Cosmology Fine tuning Physics

What Steven Weinberg’s “pointless universe” really meant

Spread the love

Explained by a science journalist:

As science and religion began to go their separate ways—a process that accelerated with the work of Darwin—science became secular. “The elimination of God-talk from scientific discourse,” writes historian Jon Roberts, “constitutes the defining feature of modern science.” Weinberg would have agreed. As he told an audience in 1999: “One of the great achievements of science has been, if not to make it impossible for intelligent people to be religious, then at least to make it possible for them not to be religious. We should not retreat from that accomplishment.”

Dan Falk, “Learning to Live in Steven Weinberg’s Pointless Universe” at Scientific American

What it really meant was permission to ignore the significance of the fine-tuning of the universe and of Earth for life. It really amounts to saying that evidence does not matter any more.

That was a big one and Steven Weinberg had a lot of help making it work.

See also: What becomes of science when the evidence does not matter?

15 Replies to “What Steven Weinberg’s “pointless universe” really meant

  1. 1
    Pearlman says:

    That it (the physical universe) can appear ‘pointless’ to a highly educated, high IQ person, IS the point.
    In order for their to be free will, if to be aware of The One designer/creator/concern Father and manager of the universe, aka G-d of Abraham, and thereby exercise that free-will to grow our soul and connection to G-d, vs opt to live in denial and incur spiritual entropy.
    like we like to say: ‘A random operating system can be a design choice. As can retaining an override function’.
    see the Pearlman YeC series for the alignment of Torah testimony, science and ancient civ.

  2. 2
    Seversky says:

    The Universe may be fine-tuned for something – although that sounds like question-begging – but it’s not necessarily for us, since most of it really isn’t if you look at it.

  3. 3
    EDTA says:

    Seversky,

    You said in @2 that “most of it really isn’t…” I’m assuming you mean most of the universe isn’t really fine-tuned. I’m curious how you are measuring the fraction that is and is not fine-tuned. If you consider the fine-tuning of the fundamental constants (see many of BA77’s posts on the subject), then those constants are present throughout.

  4. 4
    ET says:

    True. The universe may or may not be fine tuned for us. But it is fine tuned to allow for us. It is fine tuned to allow us to engage in scientific discovery.

  5. 5
    Belfast says:

    Seversky, once more, reveals that he doesn’t know what he is taking about – “most of the universe really isn’t [fine tuned]”
    Most?
    95% of the universe isn’t known at all !! The 95 % is believed to consist of the unobserved dark matter.
    That’s just for starters – the “universe is fine-tuned” is accepted shorthand for ‘the CONSTANTS appear to be fine – tuned..

  6. 6
    Belfast says:

    The National Geographic article quite wrongly states that Einstein was a vague Pantheist, how they got this so wrong can only be that they didn’t want to repeat what Einstein actually said.
    Einstein stated clearly that he did not believe in a personal God; “It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this, but have expressed it clearly..”
    He expanded on this when he cabled a reply to the question, Do you believe in God?
    ‘I believe in Spinoza’s God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings. “
    Spinoza rejected the concept of a personal God; but had confidence in a real, albeit impersonal, God. At the conclusion of Book One of his ‘Ethics’ he describes an undeniable infinite being.
    National Geographic – the magazine you can thrust.

  7. 7
    bornagain77 says:

    at 2 Seversky claims that,

    The Universe may be fine-tuned for something – although that sounds like question-begging – but it’s not necessarily for us, since most of it really isn’t if you look at it.

    Seversky’s contention that the universe ‘may be fine-tuned for something’, (is he implying bacteria and viruses?), but not necessarily for humans, is misguided at best, and willfully blind at worst.

    On top of the finely-tuned constants/parameters that allow for life to be possible in this universe in the first place,,,

    The Fine-Tuning of the Universe – Dr Craig – animated video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE76nwimuT0

    Stephen Meyer: Fine-Tuning and the Origin of the Universe
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQ7GBZm087Y
    (Also see Dr. Meyer’s recent book, “The Return of the God Hypothesis”, 2021)

    “A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super intellect has “monkeyed” with the physics as well as the chemistry and biology, and there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature.”
    – Sir Fred Hoyle, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 20 (1982): 16.

    – Of note: Although Fred Hoyle had been a staunch atheist up to that point, upon discovering the fine-tuning that allows carbon to be synthesized in stars, Fred Hoyle then became a Deist, perhaps even a Theist.

    “I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars.”
    – Sir Fred Hoyle – “The Universe: Past and Present Reflections.” Engineering and Science, November, 1981. pp. 8–12

    Michael Denton -Atheist Fred Hoyle’s conversion from atheism to being a Deist/Theist (6:38 minute mark)- video
    https://youtu.be/ADT9L5MBPak?t=393

    ,,, On top of the finely-tuned constants/parameters that allow for life to be possible in this universe in the first place, In 2013 Michael Denton’s wrote a paper subtitled “Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis” which detailed the fact that chemistry itself is of maximum benefit ‘for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves’.

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

    In 2015, a video was made which highlighted Michael Denton’s preceding paper

    Privileged Species – How the cosmos is designed for human life – video (2015)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VoI2ms5UHWg

    And again in 2016, Michael Denton’s work was further highlighted in another video entitled ‘Fire Maker”

    Fire-Maker – Michael Denton – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=an98jVCyApo

    A Reasonable, but Incomplete, Account of How Humans Mastered Fire – Michael Denton – August 4, 2016
    In short, the discovery of fire, our subsequent mastery of it, and the road it opened up to an advanced technology were only possible because of our inhabiting a world almost exactly like planet earth, complete with atmospheric conditions exactly as they are, along with the properties of carbon and oxygen atoms (and indeed many of the other atoms of the periodic table), and because we possessed a unique anatomical design (including the hand) uniquely fit for fire-making.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....03048.html

    In this 2017 video, Michael Denton further elucidated the fact that water has properties that are of maximum benefit for humans in particular:

    Water, Ultimate Giver of Life, Points to Intelligent Design
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2i0g1sL-X4

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Of related interest, in 2013 Princeton Physics Professor William Bialek stated that, “photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …”

    William Bialek: More Perfect Than We Imagined – March 23, 2013
    Excerpt: photoreceptor cells that carpet the retinal tissue of the eye and respond to light, are not just good or great or phabulous at their job. They are not merely exceptionally impressive by the standards of biology, with whatever slop and wiggle room the animate category implies. Photoreceptors operate at the outermost boundary allowed by the laws of physics, which means they are as good as they can be, period. Each one is designed to detect and respond to single photons of light — the smallest possible packages in which light comes wrapped.
    “Light is quantized, and you can’t count half a photon,” said William Bialek, a professor of physics and integrative genomics at Princeton University. “This is as far as it goes.” …
    Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....an-we.html

    On top of that, in the following 2014 paper, Robin Collins found that photons coming from the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) are ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’

    The Fine-Tuning for Discoverability – Robin Collins – March 22, 2014
    Excerpt: Predictive and Explanatory Power of Discoverability – Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    ,,, The most dramatic confirmation of the discoverability/livability optimality thesis (DLO) is the dependence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMB) on the baryon to photon ratio.,,,
    ,,, The only livability effect this ratio has is on whether or not galaxies can form that have near – optimally livability zones. As long as this condition is met, the value of this ratio has no further effects on livability. Hence, the DLO predicts that within this range, the value of this ratio will be such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.
    According to my calculations – which have been verified by three other physicists — to within the margin of error of the experimentally determined parameters (~20%), the value of the photon to baryon ratio is such that it maximizes the CMB. This is shown in Figure 1 below. (pg. 13)
    This is a case of a teleological thesis serving both a predictive and an ultimate explanatory role.,,,
    http://home.messiah.edu/~rcoll.....osting.pdf

    Greer Heard Forum: Robin Collins – “God and the Fine-Tuning of the Universe for Discovery” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBWmMU7BXGE

    In relation to photons from the CMBR being ‘such as to maximize the intensity of the CMB as observed by typical observers.’, in the Privileged Planet video and book we find that “The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.”

    “The very conditions that make Earth hospitable to intelligent life also make it well suited to viewing and analyzing the universe as a whole.”
    – Jay Richards – The Privileged Planet – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ohuG3Vj_48&list=PLbzQ4aXdqWD-9kjFsSm-cxNlzgrkJuko7

    The Privileged Planet – The Correlation Of Habitability and Observability
    Excerpt: “The same narrow circumstances that allow us to exist also provide us with the best over all conditions for making scientific discoveries.”,,,
    “The one place that has observers is the one place that also has perfect solar eclipses.”,,,
    “There is a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5 percent of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them.”
    – Guillermo Gonzalez – Astronomer – Privileged Planet pg 18
    https://books.google.com/books?id=lMdwFWZ00GQC&pg=PA18#v=onepage&q&f=false

    “Now of course, if you were suddenly transported to Titan, or Venus, or to one of the out-lying gas giant planets, the lack of a clear view of the universe wouldn’t be much of an issue because you’d be dead. But that is precisely the point. If we are right; if the conditions for habitability and scientific discovery appear in the same places, then you are going to get conditions like you do on earth. An atmosphere that sustains complex life, like ourselves, and also enables scientific discoveries of the universe,,,.
    – Jay Richards – excerpt 6:20 minute mark
    Excerpt 8:12 minute mark,,, “These specific frequencies of light (that enable plants to manufacture food and astronomers to observe the cosmos) represent less than 1 trillionth of a trillionth (10^-24) of the universe’s entire range of electromagnetic emissions.”
    – Fine tuning of Light, Atmosphere, and Water to Photosynthesis (etc..) – video (2016) –
    https://youtu.be/NIwZqDkrj9I?t=384

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, there are ‘anomalies’ that are now found to be in the CMBR that ‘strangely’ line up with the earth and solar system:

    What Is Evil About The Axis Of Evil? – February 17, 2015
    The Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) Radiation contains small temperature fluctuations.
    When these temperature fluctuations are analyzed using image processing techniques (specifically spherical harmonics), they indicate a special direction in space, or, in a sense, an axis through the universe. This axis is correlated back to us, and causes many difficulties for the current big bang and standard cosmology theories. What has been discovered is shocking.
    Two scientists, Kate Land and João Magueijo, in a paper in 2005 describing the axis, dubbed it the “Axis of Evil” because of the damage it does to current theories, and (tongue in cheek) as a response to George Bush’ Axis of Evil speech regarding Iraq, Iran and, North Korea.
    (Youtube clip on site)
    In the above video, Max Tegmark describes in a simplified way how spherical harmonics analysis decomposes the small temperature fluctuations into more averaged and spatially arranged temperature components, known as multipoles.
    The “Axis of Evil” correlates to the earth’s ecliptic and equinoxes, and this represents a very unusual and unexpected special direction in space, a direct challenge to the Copernican Principle.
    http://www.theprinciplemovie.com/evil-axis-evil/

    At the 13:55 minute mark of this following video, Max Tegmark, an atheist who specializes in this area of study, finally admits, post Planck 2013, that the CMBR anomalies do indeed line up with the earth and solar system

    “Thoughtcrime: The Conspiracy to Stop The Principle” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=0eVUSDy_rO0#t=832

    Here is an excellent clip from “The Principle” that explains all of this in an easy to understand manner.

    Cosmic Microwave Background Proves Intelligent Design (disproves Copernican principle) (clip of “The Principle”) – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htV8WTyo4rw

    Moreover, besides the earth and solar system lining up with the anomalies in the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR), Radio Astronomy now reveals a surprising rotational coincidence for Earth in relation to the quasar and radio galaxy distributions in the universe:

    Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky? – Ashok K. Singal – May 17, 2013
    Abstract: Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) observations from the WMAP satellite have shown some unexpected anisotropies (directionally dependent observations), which surprisingly seem to be aligned with the ecliptic\cite {20,16,15}. The latest data from the Planck satellite have confirmed the presence of these anisotropies\cite {17}. Here we report even larger anisotropies in the sky distributions of powerful extended quasars and some other sub-classes of radio galaxies in the 3CRR catalogue, one of the oldest and most intensively studies sample of strong radio sources\cite{21,22,3}. The anisotropies lie about a plane passing through the two equinoxes and the north celestial pole (NCP). We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations. Further, even the distribution of observed radio sizes of quasars and radio galaxies show large systematic differences between these two sky regions. The redshift distribution appear to be very similar in both regions of sky for all sources, which rules out any local effects to be the cause of these anomalies. Two pertinent questions then arise. First, why should there be such large anisotropies present in the sky distribution of some of the most distant discrete sources implying inhomogeneities in the universe at very large scales (covering a fraction of the universe)? What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.4134

    And it is these large scale structures of the universe, combined on top of the CMBR anomalies, which, amazingly, overturn the Copernican principle and strongly support the ‘medieval’ belief that the earth should be considered to have a ‘central’ position in the universe.

    As the following article, (with an illustration), explains,

    “Of course to have an exact position, (or what we would call an ‘exact center’ in the universe), we would need an X axis, a Y axis, and a Z axis, since that will give us three dimensions in Euclidean space. The CMB dipole and quadrupole gives us the X axis and Y axis but not a Z axis. Hence, the X and Y axis of the CMB provide a direction, but only an approximate position. That is why we have continually said that the CMB puts Earth “at or near the center of the universe.”
    For the Z-axis we depend on other information, such as quasars and galaxy alignment that the CMB cannot provide. For example, it has been discovered that the anisotropies of extended quasars and radio galaxies are aligned with the Earth’s equator and the North celestial pole (NCP)4.,,, Ashok K. Singal describes his shocking discovery in those terms:
    “What is intriguing even further is why such anisotropies should lie about a great circle decided purely by the orientation of earth’s rotation axis and/or the axis of its revolution around the sun? It looks as if these axes have a preferential placement in the larger scheme of things, implying an apparent breakdown of the Copernican principle or its more generalization, cosmological principle, upon which all modern cosmological theories are based upon.”
    – Ashok K. Singal4 “Is there a violation of the Copernican principle in radio sky,” Ashok K. Singal, Astronomy and Astrophysics Division, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad, India, May 17, 2103,..
    Signal states: “We can rule out at a 99.995% confidence level the hypothesis that these asymmetries are merely due to statistical fluctuations.”
    – illustration
    https://i.postimg.cc/L8G3CbXN/DOUBLE-AXIS.png
    – article
    http://www.robertsungenis.com/.....20Wars.pdf

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    And to further solidify the fact that humans have far more significance in this universe than atheists have falsely presupposed, (with their erroneous presumption of the Copernican principle), in the following video physicist Neil Turok states that “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”

    “So we can go from 10 to the plus 25 to 10 to the minus 35. Now where are we? Well the size of a living cell is about 10 to the minus 5. Which is halfway between the two. In mathematical terms, we say it is the geometric mean. We live in the middle between the largest scale in physics,,, and the tiniest scale [in physics].”
    – Neil Turok as quoted at the 14:40 minute mark
    The Astonishing Simplicity of Everything – Neil Turok Public Lecture – video (12:00 minute mark, we live in the geometric mean, i.e. the middle, of the universe)
    https://youtu.be/f1x9lgX8GaE?t=715

    The following interactive graph, gives very similar ‘rough ballpark’ figures, of 10 ^27 and 10-35, to Dr. Turok’s figures.

    The Scale of the Universe
    https://htwins.net/scale2/

    And while that finding by Dr. Neil Turok is certainly very interesting, that finding is a bit disappointing in that is just gives life in general a ‘middle’ position in the universe, and still does not give humanity in particular, a ‘middle’ position in the universe.

    Yet, Dr. William Demski, (and company), in the following graph, have refined that estimate of a ‘geometric mean’ with better data, and have given us a more precise figure of 8.8 x 10^26 M for the observable universe’s diameter, and 1.6 x 10^-35 for the Planck length which is the smallest length possible.

    Magnifying the Universe
    https://academicinfluence.com/ie/mtu/

    Dr. Dembski’s more precise interactive graph points out that the smallest scale visible to the human eye (as well as the size of a human egg) is at 10^-4 meters, which ‘just so happens’ to be directly in the exponential center, and/or geometric mean, of all possible sizes of our physical reality. This is very interesting for the limits to human vision (as well as the size of the human egg) could have, theoretically, been at very different positions rather than directly in the exponential middle and/or the geometric mean. Needless to say, this empirical finding directly challenges, if not directly refutes, the assumption behind the Copernican Principle and/or the Principle of Mediocrity.

    Moreover, on top of all that, in the following video, astrophysicist Dr. Hugh Ross reveals that We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to see the Cosmic Background Radiation (CMBR), or as he put it in the video, we live at the right time to see ‘God creating the universe’:

    We Live At The Right Time In Cosmic History to see the Cosmic Background Radiation – Hugh Ross – video (7:12 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/MxOGeqVOsvc?t=431

    As well, in the following article Dr. Hugh Ross, via Brandon Carter and the anthropic inequality, reveals that we also just so happen live in the narrow window of what he termed to be the human habitability time

    Anthropic Principle: A Precise Plan for Humanity By Hugh Ross
    Excerpt: Brandon Carter, the British mathematician who coined the term “anthropic principle” (1974), noted the strange inequity of a universe that spends about 15 billion years “preparing” for the existence of a creature that has the potential to survive no more than 10 million years (optimistically).,, Carter and (later) astrophysicists John Barrow and Frank Tipler demonstrated that the inequality exists for virtually any conceivable intelligent species under any conceivable life-support conditions. Roughly 15 billion years represents a minimum preparation time for advanced life: 11 billion toward formation of a stable planetary system, one with the right chemical and physical conditions for primitive life, and four billion more years toward preparation of a planet within that system, one richly layered with the biodeposits necessary for civilized intelligent life. Even this long time and convergence of “just right” conditions reflect miraculous efficiency.
    Moreover the physical and biological conditions necessary to support an intelligent civilized species do not last indefinitely. They are subject to continuous change: the Sun continues to brighten, Earth’s rotation period lengthens, Earth’s plate tectonic activity declines, and Earth’s atmospheric composition varies. In just 10 million years or less, Earth will lose its ability to sustain human life. In fact, this estimate of the human habitability time window may be grossly optimistic. In all likelihood, a nearby supernova eruption, a climatic perturbation, a social or environmental upheaval, or the genetic accumulation of negative mutations will doom the species to extinction sometime sooner than twenty thousand years from now.
    http://christiangodblog.blogsp.....chive.html

    Here is a video and article that further back up the preceding claim:

    Hugh Ross – The Anthropic Principle and The Anthropic Inequality – video (50:24 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/mzIVrcSyprU?t=3028

    Lucky Us: Turning the Copernican Principle on Its Head – Daniel Bakken – January 26, 2015
    Excerpt: What if intelligence and technology hadn’t arisen in Earth’s habitability time window? Waltham in Lucky Planet asks “So, how do we explain the remarkable coincidence that the timescale for the emergence of intelligence is almost the same as the timescale for habitability?” Researchers Carter and Watson have dubbed this idea the anthropic inequality and it seems surprising, if it is not for some purpose.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....93011.html

    Moreover, although atheists have falsely assumed that planets that are able to support intelligent life are fairly common in the universe, the fact of the matter is that the probability of finding another planet that is able to support intelligent life in this universe is, for all practice purposes, impossible.

    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    Linked from Appendix C from Dr. Ross’s book, ‘Why the Universe Is the Way It Is’;
    Probability Estimates for the Features Required by Various Life Forms:
    Excerpt: Requirements to sustain intelligent physical life:
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1333
    dependency factors estimate approx. 10^-324
    longevity requirements estimate approx. 10^45
    Probability for occurrence of all 816 parameters approx. 10^-1054
    Maximum possible number of life support bodies in observable universe approx. 10^22
    Thus, less than 1 chance in 10^1032 exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe without invoking divine miracles.
    http://d4bge0zxg5qba.cloudfron.....3_ver2.pdf

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, in further establishing the fact that humans are not nearly as insignificant as atheists have erroneously believed via the Copernican principle, modern science also now reveals that the universe, and life itself are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that they are not ‘materialistic’ in their foundational basis as atheists had falsely presupposed.

    Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is also a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    And although the supposed evidence for human evolution is far weaker than most people realize and/or than most Darwinists will ever honestly admit, the one place that leading Darwinists themselves agree that they have no clue how a particularly unique human trait could have possibly evolved is with human language.

    In 2014 a group of leading evolutionary scientists stated that, after 4 decades of intense research, they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’, and that we therefore have far more significance and meaning to our lives than atheists have falsely presupposed, than finding both the universe, and life itself, are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’, (not via brute force as is presupposed in Darwinian. thought), but precisely because of our unique ability to create, and then infuse, immaterial information into material substrates.

    Verses

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God, and that our lives truly do have meaning and purpose, could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.

    And that just so happens to be the primary and central claim of claim of Christianity, which just so happens to be the worldview that gave us modern science in the first place:

    Jesus Christ as the correct “Theory of Everything” – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vpn2Vu8–eE

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  12. 12
    davidl1 says:

    This is somewhat off-topic, but I was wondering if anybody had any reviews of the book Spiritual Science ?

    https://www.amazon.com/Spiritual-Science-Needs-Spirituality-Sense/dp/1786781581

    I saw part of a video by the author, and he explicitly said it’s not ID, but it’s about consciousness being a fundamental “thing” in the universe. Any thoughts on the author or the book would be appreciated.

    Thanks.

    David

  13. 13
    Silver Asiatic says:

    looks good – a lot of rave reviews from the site

  14. 14
    davidl1 says:

    SA, thanks for the feedback.

    I like the premise of the book. If the author is well known as a crack-pot, I probably wouldn’t get it, but if not, I’ll check it out.

    Thanks.

  15. 15
    Silver Asiatic says:

    David – he could be a borderline crackpot, but that’s not necessarily a problem. The only professional reviewer I recognized was Eben Alexander, and he became famous but was also criticized for his near-death experience and some seemingly weird things he encountered.
    For me, the Spiritual Science book would have value as a reference to the various scientific studies. I have a feeling that it could never be used for purposes of argument itself (like quoting from it) but it would be dismissed as New Ageish or at least it doesn’t get any scientific credentials. But I would bet the research of the book is based on hard science itself, so it could be a good resource.

Leave a Reply