Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

On the Vastness of the Universe

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

Nevada is mostly empty; I mean really empty.  Ninety percent of the state’s residents live in the vicinity of Las Vegas or Reno, and the rest of the state is all but uninhabited.  I realized just how empty the state is when I was riding my motorcycle across the desert last month, and I passed a sign that said “Next Gas 167 Miles.”  They weren’t kidding.  My bike’s range is only a little over 200 miles, and if I hadn’t stopped to top off my tank, I would have run out of gas in the middle of the desert. 

This is the kind of riding I love the best.  Riding hour after hour through a vast emptiness, alone with my thoughts, the wind in my face, and the deep-throated throb of my engine in my ears, fills me with a peace and joy that is difficult to describe.  One day my two friends and I decided to just keep on riding after the sun went down, and at about 11:00 we stopped in the middle of the desert and turned off our motorcycles.  There was no moon that night and the wind had died down.  No other vehicles were on the highway, so we were alone in the quiet darkness, the only sound the pinging noises made by our engines as they cooled in the night air.

Hundreds of miles from the lights of the nearest city, the night sky was stunning.  The Milky Way was clearly visible from one horizon to the other.  Antares glowed like a tiny ruby in the heart of Scorpio.  My friends and I just stood there, gaping in awed silence at the numberless points of twinkling light in the celestial sphere.  Then John said, “I wonder why God made the universe so big.” 

John’s comment got me to thinking.  Why is the universe so big, with billons of galaxies and with each galaxy containing billions of stars, there are more stars in the universe than grains of sand in all the beaches of the world. 

The vast size of the universe along with the earth’s comparative insignificance have often been used as an argument against the Christian view of God.  The argument goes something like this:  When our poor benighted ancestors thought we lived in a cozy little universe that revolved around the earth at its center, the Christian view of God might have made sense.  But now we know better.  We have the Copernican Principle (or the “Principle of Mediocrity”), which tells us that the universe is not cozy, and the earth is not at its center.  The universe is larger than we can possibly understand, and, cosmically speaking, the earth is an insignificant speck of dust orbiting a slightly less insignificant speck of dust in one galaxy out of billons.  Surely God would not create such a vast universe to support only life on earth; now that would be a waste of a truly cosmic proportions.

As it turns out, there are good reasons to doubt every premise of this argument.

1.  The Ancients Were Not Stupid.

Let’s deal with the first assertion, that the ancients believed we live in a small universe.  Consider Psalm 8:  “When I consider your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place, what is man that you are mindful of him, the son of man that you care for him?”  The psalmist looked at the multitude of stars in the night sky and realized that he was tiny and insignificant in a vast universe.  It is truly a conceit of the modern age that the ancients naively believed they lived in a small and cozy universe in which the earth and man figured significantly, and that only now with our telescopes and other instruments of science do we understand the vastness of the universe and our relative insignificance. 

Consider also Ptolemy’s Almagest, which was written in the early 100’s AD.  It was the standard text on astronomy for over a thousand years.  In chapter 5 of book I of the Almagest, Ptolemy writes:  “The earth, in relation to the distance of the fixed stars, has no appreciable size and must be treated as a mathematical point.”  So it turns out that the ancients were not as naive about the size of the universe as modern skeptics would have us believe. 

2.  The Earth is Almost Certainly a Very Special Place

No one supposes that the Earth is at the exact geometric center of the universe anymore.  Nevertheless, there are good reasons to believe that it is a very special place, perhaps even unique.  In recent years astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez has led the way in demonstrating that the existence of life is far from likely.  In fact, it is exceedingly improbable and the conditions of the Milky Way galaxy, the sun, the solar system, the moon and the earth itself are remarkably fine-tuned for the existence of life.

 According to Gonzalez, “The claims by many Copernican Principle advocates over the centuries, that life is commonplace on other celestial bodies, has been a spectacular failure. . . . Since it is Earth’s ability to support life that many take to be its most important quality, it is clear that this is a major failure of the metaphysical version of the Copernican Principle if the actual conditions which support life are so rare that they may only exist for Earth.”

 3.  The Universe is Exactly the Right Size

 Finally, it turns out that the universe is not “too big” after all.  In fact, it is exactly the size it must be in order to support life.  Rich Deem summarizes just a few of the “just right” parameters which make the universe ideal for the existence of life:

It turns out that the universe could not have been much smaller than it is in order for nuclear fusion to have occurred during the first 3 minutes after the Big Bang. Without this brief period of nucleosynthesis, the early universe would have consisted entirely of hydrogen. Likewise, the universe could not have been much larger than it is, or life would not have been possible. If the universe were just one part in 10^59 larger, the universe would have collapsed before life was possible. Since there are only 10^80 baryons in the universe, this means that an addition of just 10^21 baryons (about the mass of a grain of sand) would have made life impossible. The universe is exactly the size it must be for life to exist at all.

Comments
zeroseven you state:
"Surely it is the height of arrogance to believe that the whole vast glittering universe was created just for you and creatures of your kind? In fact I couldn’t really conceive of a much more arrogant position than that."
Actually zeroseven I called it arrogant for one to presuppose he could design a better universe than God did since we cannot even create a single photon. Second I did not start out, years ago, with the 'arrogant' presupposition that the universe was designed for 'me and my kind', but I started out with the presupposition that the universe had no bounds and that I was nothing. Yet as the scientific evidence itself has come together into a coherent, focused, and integrated, form, I find myself greatly surprised that such insignificant nothings, as 'me and my kind' are, would in fact be found to have significance. So I agree with you that it would be arrogant to start out with that position with no foundational knowledge to back up your position as to that claim. whereas conversely, nowadays, with such a wealth of knowledge that has been forthcoming for the design of the universe, I hold it would be very, very, unwise for one to deny the overwhelming evidence for design and to continue to mock and ridicule God and those who have placed their trust in Him. ,, It simply is no longer justifiable, in the least, in the face of such an avalanche of 'scientific' evidence.bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
03:16 PM
3
03
16
PM
PDT
Barry, Atheists are mystified by the vastness or complexity of the universe, and they will remain mystified. For Christians and Jews the answer is undoubtedly tied to the mystery of the Tree of Knowledge, and the first sin of humans when they wanted to become "like gods", (Genesis 3). The universe was made vast enough to diminish the big ego and the significance of humans, of which they would become conscious, (this was also Kant's observation), since they were indeed created a little lower than the angels, including their ability to reason and discover. Curiously, it was the young man Elihu who finally chastised Job, (before God Himself finally brought Job to his senses), by pointing out, among many other interesting things, that "God is great beyond our knowledge" (Job 36:26), "He does great things beyond our knowing" (Job 37:5), and "He shuts up all mankind indoors" (Job 37:7), all this so "therefore men revere him, though none can see him, however wise their hearts." (Job 37:24) Really, despite all the knowledge mankind has acquired, it is all still just ignorance compared to the knowledge of God (Job 38). And the structure of the universe, its vastness on one hand, and the complexity of matter and life itself that the modern science has revealed, is there to safeguard the Tree of Life from plundering, since it is guarded by cherubim with their "fiery revolving sword", whatever that terrible weapon is. (Genesis 3:24)rockyr
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
02:34 PM
2
02
34
PM
PDT
Collin, are you a Mormon per chance?M. Holcumbrink
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
BA77, going back a few posts, it never ceases to amaze me that you think people who don't believe the universe was created with us in mind are arrogant. Surely it is the height of arrogance to believe that the whole vast glittering universe was created just for you and creatures of your kind? In fact I couldn't really conceive of a much more arrogant position than that.zeroseven
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
Collin maybe the important thing for us to do right now, individually, since we are all in fact going to die someday, is to establish 'communication', or at least a relationship, with our Creator instead of vainly trying to so with 'hypothetical' aliens??? I find the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence by SETI to be amusing: SETI - Search For Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence receives message from God,,,,, Almost - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4007753 Isaiah 45:18-19 For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens, who is God, who formed the earth and made it, who established it, who did not create it in vain, who formed it to be inhabited: “I am the Lord, and there is no other. I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I did not say to the seed of Jacob, ‘seek me in vain’; I, the Lord speak righteousness, I declare things that are right.” “When I was young, I said to God, 'God, tell me the mystery of the universe.' But God answered, 'That knowledge is for me alone.' So I said, 'God, tell me the mystery of the peanut.' Then God said, 'Well George, that's more nearly your size.' And he told me.” George Washington Carverbornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
02:00 PM
2
02
00
PM
PDT
I just wonder if we ever communicated with intelligent aliens, would peoples' faith be shaken? I believe that their solar system would be just as fine tuned as our own, so Christians would not lose their argument that Earth is special. It is special even if God created other special worlds. I guess part of my assumption is based on what I would do if I were God (I know, hubris up the wazoo). But if I were God, I would be creating all sorts of cool things, all over the universe. I don't deny that God could create the whole universe just for Earth and humans for a purpose only He knows.Collin
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
01:42 PM
1
01
42
PM
PDT
further notes: The following is another surprising Privileged Planet parameter which recently came to light: Cosmic Rays Hit Space Age High Excerpt: "The entire solar system from Mercury to Pluto and beyond is surrounded by a bubble of solar magnetism called "the heliosphere." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090929133244.htm The Protective Boundaries of our Solar System - NASA IBEX - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O0qcQZXpII "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent Being. … This Being governs all things, not as the soul of the world, but as Lord over all; and on account of his dominion he is wont to be called “Lord God” ??????????? [pantokratòr], or “Universal Ruler”… The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect." Sir Isaac Newton - Quoted from what many consider the greatest science masterpiece of all time, "Principia" Many people assume that solar system formation in this universe is a fairly well understood process by science but that is in fact not the case: Are Saturn’s Rings Evolving? July - 2010 Excerpt: Not all is well in theories of planet formation, though. Astrobiology Magazine complained this week that many of the exoplanets discovered around other stars do not fit theories of the origin of the solar system. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201007.htm#20100710a As well, the prevailing 'impact theory' for how our life-enabling moon formed seems to be in jeopardy: Researchers discover water on the moon is widespread, similar to Earth's - July 2010 Excerpt: The finding of volatiles on the moon has deep implications for how it, and the Earth, formed. It is generally believed that the moon was created when the early Earth was hit by a Mars-sized proto-planet called Theia, melting and vaporizing itself and a large chunk of the Earth. The cloud of particles created by the impact later congealed to form the moon, which supposedly was devoid of highly volatile elements such as hydrogen and chlorine. However, the researchers' discovery of these volatiles challenges this theory. "If water in the Moon was residue water kept during the giant impact, it is surprising that water survived the impact at all because less volatile elements, such as sodium and potassium, are strongly depleted. The details of the impact theory need to be re-examined," Liu said. http://www.physorg.com/news198934028.html Even tectonic activity is found to be far more finely-tuned then at first suspected: New Definition Could Further Limit Habitable Zones Around Distant Suns: - June 2009 ... liquid water is essential for life, but a planet also must have plate tectonics to pull excess carbon from its atmosphere and confine it in rocks to prevent runaway greenhouse warming. Tectonics, or the movement of the plates that make up a planet's surface, typically is driven by radioactive decay in the planet's core, but a star's gravity can cause tides in the planet, which creates more energy to drive plate tectonics.... Barnes added, "The bottom line is that tidal forcing is an important factor that we are going to have to consider when looking for habitable planets." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090610124831.htm As well, It is found that not only must you have the right chemicals present on earth to have life, the chemicals must also be present on the earth in 'specific abundances'. Elemental Evidence of Earth’s Divine Design - Hugh Ross PhD. - April 2010 Table: Earth’s Anomalous Abundances - Page 8 The twenty-five elements listed below must exist on Earth in specific abundances for advanced life and/or support of civilization to be possible. For each listed element the number indicates how much more or less abundant it is, by mass, in Earth’s crust, relative to magnesium’s abundance, as compared to its average abundance in the rest of the Milky Way Galaxy, also relative to the element magnesium. Asterisks denote “vital poisons,” essential elements that if too abundant would be toxic to advanced life, but if too scarce would fail to provide the quantities of nutrients essential for advanced life. The water measure compares the amount of water in and on Earth relative to the minimum amount the best planet formation models would predict for a planet the mass of Earth orbiting a star identical to the Sun at the same distance from the Sun. carbon* 1,200 times less nitrogen* 2,400 times less fluorine* 50 times more sodium* 20 times more aluminum 40 times more phosphorus* 4 times more sulfur* 60 times less potassium* 90 times more calcium 20 times more titanium 65 times more vanadium* 9 times more chromium* 5 times less nickel* 20 times less cobalt* 5 times less selenium* 30 times less yttrium 50 times more zirconium 130 times more niobium 170 times more molybdenum* 5 times more tin* 3 times more iodine* 3 times more gold 5 times less lead 170 times more uranium 16,000 times more thorium 23,000 times more water 250 times less http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-02.pdf Computer simulations reveal that getting the correct chemical composition of a 'just right' planet is nowhere near as likely as was first presumed by Drake, Sagan, and other atheistic scientists: Compositions of Extrasolar Planets - July 2010 Excerpt: Today astronomers stand at the verge of discovering rocky terrestrial-type planets the size of Venus and Earth. Already they’ve found several only a few times the mass of Earth. In anticipation of this forthcoming discovery, a number of theoreticians have generated detailed computer simulations of extrasolar terrestrial planet formation based on the measured physical properties of known extrasolar planetary systems. So far, however, these simulations have considered only the dynamics of terrestrial planet formation and not the detailed chemical compositions of the final terrestrial planets produced. In the June 1, 2010 issue of the Astrophysical Journal three astronomers from the Lunar and Planetary Laboratory (LPL) and the Planetary Science Institute (PSI) in Tucson, Arizona, responded to this deficiency.2 As the three astronomers discovered, the presumption that extrasolar terrestrial planets will consistently manifest Earth-like chemical compositions is incorrect. Instead, the simulations revealed “a wide variety of resulting planetary compositions. http://www.reasons.org/compositions-extrasolar-planets The stunning long term balance of these necessary chemicals for life, on the face of the earth, is a wonder in and of itself: Chemical Cycles: Long term chemical balance is essential for life on earth. Complex symbiotic chemical cycles keep the amount of elements on the earth surface in relatively perfect balance and thus in steady supply to the higher life forms that depend on them to remain stable. This is absolutely essential for the higher life forms to exist on Earth for any extended period of time. http://www.uen.org/themepark/cycles/chemical.shtml etc.. etc.. etc..bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
Echoing Mr. Arrington's concern @ 32,,,
"Obviously, we cannot know for certain whether life exists on other planets. The point is that there is no reason to blithely assume that it does for no other reason than because a large number of planets exist."
This article "serendipitously" just came up on Crevo news: Exoplanet Hunters Fail Predictions - August 2010 In Caltech’s latest Engineering and Science magazine,1 John Johnson was interviewed about the state of extrasolar planet hunting. Johnson has been involved with leading planet-hunting pioneers. A recurring theme in the interview is the surprise that planetary systems were found to be radically different from predictions. What are some of the current big questions that you guys are trying to tackle? We’re interested in how the solar system formed. We’re interested in our immediate environment and describing its origins. And beyond that, we’re interested in general in how planetary systems formed. There are some very specific questions that arise at every turn. There are so many surprises in this field—almost nothing is turning out as we expected. There are Jupiter-mass planets in three-day orbits. There are planets with masses that are between those of the terrestrial planets in our solar system and the gas giants in the outer part of our solar system. There are Jupiter-mass planets with hugely inflated radii—at densities far lower than what we thought were possible for a gas-giant planet. There are giant planets with gigantic solid cores that defy models of planet formation, which say there shouldn’t be enough solids available in a protoplanetary disk to form a planet that dense. There are planets with tilted orbits. There are planets that orbit the poles of their stars, in so-called circumpolar orbits. There are planets that orbit retrograde—that is, they orbit in the opposite direction of their star’s rotation. There are systems of planets that are in configurations that are hard to describe given our understanding of planet formation. For instance, some planets are much too close to one another. But a lot of those surprises have to do with the fact that we have only one example of a planetary system—our solar system—to base everything on, right? What’s interesting is that we’ve found very little that resembles our example. http://www.creationsafaris.com/crev201008.htm#20100831a further notes on the privileged planet principle: To answer our second question (What evidence is found for the earth's ability to support life?) we will consider many 'life-enabling characteristics', for the galaxy, sun, moon and earth, which establish that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Again, the presumption of materialistic blind chance being the only reasonable cause must be dealt with. As opposed to the anthropic hypothesis which starts off by presuming the earth is extremely unique in this universe, materialism begins by presuming planets that are able to support life are fairly common in this universe. In fact astronomer Frank Drake (1930-present) proposed, in 1961, advanced life should be fairly common in the universe. He developed a rather crude equation called the 'Drake equation'. He plugged in some rather optimistic numbers and reasoned that ten worlds with advanced life should be in our Milky Way galaxy alone. That worked out to roughly one trillion worlds with advanced life throughout the entire universe. Much to the disappointment of Star Trek fans, the avalanche of recent scientific evidence has found the probability of finding another planet with the ability to host advanced life in this universe is not nearly as likely as astronomer Frank Drake had originally predicted. First it does not seem that our solar system is nearly as haphazard as some materialists would have us believe: Thank God for Jupiter - July 2010 Excerpt: The July 16, 1994 and July 19, 2009 collision events on Jupiter demonstrate just how crucial a role the planet plays in protecting life on Earth. Without Jupiter’s gravitational shield our planet would be pummeled by frequent life-exterminating events. Yet Jupiter by itself is not an adequate shield. The best protection is achieved via a specific arrangement of several gas giant planets. The most massive gas giant must be nearest to the life support planet and the second most massive gas giant the next nearest, followed by smaller, more distant gas giants. Together Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune provide Earth with this ideal shield. http://www.reasons.org/thank-god-jupiter In fact when trying to take into consideration all the different factors necessary to make life possible on any earth-like planet, we learn some very surprising things: Privileged Planet Principle - Michael Strauss - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4318884/ There are many independent characteristics required to be fulfilled for any planet to host advanced carbon-based life. Two popular books have recently been written, 'The Privileged Planet' by Guillermo Gonzalez and 'Rare Earth' by Donald Brownlee, indicating the earth is extremely unique in its ability to host advanced life in this universe. Privileged Planet, which holds that any life supporting planet in the universe will also be 'privileged' for observation of the universe, has now been made into a excellent video. The Privileged Planet - video http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6308516608498324470&ei=r5EfTNrdMqWSqwLJlOGHCw&q=privileged+planet# There is also a well researched statistical analysis of the many independent 'life-enabling characteristics' that gives strong mathematical indication that the earth is extremely unique in its ability to support complex life in this universe and shows, from a naturalistic perspective, that a life permitting planet is extremely unlikely to 'accidentally emerge' in the universe. The statistical analysis, which is actually a refinement of the Drake equation, is dealt with by astro-physicist Dr. Hugh Ross (1945-present) in his paper 'Probability for Life on Earth'. Probability For Life On Earth - List of Parameters, References, and Math - Hugh Ross http://www.reasons.org/probability-life-earth-apr-2004 http://www.johnankerberg.com/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC2W0304RFT.pdf A few of the items in Dr. Ross's "life-enabling characteristics" list are; Planet location in a proper galaxy's 'habitable zone'; Parent star size; Surface gravity of planet; Rotation period of planet; Correct chemical composition of planet; Correct size for moon; Thickness of planets’ crust; Presence of magnetic field; Correct and stable axis tilt; Oxygen to nitrogen ratio in atmosphere; Proper water content of planet; Atmospheric electric discharge rate; Proper seismic activity of planet; Many complex cycles necessary for a stable temperature history of planet; Translucent atmosphere; Various complex cycles for various elements etc.. etc.. I could go a lot further for there are a total of 322 known parameters on his list which have to be met for complex life to be possible on Earth, or on a planet like Earth. Individually, these limits are not that impressive but when we realize ALL these limits have to be met at the same time and not one of them can be out of limits for any extended period of time, then the condition becomes 'irreducibly complex' and the probability for a world which can host advanced life in this universe becomes very extraordinary. Here is the final summary of Dr. Hugh Ross's 'conservative' estimate for the probability of another life-hosting world in this universe. Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters =10^388 Dependency factors estimate =10^96 Longevity requirements estimate =10^14 Probability for occurrence of all 322 parameters = 10^304 Maximum possible number of life support bodies in universe =10^22 Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^282 (million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles. Dr. Hugh Ross, and his team, have now drastically refined this probability of 1 in 10^304 to a staggering probability of 1 in 10^1054: Does the Probability for ETI = 1? Excerpt; On the Reasons To Believe website we document that the probability a randomly selected planet would possess all the characteristics intelligent life requires is less than 10^-304. A recent update that will be published with my next book, Hidden Purposes: Why the Universe Is the Way It Is, puts that probability at 10^-1054. http://www.reasons.org/does-probability-eti-1bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
01:22 PM
1
01
22
PM
PDT
In order for one to determine whether a system, mechanism, process, etc. is "perfect" we must understand the purpose of its creation. One purpose, it seems to me, assuming of course that humans are significant, is to maximize our intellect. We require adversity, challenge, opposition, opportunity, etc., in order to progress. To what end? That is the question.smordecai
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
12:47 PM
12
12
47
PM
PDT
Collin, you seem to be buying into the "there are billons of planets; therefore there must be many planets on which life exists." Sorry; it is not that simple. The whole point of Professor Gonzalez’s work is to demonstrate that the existence of the conditions necessary for life is extremely improbable. In fact, those conditions are so highly improbable that it is not unreasonable to conclude that the earth may be the only place in the universe where life beat the odds. Obviously, we cannot know for certain whether life exists on other planets. The point is that there is no reason to blithely assume that it does for no other reason than because a large number of planets exist.Barry Arrington
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
12:22 PM
12
12
22
PM
PDT
Collin :) It was a fumbled attempt to get the conversation onto relevant science. My apologies.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
It seems obvious to me that God created such a vast universe because He has many inhabited worlds with many children. And maybe we'll learn to travel to the distant stars and galaxies and learn to be creator's too, in a more limited extent.Collin
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
11:05 AM
11
11
05
AM
PDT
upright biped, I'm sure your question is brilliant because I have no idea what it means.Collin
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
10:45 AM
10
10
45
AM
PDT
Regarding #14 Being the Calvinist that I am, I would say that all of our hearts are hardened "beyond the point of no return" from the git-go, and God softens who he wills. In light of this, I would say if God decides to soften markf's heart, there is nothing he can do about it.M. Holcumbrink
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
10:21 AM
10
10
21
AM
PDT
Regarding #3 It seems to me this is more of a definition type-thing. Perhaps the way the universe is simply defines what a perfect uniververse should be like, and to ask why God didn't make it bigger or smaller is like asking why God couldn't make a circle with four corners.M. Holcumbrink
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
10:15 AM
10
10
15
AM
PDT
lastyearon, Most famous scientists of the past were Christians and believed their pursuit of knowledge was glorifying to God. I don't feel any differently.ellijacket
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
09:25 AM
9
09
25
AM
PDT
lastyearon, you seem to be unaware that science as we know it would not exist but for the "Christian stuff."Barry Arrington
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PDT
This is a science blog, no? Why all the Christian stuff?lastyearon
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
Actually, I made a music video based on the one grain of sand fine-tuning finding: My Beloved One - Inspirational Christian Song - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4200171bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:52 AM
8
08
52
AM
PDT
markf you ask: "but who knows what sizes are possible if you are allowed to vary the physical constants"(?) actually physicists have played around with this concept and have found that not only are the individual constants finely tuned, but have also found that they are 'irreducibly complex' in relation to one another,,, “If we modify the value of one of the fundamental constants, something invariably goes wrong, leading to a universe that is inhospitable to life as we know it. When we adjust a second constant in an attempt to fix the problem(s), the result, generally, is to create three new problems for every one that we “solve.” The conditions in our universe really do seem to be uniquely suitable for life forms like ourselves, and perhaps even for any form of organic complexity." Gribbin and Rees, “Cosmic Coincidences”, p. 269 Anthropic Principle - God Created The Universe - Michael Strauss PhD. - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4323661 Here are a few sites that list the finely tuned 'transcendent' universal constants: Fine-Tuning For Life In The Universe http://www.reasons.org/fine-tuning-life-universe Evidence for the Fine Tuning of the Universe http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designun.html Here is a video that shows that the evidence for design extends to every 'size' we examine (universe, galaxy cluster, galaxy, solar system, arrangement of planets in solar system etc.. etc..) Hugh Ross - Evidence For Intelligent Design Is Everywhere - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4347236 Even the 'exotic' virtual particles are found to be necessary for life in the universe: Virtual Particles, Anthropic Principle & Special Relativity - Michael Strauss PhD. Particle Physics - video http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4554674 So markf, at just which point, of examining the overwhelming evidence for design, do you concede that God just might know more than you do in constructing a universe? Will you always harbor a doubt that you could have done it better than God? Perhaps you could have balanced the universe to within one atom instead of a grain of sand!?! But then the creatures upon which the purpose of this universe is founded (us) would not be able to hold that atom within a pinch of their fingers as they can hold a grain of sand. Perhaps it is all a matter of taste, but myself I feel God made the balance to within one grain of sand specifically so to make it 'personal' for us to realize how much He cares for us.bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
#12 elliejacket The fine tuning argument has been discussed in some detail on this forum - in particular I remember debating it with vjtorley. I don't know if you are familiar with its various twists and turns. But it is not at all clear cut. Among other things it requires treating physical constants as random variables and applying the principle of indifference in a fashion that is hard to justify. For example, why should we say that all values of a physical constant are equally likely, rather than all values of the log of that constant, or the fifth power of that constant? More to the point does it make any sense to talk of the probability of a physical constant having a value in the first place?markf
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:32 AM
8
08
32
AM
PDT
#11 Let’s see markf, the size of the universe, as Mr. Arrington referenced, is balanced to within ‘just one of grain of sand’ this might be true given the current laws of the universe - but who knows what sizes are possible if you are allowed to vary the physical constants (which the fine tuning argument presupposes)markf
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:19 AM
8
08
19
AM
PDT
Collin, how can semiotic content be established by physics?Upright BiPed
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:16 AM
8
08
16
AM
PDT
Is it contrary to Christian doctrine that there be other life in the universe? Could there be an Adam and an Eve who did not fall?Collin
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:09 AM
8
08
09
AM
PDT
Barry, I am certain you are correct.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
08:08 AM
8
08
08
AM
PDT
Upright, BA's attempt to get markf to reflect on his comments is not misplaced. It may be true that markf's heart is hardened beyond the point of return (I am not saying it is); but even it it is, remember there are thousands of lurkers who read these pages, and markf might be asking questions that some of them have.Barry Arrington
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT
BA, your attempt to get markf to reflect upon his comments is completely misplaced. He gave up on the search for truth long ago.Upright BiPed
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT
markf, We do know that the universe is incredibly fine-tuned for life. One can either argue about how it might have been different or ponder the incredible probabilities that can only point to God. It wasn't always easy but I finally choose the latter. There is just too much evidence that points to Him.ellijacket
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:29 AM
7
07
29
AM
PDT
markf you state: "The point that emerges is that the claim that the “universe is just the right size” is pretty meaningless.,,," Let's see markf, the size of the universe, as Mr. Arrington referenced, is balanced to within 'just one of grain of sand' ,,, And you say it is pretty meaningless,,, markf could you please go out tonight and look up at stars and planets??? ,,, then could you reach down and pick up a grain of sand???,,, and then could you look at the grain of sand??? and Then could you look at the stars again??? repeat a few times,,, and then let this thought sink in,,, If that grain of sand did not exist, out of all the grains of sand in the universe, you would not exist!!! Then put that grain of sand on your desk in front of your computer,, then come back to this blog and tell us again how meaningless that grain of sand is to the size of this universe.bornagain77
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:27 AM
7
07
27
AM
PDT
The point that emerges is that the claim that the "universe is just the right size" is pretty meaningless. We don't what other sizes it might have been, given God's ability to change the laws of physics, or what God was trying to achieve - just support life? or impress the hell out of us? Or what?markf
August 31, 2010
August
08
Aug
31
31
2010
07:08 AM
7
07
08
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply