1.6% of the North American population says that this universe’s finely tuned constants can be explained by the existence of an infinite number of totally imaginary universes. According to this “scientific theory” (snerk) having an infinite number of universes makes all things possible. It even makes an exquisitely designed, mathematically precise, finely tuned, life supporting cosmos like our own coming into existence by accident, sans Designer a done deal. This, from the same people who say that without observation and verification nothing can be believed. Yet believe they do.
If you think that the above sounds outlandishly stupid, you need to know that the calculations that have been made by scientists to explain what fine tuning means is called, by the dumbest of atheists, “a philosophy.”
“The philosophy of the laws of science, and physics.” This is not a joke!
Here is what real scientists say about this so called “philosophy.”
Anthony Flew - The fine tuning of the universe at every level is simply too perfect to be the result of chance. Flew’s lifelong commitment “to go where the evidence leads” compelled him to become a believer in a Creator God.
The Fine Tuning to which Flew is referring is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) and how they govern the existence of our universe. These are measurements that are observed, tested, verified, weighed, measured etc. etc.. The consequence of these measurements being different than they are is known, - none of us, not even the universe itself would exist.
So why do atheists call this a philosophy of fine tuning? Because the exquisitely finely tuned laws of physics that govern the existence of our universe obviously point to a Designer. And that, as we all know cannot be allowed into the faith system of this 1.6%. If science supports a Theistic universe then the only option is to revert to using hot button terms. Eg. Using the terms “religion” or “philosophy” in concert with ANYTHING they don’t want to believe, like “fine tuning,” allows this group to discount the very findings of science itself.
Arthur Eddington - “The beginning [of the universe] seems to present insuperable difficulties unless we agree to look at it as frankly supernatural.”
Stephen Hawking - “It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”
Don’t forget, the people making these comments, including Hawking, are atheists. So committed to their faith based world-view are atheists that even though they know what Hawking just stated to be true, they refuse to go where the evidence leads. So lacking in integrity is this group of people that individuals like Anthony Flew, who actually DO follow the evidence are far and away the exception to the rule.
Physicist Freeman Dyson - ‘The more I examine the universe and study the details of its architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming.”
Again, Hawking "The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
The reason that atheists are now calling the findings of science “a philosophy of fine tuning” is because the level of bigotry among atheists is so high, simply mentioning religion or philosophy, in the presence of scientific facts that atheists find distasteful, allows them to dispense with those scientific facts altogether. And they will do that if it allows them to ignore information that they don’t like.
The second reason that atheists are calling the findings of science “a philosophy of fine tuning” is that atheists are philosophically illiterate. Not a clue. Dumb as a post.
The third reason atheists discard fine tuning as philosophy is because, regarding origins, philosophy itself stands in direct opposition to what atheists (in what is a working definition of blind faith - see reason #4), hope is true.
The forth reason that atheists discard fine tuning as philosophy is because these people only say (emphasis on the word “say”) they believe nothing without observation, verification and testing - you know like an infinite number of universes.
. If the evidence doesn’t contradict their world view, they accept it.
. If the evidence does contradict their world view, they discard that evidence (like the fine tuning of the constants) as easily as throwing out a stinky ashtray.
Even though there is not one shred of evidence for an infinite number of universes, these people believe this explanation anyway. They have to or their world view would collapse.
Even though there is not the faintest hint of evidence for an inflationary multi-verse, atheists cling to it in belief like a drowning person clings to a tall weed. An imaginary tall weed. They have to or their world view would collapse.
Atheists propose imaginary universes with different constants and say, “See! Things could be different.” Well, yes, in an imaginary cosmos things could be different. Thank you atheists for that insight.
But we aren’t talking about an imaginary cosmos are we? We’re talking about our cosmos where things need to be exactly as they are or there would not be a cosmos at all.
Nevertheless, these people have to maintain this implausible position or their belief system will collapse.
That’s how these people think. It’s the way they are.