"Evidence" for Design in the Universe

[EasternPriest]

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

[Illuminatus]

Originally posted by EasternPriest
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Charts/EvidenceForDesignInTheUniverse.html

Mmmmm... veddy interesting.

But that entire article operates on the assumption that Life on Earth is the Only Way life can form. A faulty presumption. If the ratio of protons to electrons were adjusted, this article would have you believe that the universe would not exist.. not so. Matter would still exist, only in a different way.

Or the entry "parent star distance to center of galaxy"... who's to say that a little extra backtround radiation isn't good, for some forms of life? And number 13, solar luminocity. If the sun were a little less bright, we'd have frozen oceans. But who's to say life can't exist there?

Point is, you could mess with any or even all of those constants, and for every door you close, a window would open. For more neat speculations on ways life or intelligence could exist, tune into almost any and every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

- Ill

[Whisper9999]

Mmmmm... veddy interesting.

But that entire article operates on the assumption that Life on Earth is the Only Way life can form. A faulty presumption. If the ratio of protons to electrons were adjusted, this article would have you believe that the universe would not exist.. not so. Matter would still exist, only in a different way.

Or the entry "parent star distance to center of galaxy"... who's to say that a little extra backtround radiation isn't good, for some forms of life? And number 13, solar luminocity. If the sun were a little less bright, we'd have frozen oceans. But who's to say life can't exist there?

Point is, you could mess with any or even all of those constants, and for every door you close, a window would open. For more neat speculations on ways life or intelligence could exist, tune into almost any and every episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation.

- Ill

Actually, there is only element upon which life could exist: carbon. Why? Because carbon is the only element which can be linked together for information storage - an absolute prerequisite for life. You may have heard of silicon being able to be linked together, but silicon can be only be linked together in strings of 100 polymers or more.

In other words, life in this here universe is carbon-dependent and all the above tweaks in the parameters of the universe would annihilate the hopes for any carbon based life.

You can talk about weird "energy-based" life or something like that, but that's simply science fiction...

[Whisper9999]

Mmmmm... veddy interesting.

Or the entry "parent star distance to center of galaxy"... who's to say that a little extra backtround radiation isn't good, for some forms of life? - Ill

The reason is that radiation will always break down the bonds between linked carbon (or other) molecular structures. And no structures - no information storage.

[punxzen]

whisper, what are you defining life as?

[Erebus]

It's also very interesting how the criteria for "designed" is never explained. How does one tell the difference between something that is "designed" and something that's not?

[Aine of the Fae]

And just because it was "designed" doesn't mean we've got the "designer" figured out either.

[Chibi-Fallon]

Couldn't all that stuff have just happened by chance *regardless*? I mean it's only 47 things or so. That doesn't seem like a great number of things considering we're talking about the creation of life. I do believe that there's something bigger behind the whole thing, but I don't believe it can be summed up into 47 points.

[Keith Dragon]

The fact that the Universe exists because of these items meaning if a little in either direction it wouldn't exist, only proves that the Universe finds the path of least resistence, which is the habit of Nature, finding balance, it does not prove the fact the Universe was designed.

However, I am only pointing out that these items cannot alone prove it, but when added with other observations, discoveries, and reasonable conclusions, it can help the case.

I for one believe that The Universe was not created, in the sense that it is a machine. I feel it was created in a sense of being born, because I feel it is a living organism with its own higher form of Consciousness, and we mere cells within its body.

Universe = God

[Xentor]

What he said. :)

[punxzen]

ditto :D

[Whisper9999]

whisper, what are you defining life as?

Actually, that definition is not even necessary imo unless you're going onto a different subject which is fine. But again, without carbon, not only can you not store information but you cannot process information.

Btw, I totally believe in the spiritual realm where there is non-physical life. But that's not what we're talking about here, right?

[Whisper9999]

It's also very interesting how the criteria for "designed" is never explained. How does one tell the difference between something that is "designed" and something that's not?

No, you have a choice of course. One can believe that the Big Bang was birthed through

1. An intelligent Being, i.e. a Creator or
2. Unintelligent processes such as a multiverse or an "infinite universe" a la string theory.

Everyone has to make that choice for themselves.

[Whisper9999]

Couldn't all that stuff have just happened by chance *regardless*? I mean it's only 47 things or so. That doesn't seem like a great number of things considering we're talking about the creation of life. I do believe that there's something bigger behind the whole thing, but I don't believe it can be summed up into 47 points.

The odds are astronomically small. Imagine if you had to flip 47 heads in a row. The odds are even much worse than that. Hugh Ross' books have the actual calculated value which I will be glad to look for you if you are interested. But the number is greater than all the molecules in the universe for example, i.e. for all practical purposes infinity...

However, scientists do actually appeal to occurrence by chance as I mentioned above through a "multiverse" or other concept.

I personally think that the spiritual realm, which imo is easily detectable, all but disproves these "by chance" theories. It's hard for me to swallow that the physical universe is created by chance and then have to swallow again the idea that the spiritual realm is likewise happenstance as well.

[Whisper9999]

And just because it was "designed" doesn't mean we've got the "designer" figured out either.

I agree that noone has got the designer figured out! Relativity is bizarre and creates many seeming paradoxes, yet it has been proven time and again through varying experiments to many places of the decimal. Furthermore, most physicists lean toward String Theory which requires 10+ space/time dimensions.

And have you heard of the Lunar Event? It is widely accepted in the astronomical community that our moon was created when an object about the size of Mars hit our planet with the projectile material coalescing into our moon. This event made life possible on this earth by perfectly seeding our planet with nutrients and clearing our atmosphere (or we would be like Venus!). We got hit by a Divine Cue Ball if you will.

I could go on and on. The coincidences are staggering and science has just in the last few decades uncovered one after the other as our knowledge of the cosmos has exploded...

[Arinya]

A concept I got from a sci-fi show...the universe is everything and everything is the universe. And we, we are the universe trying to figure it's self out. We are the universe trying to discover its self.

[aida]

The fact that the Universe exists because of these items meaning if a little in either direction it wouldn't exist, only proves that the Universe finds the path of least resistence, which is the habit of Nature, finding balance, it does not prove the fact the Universe was designed.

However, I am only pointing out that these items cannot alone prove it, but when added with other observations, discoveries, and reasonable conclusions, it can help the case.

I for one believe that The Universe was not created, in the sense that it is a machine. I feel it was created in a sense of being born, because I feel it is a living organism with its own higher form of Consciousness, and we mere cells within its body.

Universe = God

Exactly. I was going to say that but I'm glad you did it before me because I couldn't put it so clear. :D

I'm sorry, but I just see no proof there. To me it only proves that everything in nature is in balance, because it's the way nature works. If that really was all the needed proof well I think someone would've come up with that centuries ago and we wouldn't have to wonder wether the universe is designed or not.

[Keith Dragon]

Just wanted to through this twist into the conversation.

We always act as if the Universe has already been created, but what if instead, the Universe is merely a womb, in the process of being created, and not quite finished yet. But how can we exist if it hasn't Creation hasn't finished yet. Yet a fetus exists, and is in constant expansion, yet cannot comletely function as the whole it will someday become. The cells within a fetus still have functions and tasks they must do, as we each have our role in the Expansion of the Universe. The thing about existence, and the key between us and the Universe is the key words, "As above, So Below". This is the key to a fractal, at any level along the hiearchical ladder, it still maintains a similar structure.

Look at the similariities between the macro world, and the micro or quantum world. Very similar, full of empty space. Each level of existence from Quark to Quasar and beyond each pulsates in a similar fashion. Electrons revolve around the neucleus, The strand of the DNA revolve around a central Axis Mundi. We rotate arounf the Core of our planet, The Moon rotates around the Earth, the planets around the sun , the stars around eachother, the cluter around the center of the galaxy, the galaxies around eachother, the cluster all expanding around a central point. Why not the Universe around a central core. Hell the Universe can just be a cell in something else we haven't discovered yet. Supersymmetry is the key, it is also part of the basis of M-theory derived from String Theory.

In Truth, we may never know, but the desire to know is the carrot God dangles before our consciousness that drives us forward, expanding ourselves along with the Universe. If we knew, for a fact, we would cease to exist, because there would be no driving impulse.

One day, we will know, but the moment we do, we will rise to a higher tier in the hiearchical ladder, and no longer exist on this plane. The day we ourselves become a God.

Dragon

PS. You may say that this list mentioned on this thread is highly impossible to happen on its own. But you forget infinity, and with an infinite number of monkeys sitting at typewriters, one of them will type out the exact words of Hamlet, word for word, in an infinite amount of time.

Dragon

PS The model of the Universe would have to be proportional, and symmetrical to all the minor systematic models in Nature. Why, because the minor models are born from the Universal Model, and, As Above So Below, they will have to match and be congruent to eachother. In other words, Equal. We push our consciousness to infinity, yet get lost in the emptiness, the answer is not out there, but inward, and backwards. We are facing the wrong way, all we have to do to understand it all, is simply turn around, and quit looking at the shadows on the Wall in front of us, and look towards the source of light that is creating the shadows to find the answer.

Dragon.

[Whisper9999]

Just wanted to through this twist into the conversation.

We always act as if the Universe has already been created, but what if instead, the Universe is merely a womb, in the process of being created, and not quite finished yet. But how can we exist if it hasn't Creation hasn't finished yet. Yet a fetus exists, and is in constant expansion, yet cannot comletely function as the whole it will someday become. The cells within a fetus still have functions and tasks they must do, as we each have our role in the Expansion of the Universe. The thing about existence, and the key between us and the Universe is the key words, "As above, So Below". This is the key to a fractal, at any level along the hiearchical ladder, it still maintains a similar structure.

Look at the similariities between the macro world, and the micro or quantum world. Very similar, full of empty space. Each level of existence from Quark to Quasar and beyond each pulsates in a similar fashion. Electrons revolve around the neucleus, The strand of the DNA revolve around a central Axis Mundi. We rotate arounf the Core of our planet, The Moon rotates around the Earth, the planets around the sun , the stars around eachother, the cluter around the center of the galaxy, the galaxies around eachother, the cluster all expanding around a central point. Why not the Universe around a central core. Hell the Universe can just be a cell in something else we haven't discovered yet. Supersymmetry is the key, it is also part of the basis of M-theory derived from String Theory.

In Truth, we may never know, but the desire to know is the carrot God dangles before our consciousness that drives us forward, expanding ourselves along with the Universe. If we knew, for a fact, we would cease to exist, because there would be no driving impulse.

One day, we will know, but the moment we do, we will rise to a higher tier in the hiearchical ladder, and no longer exist on this plane. The day we ourselves become a God.

Dragon

PS. You may say that this list mentioned on this thread is highly impossible to happen on its own. But you forget infinity, and with an infinite number of monkeys sitting at typewriters, one of them will type out the exact words of Hamlet, word for word, in an infinite amount of time.

Dragon

PS The model of the Universe would have to be proportional, and symmetrical to all the minor systematic models in Nature. Why, because the minor models are born from the Universal Model, and, As Above So Below, they will have to match and be congruent to eachother. In other words, Equal. We push our consciousness to infinity, yet get lost in the emptiness, the answer is not out there, but inward, and backwards. We are facing the wrong way, all we have to do to understand it all, is simply turn around, and quit looking at the shadows on the Wall in front of us, and look towards the source of light that is creating the shadows to find the answer.

Dragon.

An infinity of fractals, shall we say?

[equinox2]

First of all, there are several things on that table that are vague, (such as the "if greater....if smaller"). Secondly, some things there and especially in the later discussion are misleading. I'm too busy to put together a proper review now, but next week I should have time. Have a great weekend everyone!

:fprtyman3

[equinox2]

OK, there are two main parts to this post. First, an examination of Hugh Ross’s “Evidence for Design”, and Second, an examination of the theological implications of the idea of “Intelligent Design” itself.

Main problems with table:

1. Vague. He says “if less” and “if more” without saying HOW much less or more. This applies to all 47 points. For an example, look at point #43 – he says that if atmospheric discharge were higher, too much fire damage would occur. OK, well if the rate of lightning were increased to ridiculous levels maybe, but by “greater” he must mean increasing it by as much as 10,000% or more. Think about it, if lightning struck even 100% more often (twice as often), no one would care, or even notice. 10 times as much? Yawn. By saying “if more” when the truth is “if much much much more”, he makes it sound like these are narrow ranges we are lucky to be in, when in many cases they are huge. This applies to all of the points to a varying degree.


2. Lack of understanding of possible range. In cases of numerical constants, it is impossible to know what numbers we pick from, so it is impossible to know if we got an unlikely result. For example, look at #40. Ok, this can range from 0% to 100%, either extreme of which wouldn’t permit humans and plants to both exist. Compare this to point #3 – the weak coupling constant. What possible range is “available”? We have no idea. Maybe only values right around the present value are possible, so it isn’t unlikely at all that we have that value. This applies to points 1-5, and makes them as meaningful as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.


3. Self – selection. Some of these points vary all over the map as one looks across the universe, like point #12 – the distance between stars. In some areas of the universe, stars are millions of times more distant from each other than other areas of the universe. So the entire range is covered, at least somewhere. We live in an area where it is OK – big surprise, if we didn’t, we wouldn’t be asking the question. This is like the winner of a lottery ticket thinking he has skill in lottery winning because he won – no, it’s just that he can ask the question because he already happened to have won. Remember, there are more than 70,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in universe – even if the odds are only 1 in a billion, that still leaves 70,000,000,000 good stars with intelligent life!


4. Ignoring evolutionary history – Evolution has tuned us (and life on earth) to the environment. That means that things that seem “perfect” to us only appear that way because we have been in them so long that we have become “perfect” for them – for instance, the fact that we like humidities around 20 to 30%. If we had evolved in Mogolia instead of Africa, it would be different. This applies to some extent to 39, 44 and such.

5. Outright falsehoods. Being that the whole table is hopelessly vague, outright falsehoods are not common. However, there are some, like #31, which is just plain false – the inclination of the orbit to the ecliptic has zero effect on temperature. The inclination of the rotation does, but he couldn’t have meant that because he uses that for #33.

There are other problems, but I’ll stop there. I’ve read over the table and it mentions many things that indeed are good about the earth. However, I don’t see any of this as indications of design. It’s also too bad to find many deceptive things in the table. It’s not a surprise to find that Hugh Ross is a creationist who put this table together to try to prove creationism. Creationism is rejected by nearly all scientists. It is a little surprising the Hugh does have a Ph.D., but I don’t know if it is real or if he is just claiming it, and even if it is, there are some crackpots in any field.

But what about all those astronomers, who know the universe better than I? It turns out that astronomers are less likely than most other scientists to believe in God. (Well, except for biologists, who have looked at the evidence from animals and plants). In addition, fewer and fewer scientists have been believing in God as time goes on, even though Creationists have been lying and telling people the opposite every year for the past century. How could that be that the evidence is so compelling for a creator God yet those who know the evidence best don’t see evidence for a creator God? Its because the evidence DOESN’t support a creator God. But don’t take my word for it, check for yourself if most scientists see the universe as evidence for creation.

Here are some survey results:


survey asked members of the National Academy of Sciences to indicate if they believe, disbelieve or are agnostic regarding the existence of God … the lowest was found among biological scientists (5.5 percent). Among physicists and astronomers, 7.5 percent profess belief in God.

(so over 90% of physicists and astronomers don’t belief in God). From here. http://www.gsreport.com/articles/art000068.html - and plenty of other places in newspapers and such.

Here is a good essay on this from one of the top Astronomers in the world:
ifhttp://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm

**********************************************
**********************************************
**********************************************

Second part.

OK, creationism doesn’t seem to be supported by a “design” in the universe. This is actually a really good thing for those who believe in God. I say that because there is plenty of bad mixed in with plenty of good in the universe. To say that God created it all would mean that God would have to be pretty bad. Here are some examples:

There are tons of obviously rigged and stupid designs in the natural world. One example is poor giraffe’s neck – it has only 7 vertebrae, just like it’s horselike anscestors, so it can’t easily bend it’s neck to drink. Stupid design. Our eyes are put together upside down, which gives us a blind spot. An engineer would be fired for designing an eye like that. The panda’s thumb is rigged from a deformed wrist bone – and so it can’t even bend. The Dodo had useless, shriveled wings – why “design” entire wings that serve no purpose and don’t even work? Whale grow teeth in the womb, only to reabsorb them before birth – why? It’s because they evolved from land animals with teeth, but now it’s just a stupid waste to make the teeth and then "unmake" them. There are hundreds of examples like this, many in the human body. For God to purposefully design this, he would have to be incompetent or cruel.

The universe is 99.999999999% dead. Nearly all planets are inhospitable for life. If life is good, then this is an incredible waste of everything.

Natural disasters like earthquakes kill thousands of people – if designed, why not design something to warn people away, predict the earthquake, or such?

Meteors kill entire species or individual humans. If you were to set all the stuff in motion, why put meteors in motion aimed at people? Cruel.

Why design an entire system of life on earth based on the life killing and eating each other? The whole system is cruel. Why not make all life like plants, getting food from the sun, or from a radioactive source?

Of all the kinds of life on earth, most of them are parasites. Ouch. If you were a good god, would you design most kinds of life to be parasites?

Why design cruel things, like the wasp that paralyzes the spider, and then lays eggs on it so the larvae slowly eat the spider alive? Can you imagine what it would be like to be slowly eaten alive by worms inside your own body? Yet, this is going on now, as we speak somewhere in the world in the bodies of spiders, insects, and other animals.

These are some of the reasons why in the 1700’s many Christians (including many of the founding fathers) became deists. Then God just starts everything, and it goes off all on it’s own. There is no need to accuse God of creating everything.

Don’t get me wrong, there is lots of beauty, wonder and joy in the universe. Much of creation is wonderful. But there is both good and bad, and we can’t give God the credit for the good without also admitting the bad.

[Erebus]

The weak anthropic principle kills Panglossian arguments like the one presented on this website every time.

If we had evolved as intelligent slime molds, there would be intelligent slime molds saying "Look how perfectly this world suits us! It must have been made specifically for us! If anything was just a smidge off, we might have ended up as grotesque bipeds with 20 digits and sickly-looking dry skin!"

[Sleet]

But again, without carbon, not only can you not store information but you cannot process information.

Silicon.

[Mindflayer]

No, you have a choice of course. One can believe that the Big Bang was birthed through

1. An intelligent Being, i.e. a Creator or
2. Unintelligent processes such as a multiverse or an "infinite universe" a la string theory.

Everyone has to make that choice for themselves.
Why can't it be both?

I believe in the whole "multi-verse" theory, I mean anyone who's had an out-of-body experience would almost have to, because during that experience, they deffinately weren't on -this- plane of existence :p

but, just because I beleive in a multi-verse doesn't mean that I don't beleive there was a divine energy that started it... it's kinda hard to explain really WHAT I believe, but that's it in a nut-shell :p

[Whisper9999]

Silicon.

Silicon has a maximum linking capacity of less than a 100 chains. This is way, way too short for information storage or processing. And this observation comes from non-Christian scientists by the way.

Here's a NASA article that shows even greater problems with silicon-based life:

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm

Again, carbon is the only physical choice in the universe. If one wants to believe in bizarre energy-based life forms or life forms from other dimensions (i.e. spiritual), then that's fine. But I'm talking about physical life forms in our current universe that is not based on science fiction...

[Whisper9999]

Why can't it be both?

I believe in the whole "multi-verse" theory, I mean anyone who's had an out-of-body experience would almost have to, because during that experience, they deffinately weren't on -this- plane of existence :p


Actually, the extradimensionality of String Theory could explain OOB's. No need to go to other universes.

Keep in mind that the idea of a multiverse is not just alternate universes but a virtual infinite array of them that would iterate, randomly or non, through all possible combination of parameters (base level physical constants of the universe in this case) thus eventually arriving at our universe which accidently supports advanced life. I don't think this is really what you are talking about.

The spiritual dimensions/phenomenon only make the multiverse more implausible because a multiverse must now explain why the spiritual realm as well - something that it cannot even begin to do...

[Whisper9999]

Why can't it be both?


So, again, a multiverse is essentially the belief in a randomly generated sequence of universes that eventually produced a "beautiful accident" (as none other than Avril Lavigne wrote). It is unimaginable to me that if there was a God, He would work via this methodology, that is simple Monte Carlo simulation. That's why I say the two are mutually exclusive.

I think you are saying that there could be alternate universes and that God could be responsible for them. I can't argue that...

[Whisper9999]

OK, there are two main parts to this post. First, an examination of Hugh Ross’s “Evidence for Design”, and Second, an examination of the theological implications of the idea of “Intelligent Design” itself.

Main problems with table:

1. Vague. He says “if less” and “if more” without saying HOW much less or more. This applies to all 47 points. For an example, look at point #43 – he says that if atmospheric discharge were higher, too much fire damage would occur. OK, well if the rate of lightning were increased to ridiculous levels maybe, but by “greater” he must mean increasing it by as much as 10,000% or more. Think about it, if lightning struck even 100% more often (twice as often), no one would care, or even notice. 10 times as much? Yawn. By saying “if more” when the truth is “if much much much more”, he makes it sound like these are narrow ranges we are lucky to be in, when in many cases they are huge. This applies to all of the points to a varying degree.


2. Lack of understanding of possible range. In cases of numerical constants, it is impossible to know what numbers we pick from, so it is impossible to know if we got an unlikely result. For example, look at #40. Ok, this can range from 0% to 100%, either extreme of which wouldn’t permit humans and plants to both exist. Compare this to point #3 – the weak coupling constant. What possible range is “available”? We have no idea. Maybe only values right around the present value are possible, so it isn’t unlikely at all that we have that value. This applies to points 1-5, and makes them as meaningful as asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.



The funny thing about your presentation is that these parametric constraints have come almost entirely from non-Christian, non-believing astronomers and physicists. You are treating these like they are some sort of creationist conspiracy, but it is not. The extreme coincidental nature of the constants of the universe is recognized by cosmologists all over the theological map - not just Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross is simply bold enough to point out (because he no longer has his reputation hanging by a "publish or perish" thread) that the universe fits well into a intelligent design model.

And, by the way, his books give the details on the ranges of most of these constants. And, most importantly, these findings all come from secular scientists in the last two or three decades. Hugh Ross is simply a compiler from peer reviewed material. Anyone that is truly interested can pm me...

[charmedkisses1]

I KNOW a God/dess or Creator figure exists. It's too %&#@*&$ perfect not to have been. :bigredblu

[Whisper9999]

I KNOW a God/dess or Creator figure exists. It's too %&#@*&$ perfect not to have been. :bigredblu

Yes and, again, the supernatural/spiritual realm completely baffles science. They would rather not think or deal with that one. Many of them are still holding to 1950's materialism. Not for long if you ask me...

[Sleet]

http://nai.arc.nasa.gov/astrobio/feat_questions/silicon_life.cfm


That's interesting, I didn't know big silicon molecules were less stable than their carbon-based brethren. I just looked at the periodic table, picked the next one down from carbon (knowing atoms in the same [period have similar checmical reactivity properties), and tossed it out there.

[Whisper9999]

That's interesting, I didn't know big silicon molecules were less stable than their carbon-based brethren. I just looked at the periodic table, picked the next one down from carbon (knowing atoms in the same [period have similar checmical reactivity properties), and tossed it out there.

Trying to test me, eh? No, when I was growing up silicon-based life forms was pretty common in sci fi litereature. But over the years, hard science slowly showed that Si wouldn't cut it. Another one I've heard thrown out is Boron, but it is very rare in the universe and I don't know of anyone that considers it...

[Sleet]

Trying to test me, eh?

Not really, just naming what seemed to be a reasonable alternative (chemistry isn't my area of expertise). You know, discussion. ;)

[equinox2]

Whisper9999 wrote:

The extreme coincidental nature of the constants of the universe is recognized by cosmologists all over the theological map - not just Hugh Ross. Hugh Ross is simply bold enough to point out (because he no longer has his reputation hanging by a "publish or perish" thread) that the universe fits well into a intelligent design model.

Hi Whisper-

First of all, though you and I differ (often!), I respect you. Both of us have beliefs that differ in many respects from many people here on MW, and your accepting participation here is commendable (as is the acceptance of most MW members).

Ok, now about the discussion.

Sure, there are ‘many’ cosmologists who see design or “tuned” constants in the universe, but that’s only because there are very, very many cosmogists on earth. A small percentage of a large number is still a large number. If most cosomolgists saw such strong evidence of design, then why are over 90% of all astronomers and physicists either atheist or agnostic? Remember, polls like this are anonymous, so any “conspiracy” theory about some fear caused by “publish or perish” doesn’t hold water (no one sees their answer, so there is no fear). That “publish or perish” conspiracy theory also doesn’t work when you consider very prominent scientists who are looking back on their lives, such as Steven Weinberg, who wrote the essay I linked to in post #21 (http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm). He wrote:


I'd guess that if we were to see the hand of the designer anywhere, it would be in the fundamental principles, the final laws of nature, the book of rules that govern all natural phenomena. We don't know the final laws yet, but as far as we have been able to see, they are utterly impersonal and quite without any special role for life.

(But as usual, please read the whole thing to make sure I’m not taking this out of context.)


As I pointed out before, none of the fundamental constant values in physics is obviously a “good” value because we don’t have any range to compare it to. If it were compelling, wouldn’t more people who have seen all the data, and thought about it (astronomers and physicists), be theists?

The sad thing is these kinds of “evidences” for a God always seem to me to quickly become insults to God. If I were to believe in an omnipotent creator who created this world, then all the arguments about design make God look pathetic. A good example has already been discussed with the carbon/silicon discussion. If god was actually good, then why make ONLY carbon based life possible? Why not make silicon life plentiful? And boron based life too, for that matter? I can see the discussion going like this:

Fred: See how the universe is designed for life? The physical constants make only carbon based life possible, and are tuned for that!
Jim: Um, what about silicon life?
Fred: It doesn’t seem possible for several reasons that Whisper pointed out.
Jim: Hmmmm. So what kind of “loving” god would purposefully eliminate some kinds of life?
Fred: Well, he had to stay consistent! If the binding constant were higher (so silicon life were possible), then carbon life wouldn’t work! You can’t have both!
Jim: Why not?
Fred: Because of the basic laws of Chemistry.
Jim: Who determines the basic laws of Chemistry?
Fred: God, of course.
Jim: So he decided to make chemistry laws that prevented him from doing what he wanted? Can’t he just make the laws any way he wants? Isn’t he freakin’ GOD, afterall?
Fred: Well, maybe it violated some other basic physical laws….
Jim: So this god is a slave to these laws? Did some more powerful god make them when the impotent creator god wasn’t looking? Which god should we worship?
Fred: Ok, no. God made all the laws.
Jim: Even the laws that constrain him? Can God make a rock so heavy that he can’t lift it?
Fred: Umm... Hey, wasn’t that a good Red Sox game last night?

Whenever these kind of “design” questions come up, they end up making God look worse and worse as the discussion goes on. I’ve seen pages and pages written by apologists trying to justify god against these arguments and they end up where they began – with simple faith. I’m sure they work for some people, and that’s fine for them. I just don’t see the point in tearing down one’s own God.

[Erebus]

I KNOW a God/dess or Creator figure exists. It's too %&#@*&$ perfect not to have been.

You realize, of course, that if things weren't "too bleeping perfect" for humans, we would still be here, just not as humans? And we'd be saying things like "It's too bleeping perfect not to have been specifically designed for us intelligent dolphins!"

Why do people insist on saying "This world was created just for us!" as opposed to "We were created just for this world!"?

[Whisper9999]

Whisper9999 wrote:


Hi Whisper-

First of all, though you and I differ (often!), I respect you. Both of us have beliefs that differ in many respects from many people here on MW, and your accepting participation here is commendable (as is the acceptance of most MW members).

Ok, now about the discussion.

Sure, there are ‘many’ cosmologists who see design or “tuned” constants in the universe, but that’s only because there are very, very many cosmogists on earth. A small percentage of a large number is still a large number. If most cosomolgists saw such strong evidence of design, then why are over 90% of all astronomers and physicists either atheist or agnostic? Remember, polls like this are anonymous, so any “conspiracy” theory about some fear caused by “publish or perish” doesn’t hold water (no one sees their answer, so there is no fear). That “publish or perish” conspiracy theory also doesn’t work when you consider very prominent scientists who are looking back on their lives, such as Steven Weinberg, who wrote the essay I linked to in post #21 (http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm). He wrote:



................


Whenever these kind of “design” questions come up, they end up making God look worse and worse as the discussion goes on. I’ve seen pages and pages written by apologists trying to justify god against these arguments and they end up where they began – with simple faith. I’m sure they work for some people, and that’s fine for them. I just don’t see the point in tearing down one’s own God.

A number of comments. First of all I skimmed through the link you gave and it's a well-written one. However, he makes - in my opinion of course - some outlandish comments. Here's one:

"There do not seem to be any exceptions to this natural order, any miracles. I have the impression that these days most theologians are embarrassed by talk of miracles, but the great monotheistic faiths are founded on miracle stories—the burning bush, the empty tomb, an angel dictating the Koran to Mohammed—and some of these faiths teach that miracles continue at the present day. The evidence for all these miracles seems to me to be considerably weaker than the evidence for cold fusion, and I don't believe in cold fusion."

Imo this is the comment of someone who has spent too much time in the hallowed halls of academia w/o bothering to research the modern Christian (or occult for that matter) movement. Again, imo there is ample evidence of miracles for those who actually want to seriously investigate it, but most people in academia have little time for that. As I'm sure you know, most profs for the first 10-20 years of their careers work 60+ hours/week. The great majority of them just don't have time for a lot of "spiritual research". It's a tough profession from what I've seen, although I admire them for doing it.

And, yes, you are right: there is no way to "prove" God's existence from science. Of course, I disagree that modern science makes God look "bad" in any way. I believe that the pendulum is changing in the scientific community. At the Darwin Centennial, materialism was the undisputed king. Now that is not the case and I think in fifty years you will see a much higher percentage of non-skeptics. But that's just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence. For example, who would have guessed that the Origin of Life research would have gone so badly that now many scientists look to panspermia to explain the first life forms??

[Whisper9999]

Not really, just naming what seemed to be a reasonable alternative (chemistry isn't my area of expertise). You know, discussion. ;)

Just looked at your profile - jealousy!!

[equinox2]

Whisper wrote:

Of course, I disagree that modern science makes God look "bad" in any way.

Of course! :hehehehe: And it would be boring to discuss things only with someone who agreed with me on everything.

However, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the claim that "God designed and actively molded every detail in the universe" is what makes God look bad. Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, see God more in the Deist direction – a God who only starts the universe and then lets “nature” take its course in some areas. That view of God is still completely theistic, but avoids all the problems I mentioned at the end of Post #21 - I was saying that it is the creationists who make God look bad, not science.


For example, who would have guessed that the Origin of Life research would have gone so badly that now many scientists look to panspermia to explain the first life forms??

This is a mischaracterization. The field of abiogenesis is simply exploding, with many different chemical routes to life seen as possible. Panspermia is discussed because it is so easy to form organic molecules (we even see them on other worlds in our own solar system), that it seems likely that some fell on the earth. Abiogenesis research hasn’t gone “badly”, but instead has gone so well that now it isn’t clear which route of many is the one that actually happened. Sure we don't "know" if any specific route works perfectly, but we also don't "know" that all the routes don't work. Creationists have always spread stories about abiogenesis research going badly, but they are false, just like the paluxy river "man" tracks or the claim that a growing percentage of scientists support creationism. But don’t take my word for it - here is one of many journals that publish research results in this field – feel free to browse some of the paper titles:
http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/klu/orig


I believe that the pendulum is changing in the scientific community. …I think in fifty years you will see a much higher percentage of non-skeptics. But that's just my opinion based on anecdotal evidence.

You could be right. The evidence that isn’t anecdotal (such as the poll results I posted earlier) shows the opposite, where the scientific community has become less and less likely to believe in a god as the years have gone by. However, who knows what will happen in the future. You and I both agree that science isn’t close to explaining something as basic as our consciousness. That by itself proves to me at least that there is something going on that isn’t completely explained by a purely materialistic approach.

[Whisper9999]

Whisper wrote:


Of course! :hehehehe: And it would be boring to discuss things only with someone who agreed with me on everything.

However, that wasn’t my point. My point was that the claim that "God designed and actively molded every detail in the universe" is what makes God look bad. Many people, both Christian and non-Christian, see God more in the Deist direction – a God who only starts the universe and then lets “nature” take its course in some areas. That view of God is still completely theistic, but avoids all the problems I mentioned at the end of Post #21 - I was saying that it is the creationists who make God look bad, not science.

You're still losing me on this one. Suppose just for a minute that 1) there is a God, 2) the universe was created/designed by Him, 3) there was creation of the LUCA and maybe some additional times such as the cambrian explosion, etc.

Now I personally think that our universe was created to maximize the maximum number of non-robotic followers and I think He has achieved that admirably. So I just don't see the issues that you see in our universe. You'll have to explain more...

[Whisper9999]

This is a mischaracterization. The field of abiogenesis is simply exploding, with many different chemical routes to life seen as possible. Panspermia is discussed because it is so easy to form organic molecules (we even see them on other worlds in our own solar system), that it seems likely that some fell on the earth. Abiogenesis research hasn’t gone “badly”, but instead has gone so well that now it isn’t clear which route of many is the one that actually happened. Sure we don't "know" if any specific route works perfectly, but we also don't "know" that all the routes don't work. Creationists have always spread stories about abiogenesis research going badly, but they are false, just like the paluxy river "man" tracks or the claim that a growing percentage of scientists support creationism. But don’t take my word for it - here is one of many journals that publish research results in this field – feel free to browse some of the paper titles:
http://www.ingenta.com/journals/browse/klu/orig


Start a thread on this in a few days and I'll explain my thinking. It's a little busy today and probably tomorrow for me though...

[Whisper9999]

You could be right. The evidence that isn’t anecdotal (such as the poll results I posted earlier) shows the opposite, where the scientific community has become less and less likely to believe in a god as the years have gone by. However, who knows what will happen in the future. You and I both agree that science isn’t close to explaining something as basic as our consciousness. That by itself proves to me at least that there is something going on that isn’t completely explained by a purely materialistic approach.

Now here's my opinion, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I'm just calling it as I see it. I am the mathematical/technical/analytical type and I have never had trouble seeing supernatural miracles either when I was in the occult or as a Christian. The same goes with many of my friends. But I did have a certain amount of desire and I did spend a certain amount of time on it.

So, again this is just my opinion, if the top level scientists are going materialistic as you say, then there must be other reasons for it. Perhaps they're just not putting the time and effort into finding the supernatural? This seems quite reasonable to me: I've talked to profs in the math and science departments and these guys are generally workaholics - they have to be to survive - that spend 60+ hours a week working. Is it any wonder they make few spiritual discoveries and rarely deal with the supernatural?

Again, I'm not trying to be difficult or patronizing, but I know what I've seen as have many on this board, and it's just not explainable by traditional materialism, deism, etc. I think because of my background, I start with a completely different set of presuppositions and it really doesn't matter to me what a guy with a 200 IQ tells me. I know that modern physics cannot explain some of these things and I LOVE physics/geology/astronomy.

But science is simply a starting point. Science only describes only a slice of reality. It is extremely valuable, but it is not the "be all and end all of existence"...

And that's my two cents...

[Mindflayer]

Actually, the extradimensionality of String Theory could explain OOB's. No need to go to other universes.

Keep in mind that the idea of a multiverse is not just alternate universes but a virtual infinite array of them that would iterate, randomly or non, through all possible combination of parameters (base level physical constants of the universe in this case) thus eventually arriving at our universe which accidently supports advanced life. I don't think this is really what you are talking about.

The spiritual dimensions/phenomenon only make the multiverse more implausible because a multiverse must now explain why the spiritual realm as well - something that it cannot even begin to do...

I know what the multiverse theory is, but I never heard of a prerequisite that life has to be an "accident" as you say...

Also, how do spiritual occurances make it implausible? A spirit is an enitity that exists on another plane of existence, another universe, they're just able to interact with THIS plane too.



So, again, a multiverse is essentially the belief in a randomly generated sequence of universes that eventually produced a "beautiful accident" (as none other than Avril Lavigne wrote). It is unimaginable to me that if there was a God, He would work via this methodology, that is simple Monte Carlo simulation. That's why I say the two are mutually exclusive.

I think you are saying that there could be alternate universes and that God could be responsible for them. I can't argue that...
Well, yes and no, I believe the Divine exist everywhere, so, even in a multiverse reality they would still be there...

[Whisper9999]

I know what the multiverse theory is, but I never heard of a prerequisite that life has to be an "accident" as you say...

Also, how do spiritual occurances make it implausible? A spirit is an enitity that exists on another plane of existence, another universe, they're just able to interact with THIS plane too.

Well, yes and no, I believe the Divine exist everywhere, so, even in a multiverse reality they would still be there...

Technically, you're right. But if there was a God, why would He have a "Random Universe Generator" operating while He sat back watching in another "plane of existence" as you put it? Why not just create the right universe the first time around?