Desperately Fleeing God in Cosmology

CEH ^ | November 17, 2008

[GodGunsGuts]

“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:"...

[uscabjd]

I am currently reading “The Creator and the Cosmos” by Dr Hugh Ross and highly recommend it to everyone. Sad that Divine Design cannot even be debated in schools.

[Claud]

I didn’t get an answer when I asked if he was asserting that “mind” is the result of “matter”.

I always wanted to ask someone like that why we say "my body"--to me it suggests the body is but an aspect of the person and not the whole thing.

[MrB]

CS Lewis:
You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

[allmendream]

Perhaps the universe is so perfectly tailored for life that life could have been created by God purely through natural and predictable means; when God called for the earth and the ocean to bring forth life.

If and/or when a scientist creates a rudimentary life-form from nonliving materials in the lab it will only increase my wonder at the subtlety and magnificence of God's plan and God's power.

[dangerdoc]

Every time you look out the window, you are peering into the past. Look at the moon and you are seeing how it was a few seconds ago, not at how it is now or a few seconds into the future. Intuitively, it would seem that time is running forward.

If you theorize that light travels at infinate speed then you can picture the entire universe as a traveling wavefront of a 4d sphere expanding. The reason light appears to have a speed is that every point has a different 4d vector with your perspective being your vector is now and every other vector being behind you. The farther away, the more the vector is pointed away from you giving the illusion that is is farther behind.

With this view point, there is nothing in the past or future, just void that has seen the wave front or will see the wavefront.

How’s that for mind bending?

[GourmetDan]

"I don’t think this is a very good argument for the existence of God. (Although I believe there are many good arguments for his existence.) If the universe was put together another way, we wouldn’t be around to wonder why it was put together the way it is."

This used to be known as the 'Weak Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'weak' for a reason. GGG argues what used to known as the 'Strong Anthropic Principle'. It was called 'strong' for a reason. I see this debate tactic consistently in discussions with Darwinists, where the idea is that *any* darwinist argument is equivalent to *any* creationist argument, no matter how weak the darwinist argument is or how strong the creationist argument. This is the result of the rationale in the darwinist mind that 'everything is relative', therefore 'every opinion is equal'.

"It’s similar to wondering about the odds against you as a person being born. Dad meeting Mom. Conception with a particular sperm and egg combination, etc. Billions to one against doesn’t come close. Yet here each of us is."

This is the result of a failure to understand probabilities. The probability that *some* event out of a set of possible outcomes will happen is equal to 1. The probability that a *specific* required event will occur is 1/n where n is the total number of possible outcomes.

To claim that the probability that *some* event will happen is equivalent to the claim that a specified event with probability 1/n has happened is to grossly misunderstand the problem.

It's akin to claiming that the fact that all of the atoms in the universe are in some configuration at this instant and that this proves that the universe is uncreated. It's complete nonsense.

[IronJack]

Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation:"

... Phlogiston.

[Claud]

Ha! Good old Lewis.

[reagan_fanatic]

Isn’t the notion of more than one universe sort of silly?

I've often mused about the possibility of multiple universes, co-existing somewhat like your typical television broadcast stations. While the TV band is full of stations, each station can only be seen and heard if you are tuned into the correct frequency. It would be fascinating to find out our universe funtioned like that, and that there could be more of them out there.

[mlo]

"The problem for Atheists is, having arrived at their belief that God doesn't exist, they still are unable to answer the simple question, "From whence did it all come?" "What is the origin of the energy/mass which caused the universe to form?" Those who believe in God reply "God created it." He is the alpha and the omega."

No, belief in God puts you no closer. If you say "God created it" then the next question is simply, "Where did God come from?"

[Sudetenland]

True, but it is an aspect of faith. We (those who believe in God) are not in need of any explanation of the "origin." Our faith informs us. We loudly and proudly proclaim our faith in God and trust in His word.

I said "he is the alpha and the omega, but in truth God is eternal and has no beginning or end, He simply is. Since His existence is a matter of faith, I require no logical basis for my belief beyond that faith, but Atheists can't admit to relying on faith and still claim to be "Atheists."

Once faith comes into play, they are forced to admit to being just another religion. Contrary to those who believe in God, Atheists require a logical basis for their beliefs and that is the one thing they cannot provide as long as they are unable to provide the "Origin" answer.

[mlo]

"Atheism is a Religion based on a belief that life as we know it occurred as the result of a mere coincidence (or actually billions of equally unlikely coincidences)."

Addressing the "mere coincidence" part, this is incorrect. Nobody who seriously thinks about the origin of life believes life is the result of "billions of equally unlikely coincidences".

It is the result of a complex dynamic process that follows from the rules of chemistry.

The process is like that of a snowflake crystalizing out of liquid water. If you only look at the constituent atoms of a snowflake it looks exeedingly unlikely that such a structure could form randomly. And that is true. But randomness has nothing to do with it. The structure formed becuase the water molecules behaved according to the rules of chemistry when it formed.

It would be impossible to predict in advance exactly what snowflake crystal you would get, but that you would get one is certain. Snowflakes are not unlikely. Neither is life.

[mlo]

"True, but it is an aspect of faith."

You can't use faith to answer this. That's just a "because I said so" answer.

The point was that believers in God had a better objective answer for utlimate origins. You may have faith in it, but that doesn't make it a better answer.

[Sudetenland]

You better be able to because faith is all we have. Faith requires no proof, in fact the two are irreconcilable. If you have proof, you don't need any faith.

Besides it works both ways. Again I repeat, as a believer in God, I loudly proclaim my faith. It is the essence of belief in God, but Atheism by definition cannot stand "faith" it requires a rational proof and since it cannot provide even a semblance of that proof, it destroys itself by requiring faith.

"The point was that believers in God had a better objective answer for utlimate origins."

There is no "objective answer" for faith in God. This is the fallacy of those who repeatedly attempt to "prove the existence of God." No amount of physical evidence for the existence of King David or Noah's Ark or any of the other stories of the Bible will prove the existence of God.

Faith ultimately is not a "rational" concept. Your belief may be arrived at through a logical process, but faith itself is an emotional concept.

I believe because I have seen miracles in my life. This is not proof because Atheists will always insist that they are mere coincidences. So be it. I do not care what they think of me or my faith. They are lost and until they have their own personal revelation, if the do, they will never believe.

God's existence cannot be proven so why try?

[tpanther]

It is the result of a complex dynamic process that follows from the rules of chemistry.

Speaking of chemicals:

Edward Peltzer, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry – and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and “tweaks” the reactions conditions “just right” do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.

Edward Peltzer

Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)

Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry

www.dissentfromdarwin.org

[Sudetenland]

What is the origin of those "rules of chemistry?" If you say "physical laws of the universe," you lose the argument because it is a circular argument. The difference between the circular argument of Atheism and Theism is that Atheism cannot abide reliance on faith and still claim to scientifically based. Theism is based on faith. It relies on faith.

Atheism's reliance on faith destroys its own arguments. Until you can answer the Origin question purely through science and reason, atheism is still religion and as we all know, Atheism cannot answer that question without resorting to claims which require faith.

[jimmyray]

CS Lewis: You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.

Great quote! What is the source?

[MrB]

CS Lewis: You don’t have a soul. You are a Soul. You have a body.
Great quote! What is the source?

uh... C.S. Lewis, maybe? :)

[jimmyray]

"uh... C.S. Lewis, maybe? :)"

Nice. "What (not who) is the source" was meant to inquire as to where you found this quote. The Great Divorce? Mere Christianity? Surprised by Joy?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!