Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Eric Metaxas uses science against atheism

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Here.

Readers will recall Eric Metaxas, a Yale-educated writer (biographies) and broadcaster who unaccountably started writing facts about the unlikelihood of our existence as a mere accident, and the fine-tuning of our universe for life (not likely a mere accident either).

Christian profs of the usual sort soon struck back, to protect their swell racket. They never want faith to relate in any way to facts. Then they would be accountable:

The money shot for them is keeping your community and mine from understanding the significance of design in nature. Ladling dollops of brain-absent “faith,” to the strum of guitars.

Same venue, Daniel Bakken discusses one of these dhimmis for Darwin recruiters:

Dr. Grant can be forgiven if he is not up to date on the fields of cosmology, astrobiology, and the anthropic principle, as he is a professor of political science and an editor, not a scientist in astronomy or cosmology. But his seemingly religious conviction that none of these could possibly ever point to God is disturbing, and should raise flags as to his biases. We all have biases, but that doesn’t mean we can’t identify them and objectively evaluate the data, something I submit that Grant doesn’t want you to do.

But why is this a big surprise? Nothing ever points to God unless the “religion expert” holds out a treat and demands that we bark. Having had a bellyful of these people, I would recommend: Bite. Shred trousers.

“And Bowser the Schnauzer bit down on his trouser … ”

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Science Has Finally Proven That Atheism Defies Any Logic and Reason

Note: New atheism doesn’t so much defy logic and reason as explains it away. Maybe that’s a more effective strategy. Time will tell.

See also: Neuroscience tried wholly embracing naturalism, but then the brain got away

Note: Originally, this article described Metaxas as a Yale historian, but a reader wrote to point out that he was educated at Yale but does not teach there. Thanks for clarification. (It is often hard to describe what people who write for a living do. 😉 )

Comments
You’re missing the point of my argument. If the universe began then the necessity for a cause to precede an effect also began meaning that a cause was not necessary.
You may want to review the cosmological argument about causality http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/07/so-you-think-you-understand.html Scientists recognize the fine-tuning of the universe and its implications https://www.preposterousuniverse.com/writings/dtung/ And https://www.space.com/31465-is-our-universe-just-one-of-many-in-a-multiverse.html As for the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, here's the Wikipedia definition: "Texas sharpshooter fallacy is an informal fallacy which is committed when differences in data are ignored, but similarities are stressed. From this reasoning, a false conclusion is inferred. [...] It is related to the clustering illusion, which refers to the tendency in human cognition to interpret patterns where none actually exist." Is the universe fine-tuned? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe Quote--Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the universe is in several respects 'fine-tuned' for life". However, he continues, "the conclusion is not so much that the universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires." Fine-tuning list: http://www.discovery.org/f/11011 For the fine-tuning argument to be a Texas Sharpshooter fallacy, we would have to show that only similarities are stressed while differences in data are ignored. Are we seeing a fine-tuning pattern where none actually exist? What data do we have that disprove the fine-tuning of the universe?Macauley86
July 6, 2017
July
07
Jul
6
06
2017
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
You_don't_Think_a_Lot First of all mockery is not an argument. The chain must go back to knowledge regardless if it is through a telephone. Knowledge of the experimental setup causes collapse, and knowledge choices carry out the process through measurement through devices.JimFit
February 26, 2015
February
02
Feb
26
26
2015
04:05 AM
4
04
05
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 39
There is still conscious decisions being made to measure or not, regardless if it is carried out by a team
Does this group consciousness include the consciousness of the colleague with whom Bob had discussion over the telephone ?
Second the conscious decision to measure is carried out by a machine, so what? It just creates a chain initiated by the observer.
Ha, the group consciousness gets transferred to machine thus rendering the machine conscious? What about the lab door which was opened by the researcher. It too gets included in the chain , right ?Me_Think
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
06:20 PM
6
06
20
PM
PDT
I have debunked the Anthropic Principle but you still using it, the AP doesn't give an answer to the Fine Tuning problem. Imagine 2 friends that meet at the coffee shop, one asks "Why are you here?" and the other replies "Well if i wasn't here i wouldn't be here" does that sounds reasonable? You are full of fallacies, stupid conclusions and stupid philosophy. You have no argument to support that you are a purposeless random cosmic mistake without free will that nothingness spewed. Your lottery machine can draw only physical things and the Universe began so everything physical has to exist first to have this lottery machine since lottery machines can draw only numbers and not something that wasn't added in the lottery such as symbols or letters. Your conclusion that the earth is just one planet out of the zillions out there doesn't provide an argument really because we already know that it takes a whole planetary system to have life in only one planet, maybe it takes a lot more, maybe it takes all the planets in the Universe since the Universe is Homogeneous, even the odds are against your conclusions, the whole number of all the planets out there doesn't compare the odds for life to exist that's why Eugene Koonin estimates the probability of arriving at a system capable of undergoing Darwinian evolution is a cosmologically small number… The context of this article is framed by the current lack of a complete and plausible scenario for the origin of life. Koonin specifically addresses the front-runner model, that of the RNA-world, where self-replicating RNA molecules precede a translation system. He notes that in addition to the difficulties involved in achieving such a system is the paradox of attaining a translation system through Darwinian selection. That this is indeed a bona-fide paradox is appreciated by the fact that, without a shortage [of] effort, a plausible scenario for translation evolution has not been proposed to date. There have been other models for the origin of life, including the ground-breaking Lipid-world model advanced by Segrè, Lancet and colleagues (reviewed in EMBO Reports (2000), 1(3), 217–222), but despite much ingenuity and effort, it is fair to say that all origin of life models suffer from astoundingly low probabilities of actually occurring… …[F]uture work may show that starting from just a simple assembly of molecules, non-anthropic principles can account for each step along the rise to the threshold of Darwinian evolution. Based upon the new perspective afforded to us by Koonin this now appears unlikely. (Emphases mine – VJT.)
You’re missing the point of my argument. If the universe began then the necessity for a cause to precede an effect also began meaning that a cause was not necessary.
God is the Ultimate cause in any definition. The notion of an infinite causal regress is fallacious even if you are an atheist. The Universe (time space matter) began.JimFit
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
01:49 PM
1
01
49
PM
PDT
"Not its not and you failed to provide me evidence about Randomness Nothingness and Luck." Yes it is, you're making up one story to support another story. One planet out of 400 trillion can support life. I wouldn't call that lucky. You're missing the point of my argument. If the universe began then the necessity for a cause to precede an effect also began meaning that a cause was not necessary.CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
01:23 PM
1
01
23
PM
PDT
Ad hoc rationalization
Not its not and you failed to provide me evidence about Randomness Nothingness and Luck.
No cause only follows from there being no universe. Observable facts exist within the universe, causality is an observable fact.
Let’s grant for the sake of argument that the singularity was a real physical state. The claim seems to be that since the initial cosmological singularity is a boundary point to spacetime rather than a point of spacetime, therefore there was no time at which God could have created the singularity. But this conclusion follows only if we equate time with physical measures of time. This reductionistic view is clearly wrong. A sequence of mental events alone is sufficient to generate relations of earlier and later, wholly in the absence of any physical events. So if God were counting down to creation, “. . . , 3, 2, 1, Let there be light!” God would exist in time even if He were not in physical time (that is, the physical measure that stands for time in the General Theory of Relativity). So there could be a time at which God created the initial cosmological singularity, even if that moment is not in physical time. Such an appeal to metaphysics is not illicit because Hawking is making a metaphysical claim that God cannot create the universe because the singularity is not in physical time, a reductionistic move which no theist should accept. In any case, even if we do accept this reductionistic move, all that follows is that God did not create the universe at a time. We can still say that God’s creating the universe was coincident with the singularity (that is, they occur together at the boundary of spacetime), and by creating the singularity God created the universe.JimFit
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
01:21 PM
1
01
21
PM
PDT
You_don't_Think_a_lot The fact that it is a team doesn't change anything. There is still conscious decisions being made to measure or not, regardless if it is carried out by a team. Second the conscious decision to measure is carried out by a machine, so what? It just creates a chain initiated by the observer. http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qB7d5V71vUEJimFit
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
01:17 PM
1
01
17
PM
PDT
"The Universe wasn’t the same when God created it, it evolved to what we observe today and this evolution was Deterministic." Ad hoc rationalization "I only said that the cause was transcendent not that there is no cause. God is everything and the Universe is subjective to His will." No cause only follows from there being no universe. Observable facts exist within the universe, causality is an observable fact.CHartsil
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
10:38 AM
10
10
38
AM
PDT
Have a lot of experience being around when universes come into existence, do you?
The Universe wasn't the same when God created it, it evolved to what we observe today and this evolution was Deterministic.
If the universe was the beginning of time space matter and energy then it was also the beginning of phenomena (observable facts) meaning it was the beginning of causality. That means a cause was not necessary before the universe began.
I only said that the cause was transcendent not that there is no cause. God is everything and the Universe is subjective to His will.JimFit
February 25, 2015
February
02
Feb
25
25
2015
09:53 AM
9
09
53
AM
PDT
JimFit @ 34
Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect)
I have said it many times, but I will repeat: Alice ,Bob and Victor are place holder names.In the QM experiments ,they represent the machines which measure the QM states. A QM experiment is not a one man show. There are teams which decide what to measure and how to measure, and the measurement is-obviously- done by machines. There is no 'team consciousness' involved. It is thus erroneous to claim consciousness affects QM, unless you believe machines have consciousness.Me_Think
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
"Only conscious beings can act to create something that didn’t exist before plus Consciousness is the only thing that can proceed the Material World." Have a lot of experience being around when universes come into existence, do you? "Since the Universe began (time space matter) automatically there had to be a conscious act for the Universe to exist since there is nothing physical “before” the Universe to cause it, creation means action and action means consciousness, a rock cannot act." If the universe was the beginning of time space matter and energy then it was also the beginning of phenomena (observable facts) meaning it was the beginning of causality. That means a cause was not necessary before the universe began.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:46 PM
5
05
46
PM
PDT
Yes, that’s the claim. Are you ever going to get around to supporting it?
Only conscious beings can act to create something that didn't exist before plus Consciousness is the only thing that can proceed the Material World. Four intersecting lines of experimental evidence from quantum mechanics that shows that consciousness precedes material reality (Wigner’s Quantum Symmetries, Wheeler’s Delayed Choice, Leggett’s Inequalities, Quantum Zeno effect): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1G_Fi50ljF5w_XyJHfmSIZsOcPFhgoAZ3PRc_ktY8cFo/edit Since the Universe began (time space matter) automatically there had to be a conscious act for the Universe to exist since there is nothing physical "before" the Universe to cause it, creation means action and action means consciousness, a rock cannot act. creation definition noun cre·a·tion kr?-??-sh?n : the act of making or producing something that did not exist before : the act of creating somethingJimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:37 PM
5
05
37
PM
PDT
"There is no such thing because God does not make mistakes to create first a chaotic Universe that had to tune it, God just caused the Universe in such a way to unfold and create intelligent life." Yes, that's the claim. Are you ever going to get around to supporting it?CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:29 PM
5
05
29
PM
PDT
We have a reasonable idea of how the universe came to be and nowhere have we stumbled upon any mechanism of fine tuning or design.
There is no such thing because God does not make mistakes to create first a chaotic Universe that had to tune it, God just caused the Universe in such a way to unfold and create intelligent life. Again Randomness Nothingness and Luck doesn't exist on science or anywhere in the Universe for an atheist to have arguments against intention since the more we understand the Universe the more it seems that life was pre-determined. If the Universe wasn't created it was popped out of Nothingness assembled itself through Randomness and we are here by pure Luck, where does science supports these 3?JimFit
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:23 PM
5
05
23
PM
PDT
"Having universal laws/constants in the first place is a theistic presupposition and is not a materialistic presupposition" Not so much a presupposition as an affirmed consequent. That's another fallacy, by the way. You post a Gish gallop but nothing of any substance.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
As well, the 1 in 10 to the 60th found for the fine-tuning of the mass density of the universe turns out to be equal to just 1 grain of sand!
Bang for the Buck: What the BICEP2 Consortium's Discovery Means - Rob Sheldon - March 19, 2014 Excerpt: “But the inflationary claim is more spectacular because it was even more unexpected. Inflation was Alan Guth’s attempt to explain why the early universe after the Big Bang was so very “flat,”which is to say, why the force of the explosion matched the force of gravity to one part in 10 to the 60. To put this in perspective, there are about 10 to the 80 protons in the visible universe, so 10 to the 20 protons, about one grain of sand, would have unbalanced the Big Bang, causing it either to recollapse into a black hole, or to expand so fast as to never form stars and galaxies. One grain of sand more, one grain less and we would not be here.” Rob Sheldon - Physicist http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/03/bang_for_the_bu083451.html
And gravity is similarly finely tuned
Finely Tuned Gravity (1 in 10^40 tolerance; which is just one inch of tolerance allowed on a imaginary ruler stretching across the diameter of the entire universe) – (27:32 minute mark) video https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ajqH4y8G0MI#t=1652
Although 1 part in 10^120 and 1 part in 10^60 and 1 in 10^40 far exceeds, by many orders of magnitude, the highest tolerance ever achieved in any man-made machine, which is 1 part in 10^22 for a gravity wave detector, according to esteemed British mathematical physicist Roger Penrose (1931-present), the odds of the 'original phase-space volume' of the universe, required such precision that the "Creator’s aim must have been to an accuracy of 1 part in 10^10^123”. This number is gargantuan. If this number were written out in its entirety, 1 with 10^123 zeros to the right, it could not be written on a piece of paper the size of the entire visible universe, even if a number were written down on each sub-atomic particle in the entire universe, since the universe only has 10^80 sub-atomic particles in it.
"The 'accuracy of the Creator's aim' would have had to be in 10^10^123" Hawking, S. and Penrose, R., The Nature of Space and Time, Princeton, Princeton University Press (1996), 34, 35.
In the following video, Dr. Strauss quotes Tipler and Barrow who had originally written the authoritative book on fine tuning several years ago
Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vvr9q_2sSxs
This preceding video, at the 6:49 mark, has a very interesting quote:
"So what are the theological implications of all this? Well Barrow and Tipler wrote this book, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, and they saw the design of the universe. But they're atheists basically, there's no God. And they go through some long arguments to describe why humans are the only intelligent life in the universe. That's what they believe. So they got a problem. If the universe is clearly the product of design, but humans are the only intelligent life in the universe, who creates the universe? So you know what Barrow and Tipler's solution is? It makes perfect sense. Humans evolve to a point some day where they reach back in time and create the universe for themselves. (Audience laughs) Hey these guys are respected scientists. So what brings them to that conclusion? It is because the evidence for design is so overwhelming that if you don't have God you have humans creating the universe back in time for themselves." – Michael Strauss PhD. - Particle Physics
Of note: Since Tipler originally made that statement he has changed his mind,,, Frank Tipler has now become a Christian! :)bornagain77
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:14 PM
5
05
14
PM
PDT
Having universal laws/constants in the first place is a theistic presupposition and is not a materialistic presupposition,,,
Psalm 119:89-91 Your eternal word, O Lord, stands firm in heaven. Your faithfulness extends to every generation, as enduring as the earth you created. Your regulations remain true to this day, for everything serves your plans. The God Particle: Not the God of the Gaps, But the Whole Show - Monday, Aug. 2012 Excerpt: C. S. Lewis put it this way: "Men became scientific because they expected law in nature and they expected law in nature because they believed in a lawgiver." http://www.christianpost.com/news/the-god-particle-not-the-god-of-the-gaps-but-the-whole-show-80307/ The Genius and Faith of Faraday and Maxwell - Ian H. Hutchinson - 2014 Conclusion: Lawfulness was not, in their thinking, inert, abstract, logical necessity, or complete reducibility to Cartesian mechanism; rather, it was an expectation they attributed to the existence of a divine lawgiver. These men’s insights into physics were made possible by their religious commitments. For them, the coherence of nature resulted from its origin in the mind of its Creator. http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-genius-and-faith-of-faraday-and-maxwell “Our monotheistic traditions reinforce the assumption that the universe is at root a unity, that is not governed by different legislation in different places.” John D. Barrow
In fact modern science was born out of the the Theistic presupposition that the universe was rational at is basis and could therefore be discerned by the 'rational' human mind since we were made in God's image. Modern science was certainly not born out of the materialistic presupposition that the basis of reality was chaotic and could therefore not be discerned.
Science and Theism: Concord, not Conflict* – Robert C. Koons IV. The Dependency of Science Upon Theism (Page 21) Excerpt: Far from undermining the credibility of theism, the remarkable success of science in modern times is a remarkable confirmation of the truth of theism. It was from the perspective of Judeo-Christian theism—and from the perspective alone—that it was predictable that science would have succeeded as it has. Without the faith in the rational intelligibility of the world and the divine vocation of human beings to master it, modern science would never have been possible, and, even today, the continued rationality of the enterprise of science depends on convictions that can be reasonably grounded only in theistic metaphysics. http://www.robkoons.net/media/69b0dd04a9d2fc6dffff80b3ffffd524.pdf
Now that universal laws/constants have been discovered the presupposition of materialism has shifted a bit to expect a certain amount of variance in the laws/constants of the universe over deep time. Yet physicists don't find any discernible variance at all no matter how far back they measure.
Latest Test of Physical Constants Affirms Biblical Claim - Hugh Ross - September 2010 Excerpt: The team’s measurements on two quasars (Q0458- 020 and Q2337-011, at redshifts = 1.561 and 1.361, respectively) indicated that all three fundamental physical constants have varied by no more than two parts per quadrillion per year over the last ten billion years—a measurement fifteen times more precise, and thus more restrictive, than any previous determination. The team’s findings add to the list of fundamental forces in physics demonstrated to be exceptionally constant over the universe’s history. This confirmation testifies of the Bible’s capacity to predict accurately a future scientific discovery far in advance. Among the holy books that undergird the religions of the world, the Bible stands alone in proclaiming that the laws governing the universe are fixed, or constant. http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf Stronger and More Comprehensive Tests Affirm the Universe’s Unchanging Physics - July 1, 2013 By Dr. Hugh Ross Excerpt: For thousands of years, the Bible has been on record stating that the physical laws governing the universe do not vary. For example, Jeremiah 33:25, God declares that he “established the fixed laws of heaven and earth” (NIV, 1984).,,, Laboratory measurements have established that variations any greater than four parts per hundred quadrillion (less than 4 x 10-17) per year cannot exist in the fine structure constant, which undergirds several of the physical laws.,,, ,,they confirmed with 99 percent certainty that possible variations in the fine structure must be less than two parts per 10 quadrillion per year over the past 10 billion years. This limit is about a thousand times more constraining than the one I described in More Than a Theory. http://www.reasons.org/articles/stronger-and-more-comprehensive-tests-affirm-the-universe%E2%80%99s-unchanging-physics etc.. etc..
Moreover, science would collapse if there were found to be even minor variance as materialists a-priorily expect:
Scientists Question Nature’s Fundamental Laws – Michael Schirber – 2006 Excerpt: “There is absolutely no reason these constants should be constant,” says astronomer Michael Murphy of the University of Cambridge. “These are famous numbers in physics, but we have no real reason for why they are what they are.” The observed differences are small-roughly a few parts in a million-but the implications are huge (if they hold up): The laws of physics would have to be rewritten, not to mention we might need to make room for six more spatial dimensions than the three that we are used to.”,,, The speed of light, for instance, might be measured one day with a ruler and a clock. If the next day the same measurement gave a different answer, no one could tell if the speed of light changed, the ruler length changed, or the clock ticking changed. http://www.space.com/2613-scientists-question-nature-fundamental-laws.html
Indeed, the materialistic worldview is, at its ‘chaotic’ base, very antagonistic to the very idea that we should find such unchanging laws. This fact alone goes a long way towards explaining why there were no atheists at the founding of the modern scientific revolution. Thus, the fact that there are invariant laws/constants in the first place is confirmation of a foundational Theistic presupposition and is certainly not expected on atheistic materialism. To further find that these invariant laws/constants are fine tuned for life is, in reality, only to add insult to injury to materialism. Many individual constants are of such a high degree of precision as to defy human comprehension, vastly exceeding in precision the most precise man-made machine (1 in 10^22 - gravity wave detector). For example, the cosmological constant (dark energy) is balanced to 1 part in 10^120:
Hugh Ross PhD. - Scientific Evidence For Cosmological Constant (1 in 10^120 Expansion Of The Universe) http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347218/
Here are the verses in the Bible Dr. Ross listed, which were written well over 2000 years before the discovery of the finely tuned expansion of the universe by 'Dark Energy', that speak of God 'Stretching out the Heavens'; Job 9:8; Isaiah 40:22; Isaiah 44:24; Isaiah 48:13; Zechariah 12:1; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 42:5; Isaiah 45:12; Isaiah 51:13; Jeremiah 51:15; Jeremiah 10:12.
(Commenting on the 1 in 10^120 fine tuning of the expansion of the universe), "Hugh Ross states an analogy that does not even come close to describing the precarious nature of this cosmic balance [between too fast and too slow] would be a billion pencils all simultaneously positioned upright on their sharpened points on a smooth glass surface with no vertical supports." Eric Metaxas - Miracles - page 49
And this 'problem' of fine tuning in physics for the expansion of the universe shows no signs of ever letting materialists have any room to try to ‘explain it away’:
Dark energy alternatives to Einstein are running out of room – January 9, 2013 Excerpt: Last month, a group of European astronomers, using a massive radio telescope in Germany, made the most accurate measurement of the proton-to-electron mass ratio ever accomplished and found that there has been no change in the ratio to one part in 10 million at a time when the universe was about half its current age, around 7 billion years ago. When Thompson put this new measurement into his calculations, he found that it excluded almost all of the dark energy models using the commonly expected values or parameters. If the parameter space or range of values is equated to a football field, then almost the whole field is out of bounds except for a single 2-inch by 2-inch patch at one corner of the field. In fact, most of the allowed values are not even on the field. “In effect, the dark energy theories have been playing on the wrong field,” Thompson said. “The 2-inch square does contain the area that corresponds to no change in the fundamental constants, (a ‘true cosmological constant’), and that is exactly where Einstein stands.” http://phys.org/news/2013-01-dark-energy-alternatives-einstein-room.html
bornagain77
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
05:13 PM
5
05
13
PM
PDT
More of "If things were different, they would be different."CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT
The Creator's Breath that Darwin added to the final sentence of his final edit of "The Origin of Species" describes a Divine Mechanism. So does Max Planck's Mind in the Matrix and Einstein's Old One. Divine mechanisms everywhere. But yes, CH, you and the Texas Sharpshooter have not stumbled on those. Maybe soon you will stumble upon thinking puddles. Keep at it, nose to grindstone.ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT
"nowhere have we stumbled upon any mechanism of fine tuning or design." Who is this "we" you speak of CH? You and the Texas Sharpshooter? I'm not impressed, sorry. The expanding heavens, the expanding universe, is an intricately measured mechanism. Many bright physicists and cosmologists see that as evidence, heck proof of God as Creator.ppolish
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
We have a reasonable idea of how the universe came to be and nowhere have we stumbled upon any mechanism of fine tuning or design. Also keep in mind that we evolved from single celled organisms to intelligent life forms by being shaped by our own planet.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:42 PM
2
02
42
PM
PDT
How is that not speculation? Just because some scientists said so? Dogmatic materialism at its best.Rob
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:35 PM
2
02
35
PM
PDT
We were made BY the universe, so of course we fit it well.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:32 PM
2
02
32
PM
PDT
What do you propose or believe then? I may have missed this in another thread.Rob
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:30 PM
2
02
30
PM
PDT
All that means is we exist. Jumping to fine tuning is nothing but speculation.CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:24 PM
2
02
24
PM
PDT
But we are here to observe it so... If we were not here, then there's nothing to talk about.Rob
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
"Our universe is clearly fine-tuned for life given that many certain qualifications must be what they actually are for any life at all to exist." Again, you're looking at the result and trying to rationalize. Just like saying a canyon was designed for the river at the bottom is completely backwards https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-texas-sharpshooterCHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
CHartsil, If you are not satisfied that the universe is fine-tuned if there's only one planet with life or many planets with life, then at what point would you consider the universe to be fine-tuned? I think it's really a rhetorical question with you because you will explain it away in any situation. There's only three options: 1) One planet with life 2) Many planets with life 3) No life; therefore, we would not be here to observe it Our universe is clearly fine-tuned for life given that many certain qualifications must be what they actually are for any life at all to exist. What's meaningless is the number of planets that are populated with life. ppolish explained this well at #12.Rob
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
02:14 PM
2
02
14
PM
PDT
Anything to say yourself?CHartsil
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
01:59 PM
1
01
59
PM
PDT
podcast - Dr. John Bloom: Cosmic Design and the Big Bang part 1 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/02/dr-john-bloom-cosmic-design-and-the-big-bang/ Dr. John Bloom: Cosmic Design and Fine Tuning part 2 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/02/dr-john-bloom-cosmic-design-and-fine-tuning/ Dr. John Bloom: Perspectives on Cosmic Design part 3 http://www.discovery.org/multimedia/audio/2015/02/dr-john-bloom-perspectives-on-cosmic-design/bornagain77
February 24, 2015
February
02
Feb
24
24
2015
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply