Science Points to God
Offline The anthropic principle (Greek: anthropos, "human being" ) states that the universe was fitted from the very first moment of its existence for the emergence of life in general and human life in particular. As agnostic astronomer; Robert Jastrow, noted, the universe is amazingly preadapted to the eventual appearance of humanity (see Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught" ). For if there were even the slightest variation at the moment of the big bang, making conditions different, even to a small degree, no life of any kind would exist. In order for life to be present today an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe--and they were.
Supporting Evidence: Not only does the scientific evidence point to a beginning of the cosmos, but it points to a very sophisticated high tuning of the universe from the very beginning that makes human life possible. For life to be present today, an incredibly restrictive set of demands must have been present in the early universe:
1. Oxygen comprises 21 percent of the atmosphere. If it were 25 percent, fires would erupt, it it were 15 percent, human beings would suffocate.
2. If the gravitational force were altered by 1 part in 10 40 (that's 10 followed by forty zeroes), the sun would not exist, and the moon would crash into the earth or sheer off into space. (Heeren, 196). Even a slight increase in the force of gravity would result in all the stars being much more massive than our sun, with the effect that the sun would burn too rapidly and erractically to sustain life.
3. If the centrifugal force of planetary movements did not precisely balance the gravitational forces, nothing could be held in orbit around the sun.
4. If the universe was expanding at a rate one millionth more slowly than it is, the temperature on earth would be 10,000 degrees C. (ibid., 185).
5. The average distance between stars in our galaxy of 100 billion stars is 30 trillion miles. If that distance was altered slightly, orbits would become erratic, and there would be extreme temperature variations on earth. (Traveling at space shuttle speed, seventeen thousand miles an hour or five miles a second, it would take 201,450 years to travel 30 trillion miles.).
6. Any of the laws of physics can be described as a function of the velocity of light (now defined to be 186,282 miles a second). Even a slight variation in the speed of light would alter the other constants and preclude the possibility of life on earth (Ross, 126).
7. If Jupiter was not in its current orbit, we would be bombarded with space material. Jupiter's gravitational field acts as a cosmic vacuum cleaner, attracting asteroids and comets that would otherwise strike earth (ibid., 196).
8. If the thickness of the earth's crust was greater, too much oxygen would be transferred to the crust to support life. If it were thinner, volcanic and tectonic activity would make life untenable (ibid., 130).
9. If the rotation of the earth took longer than 24 hours, temperature differences would be too great between night and day. If the rotation period was shorter, atmospheric wind velocities would be too great.
10. Surface temperature differences would be too great if the axial tilt of the earth were altered slightly.
11. If the atmospheric discharge (lightening) rate were greater, there would bee too much fire destruction; if it were less, there would be too little nitrogen fixing in the soil.
12. If there were more seismic activity, much life would be lost. If there were less, nutrients on the ocean floors and in river runoff would not be cycled back to the continents through tectonic uplift. Even earthquakes are necessary to sustain life as we know it.
The mass, the entropy level of the universe, the stability of the proton, and innumerable other things must be just right to male life possible.
Theistic Implications: Robert Jastrow summarized the theistic implications well: "The anthropic principle...seems to say that science itself has proven, as hard fact, that this universe was made, was designed, for man to live in. It's a very theistic result" (Jastrow, "A Scientist Caught," p. 17).
Albert Einstein said: "the harmony of natural law...reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection" (Einstein, 40).
Sources:
J.D. Barrow, et al., The Anthropic Cosmological Principle
A. Einstein, Ideals and Opinions--The World as I See It
F. Heeren, Show Me God
F. Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe
R. Jastrow, A Scientist Caught between Two Faiths: Interview with Robert Jastrow," CT, 6 August 1982
------God and the Astronomers
H. R. Pagels, Perfect Symmetry
H. Ross, The Fingerprints of God
A. Sandage, "A Scientist Reflects on Religious Belief," Truth (1985)
S. Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory--The Search for the Fundemental Laws of Nature
{fixed aiia}
- Login to post comments
Offline Then why aren't you arguing with respect to physicalism in any philosophically rigorous way? Why continue to set up the straw man?
Physicalism is materialism's pathetic attempt to redefine itself inorder to incorporate "non-material forces." Can you say "inherently self-refuting?"
Physicalism is also called "materialism", but the term "physicalism" is preferable because it has evolved with the physical sciences to incorporate far more sophisticated notions of physicality than matter, for example wave/particle relationships and non-material forces produced by particles.(source: Wikipedia: physicalism)
Hopefully, this meets with your freaking rigorous demands.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
Offline You're extending the meaning of words used to describe mathematics beyond their application. That's annoying. To quote an article that I sent you probably a year ago, "We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums."http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm
Quantum indeterminacy is NOT a refutation of the naturalistic project, it is the result of the naturalistic project. It is a physical description of physical things.
Oh, really? Then why do physicalists feel so damn compelled to redefine materialism in order to incorporate "NON-MATERIAL FORCES?"
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
- Login to post comments
I hate that "if" crap. If I was any other sperm I wouldn't have been born. Thanks for the update. Just because I was born does not mean I can fart a Lamborginni out of my ass.
"If" we are going to go by the naked assertion that claimed magical being is real, then what does it say about such a being's efficiancy. Look at all the unused vacuous space and dead planets where there is no life. Just like sperm, life is rare and most attempts fail. If such an all powerful being did exist then it would stand to reason that there would be more life, not less, and all attempts at life would be equitable, one sperm one egg and success every time.
What we see, even in non-biological cosmic motion is more violence than not. Meteors, comets, gamma rays, black holes, volcanos, earthquakes, tornados.
For those wishful thinkers who want a magical being to exist, how does all this violence constitute "all powerfull" or "all loving"? And what does it say about the efficiancy of such a claimed concept of a being?
The only conclusion I can come to if such a being were proven to exist is that such a being is a prick. If a child were discovered to live in a house with broken glass on the floor, cockroaches everywhere and lead paint, what would child protective services do to such a parent?
The violence of the universe and the violence of biological life throughout scientific history, is exactly what you would expect to see without magical fictional claims. Scientists have proven that 99% of the the biological life in earth's history has died. This is not the product of a perfect magical manufacturer but rather a product of reality.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Oh Brian, don't you see? Daddy God left things in that state to show how much he loves his children! He sits in another room watching television while the kids crawl on the broken glass, eat the paint chips, and play with the roaches because he gave them free will. He gently admonishes them from doing those things because he loves them, but to actually stop them from doing it would violate their free will. So if the toddler tips over the pot of scalding water, horribly disfiguring himself and suffering first degree burns, that is his punishment for not listening to Daddy God. Daddy God in his infinite wisdom and compassion didn't want that to happen, but the toddler was exercising his free will, and got what he deserved for disobeying Daddy God. Surely CPS would understand this, since most of them are church goers.
It takes a village to raise an idiot.
Save a tree, eat a vegetarian.
Sometimes " The Majority " only means that all the fools are on the same side.
Then give this "evidence" to us...
No, I assure you that nobody has a soul... it is a primitive concept used to explain consciousness, which is becoming more and more outdated every day.
If God was loving, just, and fair he would enlighten all people, not just some. If he is not loving, just, and fair you should not want to worship him anyway.
IT is obvious; gods did not create humans. Humans created gods.
Yes indeed. Welcome, Sheepdog. You may want to introduce yourself in the General Conversation and Introductions section.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Theosophy is an extremely vague esoteric crock—been there, done that.
I'm fairly certian the op is the same asshole that was beating on my door and handing out "convert, the end is near" books at 6:30 am last Saturday. Next time he posts just answer the door naked with a beer in your hand and he will go away. If you see a shopping cart full of cans and dead cats somewhere on your block, you know he is close.
"So far as I can remember, there is not one word in the Gospels in praise of intelligence." - Bertrand Russell
Stewie: Yay and God said to Abraham, "you will kill your son, Issak", and Abraham said, I can't hear you, you'll have to speak into the microphone." "Oh I'm sorry, Is this better? Check, check, check... Jerry, pull the high end out, I'm still getting some hiss back here."
The anthropic principle is actually misguided and irrelevant. Here's why. Logic dictates that there are only two possibilities:
1) determinism
2) indeterminism
Atheistic materialism is compelled to accept determinism. Why? Because indeterminism implies that physical events are occurring without a physical cause. (Materialism cannot account for physical events occurring without a physical cause). That being said, if determnism is true, then this implies that the emergence of human beings was not accidental but predetermined and could not have been otherwise. (Remember, in a purely deterministic world there is no element of chance.)
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
The random energy fluctuations that cause some QM events are the most common events in the Universe and they have no cause. Materialists use probability to deal with the unpredictable. Theists use false superstitions to deal with the unpredictable.
You're argument is a non sequitur.
The reason that theist arguments are always based on logical fallacies, is that there is no valid logical arguments for believing in God, and if there is no valid reason for believing something extraordinary, then it is incredibly unlikely to be true.
Determinism has nothing to do with whether something is intentional. Determined things happen all the time without them being the intention of anyone. When I roll a dice to generate some number from 1 to 6, and the result is a 5, it is highly likely that this result was completely determined by the initial conditions of the dice role. However, the result of 5 was not intended by me when I rolled the dice.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Yes from the theist POV, the problem with atheists is that:
1) they are not so incredibly arrogant that they believe that they can know things without evidence.
2) they lack the ability to lie to themselves about superstitious mumbo jumbo until they believe it.
3) they do not believe that doubt is a sin - in fact they know that doubt is the highest virtue.
4) they know that even if there were a God, that he would most likely prefer an honest atheist to a dishonest theist apologist lying to himself and others about the evidence.
4) Even though they do not believe in God that they are on average at least as morally virtuous as theists and that their children are at least as morally virtuous as those of theists.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
What's fallacious? That the only two options are either determinism or indeterminism? If there is another option, please share it with us.
Please explain to me how physical events occurring without physical causation supports materialism?
By the way, most of the atheists that I have personally encountered on this forum vehemently deny quantum indeterminacy. And for very good reason, they know it undermines materialism. Thanks for supporting my argument!
Actually, I win either way on this one. Assuming that determinism is true, then all intentional or volitional acts are ultimately determined by infinite causality. Therefore, determinism actually implies that the entire natural process is intelligent. This is actually a teleological argument for pantheism, not atheism. Of course, you could argue that there is no intelligence in the universe. But this would be inherently self-refuting.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Your wrong that there is a dichotomy - that one is true and the other one is false.
Some things are determinate and other things are indeterminate.
Most things that we are aware of are determinate.
Many things at a quantum level are indeterminate.
Both Determinism and Indeterminism are wrong as I understand what you mean by those terms.
Physical events occurring without physical causation supports materialism because it is something that has been established by science and every time that science succeeds it indicates that materialism is true.
I do not really care what other atheists believe. All I care about is the evidence. The evidence indicates that there is no God.
Materialists are not infallible. We have information that is sufficiently reliable to have a very high level of confidence in our conclusions about the nature of the universe. I am approximately certain that there is no such thing as infallible knowledge.
Your argument is nonsense. It is just another non-sequitur
Explain what "infinite causality" means - it just seems like nonsense.
Neither determinism or indeterminism are true.
There is no evidence at all that the universe itself is intelligent. Intelligence requires computational structures such as the neural networks in a brain. The brain naturally evolved. Evolution does not require intelligence. There is no evidence that the Universe contains any computational structures besides evolved brains and computational machinery that animals with evolved brains have manufactured.
when you say "faith" I think "evil lies"
when you say "god" I think "santa clause"
Then it is a matter of philosophy, don't you see? Some things can never be learned through concrete surface observation, but are a matter of inward reflection, self-discovery, intuition, revelation, social interactions, art, music, love... without these necessary components we could never discover the true nature of the universe, since we are much more complex beings than what our mere intellect reveals.
I hear it say that there's no reason to believe God exists, and there can be no proof of an invisible God, however what would that kind of proof benefit us? We would not really be better for it. If God is to benefit us at all, he/she must be discovered through much more subtle and reflective means.
It can't be proven that any kind of a personality exists. At most it can be proved that your brain and body exists, but you as a person, as someone worthy of respect? You don't exist to science. Therefore the conclusion that God doesn't exist to science should not be bothersome to a theist in the least.
Bring in philosophy and psychology, etc, and I will be much more impressed with the efforts of those here.
Science is not only 'concrete surface observation' (if I even understand what you mean by that). It is a methodology for coming to conclusions about reality. It is inextricably a part of how humans understand the world and come to conclusions about it.
Nothing in your list has anything to do with scientific discovery. That is not to say that scientific observations cannot be made or conclusions come to about emotions, but that emotions (or anything on your list for that matter) are not another way to gain knowledge in this reality.
BigUniverse wrote,
"Well the things that happen less often are more likely to be the result of the supper natural. A thing like loosing my keys in the morning is not likely supper natural, but finding a thousand dollars or meeting a celebrity might be."
So if we slowly plod along at finding out each of the details, then we won't need to rely on our "mere intellect". Well done! That's exactly why we use the scientific method.
So ... it doesn't matter if God is really there? I'd say it kind of does.
Sure it can - "personality" is just a cluster of behaviours.
What does respect have to do with whether or not you exist?
I don't? I'm pretty sure I can supply evidence for my existence, so I can't imagine anyone doubting it seriously.
Yeah, it usually isn't. Only most theists who say stuff like that have never benefited from a scientific education!
Okay, your metaphysics lacks a solid epistemology, and you're displaying a heavy justification of effort. Ta-da!
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
What kind of senseless drivel is this? Here's the definition of materialism...
Can materialism explain quantum events occurring uncaused and unbidden? Anwer: NO!
The evidence indicates that physical events are occurring uncaused and unbidden. As such, materialism is a failed hypothesis. Why? Because you cannot provide any MATERIAL cause to account for quantum fluctuations. See, this is simple!
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
By the Merriam-Webster definition? What we're talking about, to be precise, and just so we might take a detour from the familiar vicious circle, is philosophically called "physicalism". Check it out here:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
Specifically, at least in my case, a posteriori physicalism.
No, but you're being simple, and it's not a good ruse. Either you really don't understand quantum mechanics (and honestly, it's not that easy, so who would fault you?) or you're just pretending to not understand, and you're arguing against whatever you like.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
Tell me something that I don't already know.
You're projecting. You're the one who does not understand it. So I would ask you to stop making the pretense that you do. It's annoying.
"Scientists animated by the purpose of proving they are purposeless constitute an interesting subject for study." - Alfred North Whitehead
Then why aren't you arguing with respect to physicalism in any philosophically rigorous way? Why continue to set up the straw man?
You're extending the meaning of words used to describe mathematics beyond their application. That's annoying. To quote an article that I sent you probably a year ago, "We can't know both an electron's position and momentum because electrons do not have simultaneous determinate positions and momentums."
http://www.uhh.hawaii.edu/~ronald/310/Quanta.htm
Quantum indeterminacy is NOT a refutation of the naturalistic project, it is the result of the naturalistic project. It is a physical description of physical things.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence