Store up for yourselves treasures in Heaven
where moth and rust cannot destroy and thieves cannot break in and steal

Saturday, October 2, 2010

No Evidence For God

Over at John Loftus blog there are some pretty funny things being said. Well, funny or sad, I guess, depending on your perspective. It reminds me of something that another atheist said a couple years ago. Since it’s in the same vein as what’s being talked about over at JL’s place, I let you read it hear.

It comes from Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson and it’s positively hilarious. In his comment,
- He’s referring to the constants and quantities that hold the cosmos together.
- He’s referring to the relationship between these constants that allow our biosphere to not only exist but to support intelligent life.

During his comedy routine, Mr. Dyson says, “There are many lucky accidents in physics. Without such lucky accidents, life as we know it would be impossible.”

If you can’t see the humour in that, chances are very good that you’re an atheist.

Other atheists look at the following information and say that to conclude that the evolution of "Us" was something other than luck or an amazing coincidence is “Resorting to a god of the gaps.”

Because of clear scientific evidence, we know that:

. Only in a universe so finely tuned as ours, could we expect observers such as ourselves to exist. Note: Fine Tuning is a neutral secular term in that it refers to constants and quantities (atomic weight, gravitational constant, strong & weak force, etc.) being just right for the existence of intelligent life. That’s in comparison with the huge range of possible values. In fact, the natural range of possible values is from 0 > 10 ^53 or from
0 - 1000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000.

If this number was conceptualized as a dartboard, the distance from one side of the dartboard to the other side would extended across the length of our entire Milky Way Galaxy. I’ll return to this comparison a little later. That being the case, let’s look at the ranges upon which our lives, our very existence depend.

It’s important to remember that the values of these constants and quantities were not something that evolved, or something that “settled in” as the universe aged. These constants were “put in” at the Big Bang. As well, you may be interested to note that the constants, quantities and values that are found in our cosmos appear to be unrelated in any way. They seem to be random, even arbitrary. In reality, they are independent of each other except for one thing. The only thing the constants, quantities and values of our universe have in common is that all of them, every single one of them need to be exactly as they are in order for intelligent life to exist on this planet. While there are around 100 constants and qualities, the most fundamental constants are the Fine Structure constant, the Gravitational constant, the Weak Force, the Strong Force and the Ratio between the mass of protons and electrons.

. What scientists, what ATHEIST scientists call an “astonishing coincidence” or “a lucky accident” is the following list of facts.

. At the Big Bang, and I mean before 10^-43 seconds into the event, the ratio of the strong force to electromagnetism had to have been exactly as it was or else at 10 to -17 second after the start of the singularity, the necessary binding of helium -4, beryllium -8 and carbon -12 would not have occurred and life as we know it would not have appeared.

. The exact number and types of neutrinos at 1 second after the beginning of the Big Bang had to be in place or the expansion rate would have prohibited the formation of our universe.

. If the mass of a neutron were slightly increased by 1 part in 1,00000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000,0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000, then stable hydrogen burning stars would cease to exist.

. If the strong force were a long-range force (like electromagnetism or gravity) instead of a short range force that only acts between protons and neutrons in the nucleus, all matter would either instantaneously undergo nuclear fusion and explode or be sucked together forming a black hole.


Pretty lucky for us, huh, that all this just happened by chance? You sure wouldn’t want to think that maybe there was some intelligence behind this “amazing coincidence.” But that’s not all.


. If what we call the Pauli-exclusion principle did not exist, all electrons would occupy the lowest atomic orbit, which would make complex chemical interactions impossible.

. If what we call the quantization principle did not exist, there wouldn’t be any atomic orbits, electrons would be sucked into the nucleus and therefore no complex chemistry would be allowed.

. The gravitational constant must be EXACTLY 10 ^ 40 weaker than the Strong Nuclear Force or again, no us. For those that are interested, that’s ten thousand, billion, billion, billion, billion times weaker than the strong force.


Pretty lucky for us that it just happened to work out that way. I've been told that to suggest that it’s anything more than an amazing coincidence is jumping to conclusions or falling for a god of the gaps scenario.


A change of only 1 part in 10, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000, 0000000000 in the Gravitational constant as well as in the Weak Nuclear Force would prevent life from existing.

If the density of the universe and the speed of expansion had been off by one part in one hundred thousand million million, again, no life.

Remember, these values had to be put in prior to what is known as Planck time; that is, prior to 10 ^ - 43 second after the singularity.


How lucky do you feel so far?


The cosmological constant is what drives the inflation of the universe. It is tuned to 10 ^1,230. Any variation greater than that in EITHER direction and - no universe. Atheists will sometimes scoff at this by throwing out the term, “the magic of large numbers.” The phrase makes them feel secure in their ignorance. Let me however describe the above equation in yet a different manner. Scientists have described it this way. Imagine an aircraft carrier weighing 100,000 tonnes. If the weight of the ship was balanced to 10 ^ 1,230 it could not be off by more than billionth of a trillionth of the mass of an ELECTRON on one side or the other, or the ship would capsize.

Are you getting this? Do you really think it accidental?


Now, I mentioned this galaxy wide dartboard comparison. If the universe was an accident the values of these potential constants and quantities could potentially and theoretically fall anywhere within that area. The equation that I just gave you gives us a target within our galaxy wide dart board (get a picture of that) that is less than 2.5 centimetres in diameter. For us to exist, the values HAD to fall within that range.

Listen up now because here comes what atheists call the really lucky part. The amount of fine-tuning of the cosmological constant, one that we come upon, according to atheists, by accident and not by jumping to the conclusion of an intelligent designer, is like blindfolding yourself, spinning around ten times and then randomly firing a dart at our GALAXY wide dart board and hitting the target exactly in the centre of its 2.5 centimetre disk. Missing that target by any amount and - that’s right, no universe.


What I find sad and absolutely amazing is that if you’re an atheist, none of the above will be enough to convince you to consider Creator God as part of the equation. So let me use a different example.

The distance from one edge of the Milky Way galaxy to the other edge is the potential distance or range for our constants and quantities. Travelling at the speed of light, that’s 100,000 years of travel.
. If the cosmological constant had varied any more than 2.5cms, no us, no life.
. If the entropy per baryon had varied any more than the width of ONE PROTON - no us, no life of any kind - No Universe!


If, by this point your mind isn’t numb with the credulity and gullibility that atheists force themselves to live with, I just don’t know what it would take to get you to throw up your hands and give up. I mean, just how blind does a person have to be before s/he willingly stops demanding the right to drive the car? This is not a joking matter any more. Atheist scientists have discovered this information. They know it, but obviously maintaining their bias against Creator God is worth throwing away their integrity. It’s embarrassing. It’s shameful. It should be a crime for them to teach “The Universe As An Accident” to your children.


Still not impressed? Listen up. Remember, these constants and quantities are independent of and unrelated to each other. There's no natural reason for any one of them to be just as they are. So, as astronomical are the odds of any one of them being just right for a life sustaining universe, to find all of them being as they are in the same universe, by accident is beyond comprehension. To figure out those odds, you would take, say, the Weak Force constant of 1 in 10^100, add to that the constant of gravitational constant 1 in 10^120, which gives you 10 ^ 100 + 120 + . . . and so on for ALL of the 100 + constants and quantities.

Still not impressed? Science states that anything beyond 10 ^ 50 is the same as impossible. On the one hand Stephen Hawking has said “If all the grains of sand on all the beaches of the Earth were possible universes, and only one of those grains of sand was a universe that allowed for the existence of intelligent life, then that one grain of sand is the universe we inhabit.” Yet on the other hand we know that Hawking remains an atheist. In the face of this evidence, why would Hawking or any atheist for that matter continue to search for natural solutions? They have to. In order to maintain their dogmatic, definite, deliberate denial of God’s existence, atheists must believe that the impossible is possible.

And that is why atheists say that we’re really, really lucky to be here.

That is why atheists say all this is just an amazing coincidence.

That is why atheists say there is no evidence for Creator God

That is why atheists say that any one who suggests that Creator God is involved in this miracle of life is just jumping to conclusions.

13 comments:

  1. I notice your post boils down to - I don't understand therefore MAGIC.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think I do understand, at least as much has science has provided an understanding for us.

    If one follows the evidence, the evidence points directly toward an eternal, omniscient, immaterial (spiritual) creator of the universe.

    Atheists on the other hand live by, "I don't understand therefore ATHEISM OF THE GAPS.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The phrase "atheism of the gaps" doesn't even make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Of course it makes sense. For example regarding the origin of the universe.

    Atheism = nothing supernatural = a material universe.

    The scientific evidence that we have to date points to a Cause of the universe that existed outside of and was transcendent to nature / matter / energy. However, your world-view doesn't allow for such a conclusion, so you just "plug in" a natural conclusion even though there isn't one available.

    Regarding how the universe came into being you might say, "I just don't know," but you don't believe that - what you really mean is, "We don't have a natural answer now, but a natural answer will be coming at some point in the future. You just plug that into a gap.

    It's atheism of the gaps.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Regarding how the universe came into being you might say, "I just don't know," but you don't believe that -"

    Oh! That for telling me what I really believe!

    Just because YOU don't have a natural answer to your questions doesn't mean the answer is magic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree. It has nothing to do with magic.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't believe you but if it's not magic and not natural what is it?

    Magic is the claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of laws unknown to science.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thesauros - "If one follows the evidence, the evidence points directly toward an eternal, omniscient, immaterial (spiritual) creator of the universe."

    I think there are some very, very bold assertions in this statement that obviously come from your Christian belief, and are not objective conclusions based on the scientific discoveries you discuss in this post.

    1) "...the evidence points directly toward an eternal..."

    "Eternal", as in from eternity past and eternity future? Couldn't your creator have ceased to exist after performing his creative acts? Why do you believe the "evidence" you site shows that the creator you believe in must still exist?

    "...omniscient..."

    Why would this be the case? Couldn't this creator have known only one thing - how to set off the big bang? Perhaps he had no idea what the result would have been? Perhaps he was destroyed in the big bang, by accident or by design, and that was the end of his (its) involvement in the universe. Wouldn't that be the most reasonable conclusion, since we have no evidence that any creator(s) is still actively involved in the creation he (it) created?

    "...immaterial (spiritual)..."

    What do you mean by "spiritual"...supernatural? At any rate, beyond the scope of our current scientific abilities.

    "...creator..."

    Could you identify this "creator" for us?

    Is there any reason why the "evidence" you site has to be limited to the creator you believe in, or could it be some other creator that you don't believe in?

    Is there any reason why the "evidence" you site has to be limited to only ONE creator, or could it also just as easily point to a team of creators?

    From what I have read of your posts, you have absolutely no reason to claim that the "evidence" points to an eternal, omniscient, or a single creator, unless...you are using your bible as a physics text book.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Magic is the claimed art of altering things either by supernatural means or through knowledge of laws unknown to science.

    Magic is bogus.

    CREATION is the actual bringing things into being outside of and prior to the laws of science.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I think there are some very, very bold assertions in this statement that obviously come from your Christian belief, and are not objective conclusions based on the scientific discoveries you discuss in this post.”

    Right - this is not a “scientific paper.” It’s a post on some goof’s blog - nothing more, nothing less.

    That is not to say that the assertions I make don’t have their basis in other sources.
    ==========

    “ Why do you believe the "evidence" you site shows that the creator you believe in must still exist?”

    Well when we think of the attributes that the Creator of the universe must have had, we come to a “greatest conceivable being.”

    A greatest conceivable being has no beginning and no end.

    This applies to your next comment.
    ========

    “What do you mean by "spiritual"...supernatural? At any rate, beyond the scope of our current scientific abilities.”

    Because science tells us that until the singularity, nothing natural / material existed. That means that whatever brought the material universe into being was not itself material.
    ==========

    “Could you identify this "creator" for us? Is there any reason why the "evidence" you site has to be limited to the creator you believe in, or could it be some other creator that you don't believe in?”

    Well, again, we arrive a A greatest conceivable Being of which there can be only one. That's why it has to be a monotheistic God.

    You can call it something else if you want but we arrive back at a Being that coheres with the kind of Creator God that is described in the Bible.

    I don't understand why you fight this so hard. What have you got to lose?
    ========

    “From what I have read of your posts, you have absolutely no reason to claim that the "evidence" points to an eternal, omniscient, or a single creator, unless...you are using your bible as a physics text book.”

    Then what do you think it would take to bring a mathematically precise universe into being out of literally nothing?

    It’s not my fault that what philosophy and science point to regarding an Ultimate Cause / First Cause agrees with the Bible that I’ve come to believe in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "...attributes that the Creator of the universe must have had..."

    "...greatest conceivable Being ..."

    You consistently introduce qualifiers that are unscientific, all the while, you quote science.

    I resign.

    ReplyDelete
  12. because he thinks magic is science.

    ReplyDelete