Join Now
bluntandsubtle 
8:22am Sunday
In the past half century scientists have repeatedly discovered that the basic laws of physics are uncannily suited for the existence of life. From a purely scientific viewpoint, this is shocking. A scientific universe is an impersonal universe. Nonconscious atoms and molecules cannot be said to take any notice of us or to be concerned in the slightest whether life exists or whether the universe is nothing more than barren space interrupted by the occasional planet. Yet, despite this scientific viewpoint, the universe screams out that it is fine-tuned for the existence of life.
Let me quote Richard Dawkins, one of the world's leading atheists and author of "The God Delusion" about these basic facts. Inside the nucleus of every atom is a force that holds the atoms' protons tightly together. Physicists call it the "strong" force. Dawkins says, "If the strong force were too small, say .006 instead of .007, the universe would contain nothing but hydrogen, and no interesting chemistry could result. [which means that no life could exist] If it were too large, say .008, all the hydrogen would have fused to make heavier elements. A chemistry without hydrogen could not generate life as we know it. . . .The Goldilocks value--.007--is just right." (God Delusion pg 171).
The December 2008 issue of Discover, a mainstream science magazine, looked at the fine-tuning of the universe and said this: "Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way . . and life as we know it would not exist." and this: "In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us." and this: "There are many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties--so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents."
Or consider this from BioLogos, a foundation run by Dr. Francis Collins. (Dr. Collins was the head of the Human Genome Project which sequenced all of human DNA. He was recently appointed by President Obama to head the National Institute of Health. Full disclosure: Dr. Collins is a Christian). "Another interesting example of a finely-tuned initial condition is the critical density of the universe. In order to evolve in a life-sustaining manner, the universe must have maintained an extremely precise overall density. The precision of density must have been so great that a change of one part in 1015 (i.e. 0.0000000000001%) would have resulted in a collapse, or big crunch, occurring far too early for life to have developed, or there would have been an expansion so rapid that no stars, galaxies or life could have formed.9 This degree of precision would be like a blindfolded man choosing a single lucky penny in a pile large enough to pay off the United States’ national debt."
None of these are controversial facts. This isn't like the debate about evolution where scientists are on one side and some religious believers are on another. In this case, religious believers and atheists alike acknowledge that science demonstrates that the universe appears to be made with life in mind. So how do atheists and non-believing scientists get around this problem? They tend to give one of two answers. Either they say that it's just a bizarre coincidence, or they posit an infinite number of universes--often called "the multiverse"--and then say that we simply happen to be live in one of the infinite number of universes that is fit for human life.
It's quite ironic because either of these "explanations" destroys science's best arguments against God. Let's start with the atheist response that all these life-enabling laws of physics are just a coincidence without any explanation. Yet, normally atheists argue that the scientific worldview is superior to the religious worldview because science explains everything and eliminates mystery. But here science ENDS in mystery! Science ultimately says, "I have no idea why the universe seems to be designed as if it knew life was coming. There is no explanation. There is only mystery." Here, science exasperatedly throws up its hands just as much as any religious believer who can't fathom God's will and says, "Only God knows."
A different version of the problem occurs if an atheist attempts to take refuge in the idea of the multiverse. Normally, scientists will say to a religious believer, "We can explain so much without positing any extra entities like God. If we can explain everything through science, why bring God into the picture at all? What work does God do? Why say that God even exists?" And yet look at what the atheist does here! Look how the atheist ends up positing something they can neither see, hear, or feel! The religious believer may posit one God that they cannot prove, but here the atheist is positing an infinite number of universes that they cannot prove!
So I ask everyone reading this--what is the most believable answer from the three choices available to us?:
1. that there is absolutely no explanation for the fact that the universe is designed for life
2. That we should imagine an infinite number of universes just so we can explain how one universe could appear to be designed for life
3. that God exists and designed the universe with life in mind.
You know my answer
Since, I am a Christian, people may doubt whether I’ve been honest with the quotes and scientific facts I’ve presented. That is why I’ve tried to quote for the most part from nonreligious scientific and atheist sources. If anyone wants to verify that I’ve used these sources honestly, I am including links to the papers found on the web. And you can read pages 169 to about 180 in Richard Dawkisns “The God Delusion” to see where he professes his belief in the multiverse
Here is the link to the article in Discover, a scientific magazine:
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator
Here is the link to BioLogos, a foundation that seeks to combine religion and science run by the leader of the Human Genome Project and President Obama’s pick to head the National Institute of Health
http://biologos.org/questions/fine-tuning/
Comments
my answer to your question-
that god exists and designed the universe with life in mind.
kathyhope
I think it's great to believe in God. But cherry picking facts to support your argument is not science.
Question 1 is loaded. The universe is loaded with molecules that combine and recombine in various ways, and one of those many ways produces life.
The universe being infinite means God exists? There's no logical path to that conclusion from those data. The Catholic church thought that admitting the Earth circles the moon would make people lose faith. Obviou8sly, they were wrong. If you're defining God as "that which is unnameable", then I think you can go some place with this argument. If your definition is the more common one, then you're just making the conclusion you want to believe in.
Number 3 seems to be number 1 repeated. The Universe is not made for life. Most planets will be lifeless. The Universe was made by and for chemical reactions at the atomic, molecular and sub-atomic levels. A small minority of those reactions produce life.
Pseudo-science such as Intelligent design is ruining the futures of children who are taught to believe it. How can they get into the best Universities if they flunk basic science?
Again, it's great to believe in God. But it's the use of pseudo-science that is the threat to America's prosperous future.
Scrooched
I dont care what anyone says your an amazing writer and you captivate me each time you put out a new journal, and not to mention you make very good points and have great arguements!
Ineedhelp2008
Blunt--very well structured and supported. Scrooched--as to the definition of God, that is exactly why Blunt did not go into detail about it in this entry. He never made any presumptions here that God is more than "some Divine Force"--he only uses the likelihood of a Divine Force to contribute to his belief. As far as the validity of Intelligent Design, it is not definite proof. A God could not be proven, because by definition he is non-physical and therefore untestable by scientific method. On the other hand, we put our faith in many things because of the likelihood of those things and the lack of other explanations. Gravity is the most obvious example. Do we know without a doubt that gravity is what is really holding us down, and it isn't some other unknown force? No, we do not know 100%. There is some likelihood, however slim, that the theory is wrong.
Blunt--very well structured and supported. Scrooched--as to the definition of God, that is exactly why Blunt did not go into detail about it in his entry. He never made any presumptions here that God is more than some Divine Force--he only uses the likelihood of a Divine Force to contribute to his belief. As far as the validity of Intelligent Design, it is not definite proof. A God could not be proven, because by definition he is non-physical and therefore unable to be tested by scientific method. On the other hand, we put our faith in many things because of the likelihood of those things and the lack of other explanations. Gravity is the most obvious example. Do we know without a doubt that gravity is what is really holding us down, and it isn't some other unknown force? No, we do not know 100%. There is some likelihood, however slim, that the theory is wrong.
When it comes to Intelligent Design, no one will argue that the universe expanding from the Big Bang (another theory, by the way) was very very lucky. Blunt gives his own examples of remarkable instances of complexity. In the end, we have very few explanations for these unlikely events, and a God is one of the only solutions we have, and the most probable one. Note I do not specifically say the Christian God; the proof only implies a supernatural creator with intentions for purpose. A purpose that would take a whole other discussion to define; but intentional creations are made for a purpose.
You give me another explanation for this indisputable (Blunt has already sufficiently supported that) complexity.
ellychelly
Scrooched,
There is no pseudo-science in this journal entry. As I noted in the entry, not a single piece of science I cited is controversial. Atheists and religious believers both agree on it. I specifically cited non-religious sources to back everything up. I also specifically gave the links to those sources so people could see for themselves whether I was "cherry picking."
Let me clear one thing up with your accusation that I'm using pseudo-science. I think you are conflating what I am talking about with people who deny Darwinian evolution and instead advocate "intelligent design" in biology. I will have nothing to do with any of that. I would fight to teach my children genuine science instead of that type of pseudo-science. But evolution by natural selection takes place in the realm of biology. Everything I wrote about in this journal takes place in the realm of physics.
Again, I ask you to read Dawkins "The God Delusion" and see for yourself that he explicitly endorses the absolutely unproved multiverse theory in order to evade belief in God. The Discover magazine piece is much shorter and reaches the same conclusion. As for Biologos, it is one of the leading religious websites that fights against pseudo-science. You'll find many articles there explaining the science behind evolution and natural selection.
You speak far too quickly when you accuse me of pseudo-science. I am not the stereotypical Christian you assume me to be
bluntandsubtle
In fairness, I should add that Elly is absolutely right. This journal does not in any way favor a specifically Christian conception of God. It presents evidence only for a Creator God. Muslims, Jews, and Christians, as well as deists could all agree to it
bluntandsubtle
Your journals are amazing! Why are you not out teaching instead of wasting your time here. I love science. It felt like I was sitting in class as you explained each concept. I really enjoyed it.
sassybp
Awesome!! God is good...:)
JasmineRenee
Really liked this one! Keep going!
Humunculus
Blunt, you are one smart man I have always said that you just make my jaw drop with every word you speak. You make it all sink in. You back everything you say. You just amaze me. Your journals are like reading a best selling novel or the best written University books. xoxox ~Idio
Idiophobia
1. that there is absolutely no explanation for the fact that the universe is designed for life
finding the source that moves and hold together ie..the "glue" ingredient of the universe is impossible... because it can only be done by looking outside the experiement.. and since we are part of it..it would be like trying to taste your own tongue. its an endless chase for that which evades us.. ourselves.
2. That we should imagine an infinite number of universes just so we can explain how one universe could appear to be designed for life
yes, this is true. there are an infinite number of universes. Just stop for a moment and look at a simple tree, first you see it, then sense it, then smell it, then visualize its energy, then move in closer and see more...the bark, whats in there? the roots the sap and all the senses of these new places...
everything is an infinite number of universes all the time... its ONe essence appearing allways in all-ways.
3. that God exists and designed the universe with life in mind.
there is synchronicity as life. for example we are like bikers, the motion carries us and balances and keeps us moving, but the initial force to get going on the bike comes from the first push off which is us... or then agian...where does that push off come from...oh a thought? hmmm but where did the thought come from... and the chase goes on and on...
an endless evading mystery....the more you try to capture it and find the answer the deeper you go...and eventually return to the self..
mikes16