands." --Steven Weinberg
So your evidence that god exists is that there are holes in the evolution theory? Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that the evolution theory was never discovered. Why should I believe in god? Where is the evidence? By the way, in the book "The God Delusion", Richard Dawkins explains why most of what you wrote above is incorrect and illogical. I do not mean to personally offend you with that statement.
Hello jem Well I would, shockingly, have to agree with stu on this one. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Roman church made such an about face on its theological doctrines regarding creation. I cannot see any way, shape or form that the "molecule - to - man" scenario can fit with the Genesis proclamation of "..and G-D saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good ..."
Since you ask a valid question without intent to flame, the answer most creationists would give you is, we are here in a universe with a far too perfect order to have been random. The fact that we and it exists is the proof. Now you don't have to buy that theory either, but it is no more far fetched than multi-universes, or any of the other scientific conjecture currently being considered as gospel by the die hard atheist crowd. No theories can be proven at this point in time, which is why they're theories, not to put too fine a point on the obvious. Perhaps it might be worth considering that physicists are just philosophers with a math fetish.
Sometimes I wonder, a different "god" for sure, but possibly one with an uncanny resemblence to, well, Dawkins ........
you mixed apples and oranges. I do not know how to define evolution or even whose definition should be used. Nor does the definition really matter. I do know that the definition has change dramatically since it was taught to me in grade school. I do know Carl Sagan billions and billions of years were not enough if you think the universe evolved randomly. I I do know I never bought the argument that almost infinite monkeys banging on a typewriter could create war and peace. We don't have time the paper or the molecules. But that was not my argument for a Creator. I just want truth when it comes to science and if we have had directed evolution that is fine with me. For that matter I do not know why anyone thinks evolution is inconsistent with a literal reading of genesis. I also do not think the anyone can prove the bible says the earth is on 6000 years old. Which is why, I suspect, the Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. ------ My argument for design is taken from top physicists... This is a quote from one of the founders of string theory --- How do you respond to critics who see the anthropic approach as quasi-religious or unscientific? I cannot put it better than Steven Weinberg did in a recent paper: Finally, I have heard the objection that, in trying to explain why the laws of nature are so well suited for the appearance and evolution of life, anthropic arguments take on some of the flavor of religion. I think that just the opposite is the case. Just as Darwin and Wallace explained how the wonderful adaptations of living forms could arise without supernatural intervention, so the string landscape may explain how the constants of nature that we observe can take values suitable for life without being fine-tuned by a benevolent creator. I found this parallel well understood in a surprising place, a New York Times op-ed article by Christoph Schönborn, Cardinal Archbishop of Vienna. His article concludes as follows: Now, at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human nature by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence. There is evident irony in the fact that the cardinal seems to understand the issue much better than some physicists. David Gross of UC Santa Barbara says, "Science has managed to explain lots of other weird numbersâso why shouldn't we expect eventually to explain the cosmological constant and other key parameters?" David is entirely correct in one respect. The views that I have expressed are far from rigorous scientific facts. The observational evidence for a cosmological constant, for inflation, and the mathematical evidence for a string theory landscape could all evaporate. So far they show no signs of doing so, but surprises happen. It is certainly premature to declare victory and close the question. I would be very worried if all theoretical physicists "gave up" (as David puts it) looking for a mathematical explanation for the "weird" value of the cosmological constant. But I think David exaggerates when he claims that science has explained anything like the fine-tuning of the cosmological constant. http://www.americanscientist.org/bookshelf/pub/leonard-susskind You may wish to read a lot more about this... but the point is that it abdication of intelligence to think that the cosmological constant and all those other parameters are fine tuned by chance or necessity. A nobel prize winner cited the Cardinal for understanding that fact. You need to understand it to. We are either designed or we have been dealt infinite universes. Or our understanding of science has to change. --------------------- For instance "British physicist P. C. W. Davies has calculated that the odds against the initial conditions being suitable for later star formation (without which planets could not exist) is one followed by a thousand billion billion zeroes, at least. He also estimates that a change in the strength of gravity or of the weak force by only one part in 10,100 would have prevented a life-permitting universe. Roger Penrose of Oxford University has calculated that the odds of the big bangâs low entropy condition existing by chance are on the order of one out of 10 to the 123rd power. There are [many] such quantities and constants present in the big bang that must be fine-tuned in this way if the universe is to permit life. And itâs not just each quantity that must be finely tuned; their ratios to one another must be also finely tuned. Therefore, improbability is added to improbability to improbability until our minds are reeling in incomprehensible numbers." The above quote from someone elses site. I lots the cite.