[_ Old Earth _] How is the Christian god detected?

[Orion]

I've enjoyed your posts, AAA, and find myself agreeing with most of them.

Having said that, I am not atheistic, but am open to the possibility of that which we just haven't reached a technological advancement enough to test for it. I have no idea what that is, IF it exists, but I don't want to rule it out. From time to time, people DO have experiences that are unanswered. They may have been completely naturalistic, or imagined, . . . but there could have been a "super"natural explaination. I have had no experiences of this type, so I can't give any stories of my own, but I will remain open.

I used to be a Christian as well [raised in the christian church], BTW. My current views no longer equate with my upbringing, though.

 

[Godfrey]

Why is it such an incredible point that he didn't ask for money?

AAA, try this thought experiment: you are going to replicate Muller's ministry. Announce to whomsoever it may concern that you propose to launch a charitable venture. Set up a web site for the project. Include on it a Paypal page so that visitors to the web site can make donations. Also of course give an address so they can send by snail mail or even turn up in person.

And that's it. You may, if expanding your project, announce the fact, but no more.

A few more restrictions:

• you will never reveal to any enquirer the state of your funds[/*:m:37za3kw1]
• not only will you never ask for money, if anyone asks you if you are in need, you will give no reply[/*:m:37za3kw1]
• if a false rumour circulates that you have far more than you need at a time of want, thus making it likely that contributions will be seen as unnecessary, you will not deny the rumour[/*:m:37za3kw1]
• you will never borrow money[/*:m:37za3kw1]

To make a success of your replication, the money which arrives entirely voluntarily and unsolicited will always cover your needs: capital expenditure, staff salaries, food for the starving, whatever. If there is a natural disaster in the area, other charities will make appeals, but you won't. Nonetheless, the money you need will arrive, always in time. There will never be a day when needs are not met or you are not able to meet your obligations. At the end of 60 years you will have received £100 million without ever asking.

 

[Aero_Hudson]

-I learn things about our material world everyday. What I learn does not always come from intellectual honesty as you describe it.

-Your assertion that there is nothing we could know about that world and therefor we shouldn't talk about it I feel is false.

-In my experience with faith it is 100% experiential and at a very personal level.

- Evidence is not the gold standard on faith and belief in God. Personal experience is.

- My personal experience with my faith fills me with peace, hope and joy. It tells me that most of the things that people worry about day in and day out just don't matter. There are bigger and better things out there.

Aero, it seems that your faith is mostly based on experiential evidence that is internal, mystical, and personal. Here's how Luke Muehlhauser puts it: "People who rely on these methods regularly come to contradictory conclusions about the nature of the supernatural. Their supernatural inferences are clear delusions to everyone as often as they are heralded as legitimate by fellow believers in the same kind of supernatural reality." These methods cannot reliably indicate anything about the supernatural, yet you think they are the "gold standard".

I guess that my relationship with Theo, the one-armed supernatural dragon I find in my garage is based on the "gold standard".

Don't you see how ridiculous this way of thinking is, no matter how good it makes you feel?

[quote="Aero_Hudson":2dhrbjaq]
-As a result, it cannot be measured, analyzed nor put under scientific scrutiny.

I'm not asking for "scientific scrutiny" in the sense of doing a controlled experiment. I'm just saying that "faith" is intellectually dishonest. Science is just one strict form of intellectual honesty.

- If one can be intellectually honest with themselves and admit that there are some things we will never completely understand I think this is easy to grasp.

All I'm saying is that if these things can't be grasped, or reliably demonstrated, we should put them on the backburner of human knowledge until they can. What we do in fact, is the opposite: we elevate these claims to where they are considered the most important pieces of knowledge that we have about the universe, important enough to organize our lives around, and important enough to regularly kill and die for. In the age of weapons of mass destruction, this irony is frightening enough that we cannot laugh at what would otherwise be so absurd as to be hilarious.

Humans love their mystical beliefs about the supernatural. We have worshipped literally thousands of gods, all based mostly on the type of internal, experiential, mystical evidence you say is the "gold standard". Beliefs based on these methods divide our species and are at least one important barrier to sustained mutual respect and interdependence. When are we going to accept that there's just no reliable validation for any of these beliefs at this point in time and until there is, we should just put them aside and focus on what we do and can know? I'm open to the possibility that one day, we will be able to know about the supernatural if it exists. What a find that would be!

-Live like a Christian for 60 days. Do what believers do for awhile and honestly experience it. Consider it a scientific experiment to test believers from an experiential standpoint. I dare you not to at least obtain a different perspective on things as a result. If not, at least you can say you had the guts to test it out and see for yourself.

Been there and done that already. I started out as a Christian.[/quote:2dhrbjaq]

Some additional random thoughts...

- Who defines ridiculous or intellectual honesty and by what standards? I think opera is ridiculous but others will tell you it is the best type of musical performance. You say science is just "...one strict form of intellectual honest". Are there others? Can you admit that intellectual honestly means different things to different people? By your definitions, what is the harm if I am intellectually dishonest?

- Work with me on this one. Let's assume for a second that we know for sure there is a God. We have one event or piece of evidence that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt for everyone. Me have this one piece of evidence but other than that we do not understand how God works or how His supernatural world works. Because we don't know how it works should we ignore it and put it on the backburner until we can come to understand him or do we keep searching for ways to get closer to God so we can understand?

- I have no problem organizing my life around the teachings of Jesus. I don't find that funny in the slightest not absurd nor a waste of time. His teachings structure my life, give me purpose, direction and a sense of who I am and why I am here. Nothing else in my life has come close to filling that void. Now the void is completely and 100% filled. I feel that filling this void is an essential part of every human being on the planet. I am being intellectually honest to myself when I say that Christ fills that void. Christ doesn't make me want to kill, hurt nor persecute others. It makes me want to love them instead regardless of their issues, leanings or actions. It connects me in a very powerful way with humanity that McDonalds, the Xbox 360 and other things can't even come close to.

- I am interested in learning more about your Christian experience. I started out as one as well for my first 16 years and had a very bad experience. It colored me against God and religion in a very profound way. I found out that those I was having the experience with didn't get it. Personally, I now think I do get it and no longer feel lost. Do you wish to share your story?

Thanks for posting! Aero out!

 

[nadab]

Here is some evidence of God's existence to consider that our senses can detect...

Questioning whether the tongue and the hand came about by pure chance reveals an enormous misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution, probably addressed in most of the threads in the Christianity and Science Forum, and which I do not want to go into here.

Even if the fine tuning of the universe pointed to a supernatural intelligent designer (and I'm not saying that it does), that would not in any way imply the truth of Christianity. Our designer could be 3 or 4 malevolent gods sitting around a table in a cosmic casino betting on the outcome of the millions of struggles occurring in our world, or relishing in the suffering that we experience. Or the designer could be dead - no longer in existence. Or the designer could be Allah.

The entire post is void of reliable methods of detecting the Christian god.

AAA,

When a person is peddling a bicycle, by his motion the bicycle stays up. If he were to die while peddling, what then happens ? The bike falls over and comes to rest. How then could the universe, be in motion and expanding at half the speed of light without chaos, and yet no one be "at the helm" ? Show that any car, bicycle, or motorcycle can steer itself through a maze of traffic without a mind to direct it ? If the "designer" had died, then how is it that the universe has not collapsed upon itself, with no one then to keep the universe in motion, just as a bike would fall when it was no longer peddled ?

Consider, for instance, the precise settings of four fundamental physical forces: electromagnetism, gravity, strong nuclear force, and weak nuclear force. These forces affect every object in the universe. They are set and balanced so precisely that even slight changes could render the universe lifeless.

To many reasoning minds, the explanation simply has to be something more than mere coincidence. John Polkinghorne, formerly a physicist at Cambridge University, concluded:

“When you realize that the laws of nature must be incredibly finely tuned to produce the universe we see, that conspires to plant the idea that the universe did not just happen, but that there must be a purpose behind it.â€

For example, if the size of the earth were slightly larger, the gravitational force would be stronger, with hydrogen collecting, unable to escape the earth's force. In time, the earth would be inhospitable to life. On the other hand, if the earth were slightly smaller, life sustaining oxygen and surface water would escape. Hence, if the earth were slightly larger or smaller, life could not exist.

If the earth were just 5 percent closer to the sun, scorching heat would have made life impossible, and if it were just 1 percent farther away from the sun, freezing temperatures would have covered much of the globe with huge sheets of ice.

Water, for instance, is composed of two atoms of hydrogen attached to one atom of oxygen. The oxygen side has a slightly negative charge, and the hydrogen side a slightly positive charge.These oppositve charges attract each other like tiny magnets, forming what is called "hydrogen bonds". What results from this simple, yet elegant design ?

As water gets colder, it grows more dense. However, unlike most liquids, as it's temperature approaches the freezing point, something unexpected happens. Water begins to expand. As it freezes into ice, the hydrogen bonds between the molecules lock into place, crystallizing into a very open "lattice". Due to this unique design, ice is less dense than liquid water and floats on top. This quality of water in rivers, lakes and oceans prevents them from becoming solid ice. Thus, the ice that is at the top of the water acts an insulator for the life below.

Accident or design by a Supreme Creator ?

Psalms 104:24 says: " How many your works are, O Jehovah ! All of them in wisdom you have made. The earth is full of your productions." Australian physicist Paul Davies made a similar point:

“There is no doubt that many scientists are . . . scornful of the notion that there might exist a God, or even an impersonal creative principle.†He added: “Personally I do not share their scorn. . . . I cannot believe that our existence in this universe is a mere quirk of fate, . . . an incidental blip in the great cosmic drama.â€

 

[AAA]

AAA, try this thought experiment: you are going to replicate Muller's ministry. Announce to whomsoever it may concern that you propose to launch a charitable venture. Set up a web site for the project. Include on it a Paypal page so that visitors to the web site can make donations. Also of course give an address so they can send by snail mail or even turn up in person.

And that's it. You may, if expanding your project, announce the fact, but no more.

There are problems with this thought experiment as an analogy for the claims being made:

(A) I'm not a charismatic minister who regularly minsters to people about Jesus, a man who taught about giving up all earthly possessions and material wealth, compassion, love, etc.

(B) Once I get some money, I won't be using it to create projects in the community that people can see and attribute to me, creating a "track record" that will motiviate more and bigger fish to donate.

I won't be responding anymore to this line of reasoning.

If you think its so conclusive, then why don't you get 60 Minutes, or the Discovery Channel to popularize it? Or better yet, why don't you get it published as an economic miracle in a peer reviewed journal of economics given that it is so much more than an anecdote, and backed up with so much firm evidence?

 

[Steve76]

AAA, try this thought experiment: you are going to replicate Muller's ministry. Announce to whomsoever it may concern that you propose to launch a charitable venture. Set up a web site for the project. Include on it a Paypal page so that visitors to the web site can make donations. Also of course give an address so they can send by snail mail or even turn up in person.

And that's it. You may, if expanding your project, announce the fact, but no more.

There are problems with this thought experiment as an analogy for the claims being made:

(A) I'm not a charismatic minister who regularly minsters to people about Jesus, a man who taught about giving up all earthly possessions and material wealth, compassion, love, etc.
(B) Once I get some money, I won't be using it to create projects in the community that people can see and attribute to me, creating a "track record" that will motiviate more and bigger fish to donate.

I won't be responding anymore to this line of reasoning.

If you think its so conclusive, then why don't you get 60 Minutes, or the Discovery Channel to popularize it? Or better yet, why don't you get it published as an economic miracle in a peer reviewed journal of economics given that it is so much more than an anecdote, and backed up with so much firm evidence?

You are the one that is asking for proof, not us... ;)

Godfrey's example is honest, genuine and detailed, yet you are, as you have been throughout the thread, sarcastic and condescending..

We do not need to prove our God, and science cannot comprehend or prove Him. We can however, honestly share our experiences and express our relationships with our Creator to people like you, but usually only to inevitably be ridiculed and laughed at..
And, on that day of Judgement, you will have to give your account to your Creator about what you did with His Son..with or without proof scientific proof :yes

 

[Orion]

Why must it always come back to scare tactics? No offense, steve, but it seems to be where such discussions end up.

If a person is completely honest and cannot find room within them to "accept that which they know has no proof", and sees MANY religions claiming to be "the only way to God", all based upon "faith", . . . then how can that person's account morally/ethically/justly "condemn them"? This is something that I've had a hard time with.

 

[Steve76]

Why must it always come back to scare tactics? No offense, steve, but it seems to be where such discussions end up.

Because it is true Orion..and it is not a tactic although I do understand where you are coming from as I have felt that way before..
I suppose it is a frustration because of my conviction, I really want people to believe yet I just get mocked and ridiculed....now, you could say that that is a tactic..

 

[AAA]

I really want people to believe yet I just get mocked and ridiculed....now, you could say that that is a tactic..

If you want people to believe, then come up with some good evidence. Good evidence is contagious. When presented with it, people can't refuse it.

Who would have thought that the faster you move, the slower time gets? Yet atomic clocks have proven exactly this counterintuitive prediction of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Who would have thought that the world was a sphere, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that that our solar system is one of many billions of solar systems? Without evidence, with just "faith", these claims are meaningless.

The problem from where I stand is that too many people actually accept bad evidence. Intellectual honesty, and critical thinking, are ways to avoid accepting bad evidence.

And for the record, I have never ridiculed or mocked you Steve67. I meant exactly what I wrote to Godfrey: if Reverend Muller's miracle is so convincing, then unbiased reporters, or economists, ought to be able to recognize its value as such.

 

[Steve76]

I really want people to believe yet I just get mocked and ridiculed....now, you could say that that is a tactic..

If you want people to believe, then come up with some good evidence. Good evidence is contagious. When presented with it, people can't refuse it.

Who would have thought that the faster you move, the slower time gets? Yet atomic clocks have proven exactly this counterintuitive prediction of Einstein's Theory of Special Relativity.

Who would have thought that the world was a sphere, or that the earth revolves around the sun, or that that our solar system is one of many billions of solar systems? Without evidence, with just "faith", these claims are meaningless.

The problem from where I stand is that too many people actually accept bad evidence. Intellectual honesty, and critical thinking, are ways to avoid accepting bad evidence.

And for the record, I have never ridiculed or mocked you Steve67. I meant exactly what I wrote to Godfrey: if Reverend Muller's miracle is so convincing, then unbiased reporters, or economists, ought to be able to recognize its value as such.

You won't get your good evidence and I believe that God makes it that way, that is why His inspired Word/Scripture in the Bible bangs on about FAITH sooo much! God is meant to be found through the heart and soul not through instruments.

Maybe you have not ridiculed me but the manner in which you reply is condescending, with your added up points and smarminess.. ;)
I really wish that you could get the proof you are so longing for and I have a feeling, one day, you will come to find the proof you need but not in the way you would expect, and I can't wait to read your Testimony on here one day!

 

[AAA]

Some additional random thoughts...
- Who defines ridiculous or intellectual honesty and by what standards? I think opera is ridiculous but others will tell you it is the best type of musical performance. You say science is just "...one strict form of intellectual honest". Are there others? Can you admit that intellectual honestly means different things to different people?

Surely you can't mean to imply that musical taste is analogous to the claims of Christianity? The claims of Christianity are either true or false. Jesus either was or was not born of a virgin. He either did or did not raise Lazarus, and he either will or will not judge our candidacy for eternal hellfire based on whether we can come to believe, based on insufficient evidence, that he was ritually murdered as a scapegoat for our indiscretions.

Can we agree that the claims of holocaust deniers are ridiculous? If so, how do we do that? By using "faith"? By using "mystical experiences", or "gut feelings", by employing an inner sense of what is right/true/real?

Intellectual honesty is just being reasonable about what one can conclude based on information and evidence. It is true that we can quibble about what's reasonable and unreasonable at some point. Far from that point though, everyone would agree that my claim about the undetectable dragon in my garage is unreasonable. Furthermore, everyone would agree that a claim that if you drop an apple, it will fall upwards is also unreasonable. There is a large territory in between, but it can't possibly be covered or addressed by pleasant gut feelings, or mystical sensations of "voids". Also, avoiding bias is an important part of intellectual honesty.

By your definitions, what is the harm if I am intellectually dishonest?

I have already alluded to the serious harm to which intellectual dishonesty can contribute. (Do you think it was intellectually honest of the 19 hijackers to count on a virgin-filled paradise?)

- Work with me on this one. Let's assume for a second that we know for sure there is a God. We have one event or piece of evidence that proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt for everyone. Me have this one piece of evidence but other than that we do not understand how God works or how His supernatural world works. Because we don't know how it works should we ignore it and put it on the backburner until we can come to understand him or do we keep searching for ways to get closer to God so we can understand?

By all means, we should search for ways to communicate with and understand that god, and if "gut feelings" can be shown to reliably provide good information about that god, then we should use our "gut feelings". But make no mistake about it: in that hypothetical world, we will be assessing the effectiveness of "gut feelings" as a way of learning about or communicating with god the same way that we evaluate everything else: by an intellectually honest appraisal of evidence.

- I have no problem organizing my life around the teachings of Jesus. I don't find that funny in the slightest not absurd nor a waste of time.

I didn't mean to imply that the tenets of Christianity were humorous. I did mean to imply that the irony of our situation would be humorous if it wasn't so scary, that situation being that the religious claims that humans consider to be the most important truths about the universe are based on the weakest "evidence" like "gut feelings", "revelation", and "mystical experiences".

I think that there are many lessons that we can learn from the story of Jesus including the powers of redemption, the dangers of greed, the power of compassion, etc. I don't think that we need to accept any claims included in that story based on insufficient evidence though, including that Jesus is part of a triune deity that created the universe and mankind and will judge the extent to which we can truly accept claims on insufficient evidence before deciding that our infinite lives will be spent in hellfire.

- I am interested in learning more about your Christian experience. I started out as one as well for my first 16 years and had a very bad experience. It colored me against God and religion in a very profound way. I found out that those I was having the experience with didn't get it. Personally, I now think I do get it and no longer feel lost. Do you wish to share your story?

A brief version of my story can be found here:http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=41492&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15

 

[Steve76]

One of the biggest problems regarding Christianity is the way in which Hell has been blown out of proportion. It is not eternal pain, suffering and burning! The lake of fire that hell gets thrown into annihilates whatever is in hell. IT CEASES TO EXIST!

God wants fellowship and a relationship with us. Even though we are not worthy of it, He is merciful and longsuffering with us. He loves us but hates our sin. He gives plenty of opportunities and time for us to get to know Him here, and we have choice and free will..

If we choose to not fellowship and have a relationship with Him in our mortal lives then we choose the same for our souls. The souls that do not join with Him go into hell, then the lake of fire, and then it's over.
Don't listen to that absurd nonsense about an eternity of pain and burning in fire!

 

[Orion]

That's the problem, Steve, . . . there are those who are bible believing churches that state Hell AS literally burning forever. But that is a side note, and for another thread. But you said in your answer to my question about "scare tactics" that it was because "it is true". Yet, you can't know that it IS true, but must rely on your faith that it is, . . . same as the muslim believes on HIS faith that when he suicide bombs the infidel, he will be rewarded with a flock of virgins on the other side. It is a HUGE problem with "witnessing", and those who DO think the way, AAA and others here (myself included), are not being dishonest, . . . and that can't be a claim that can be morally/ethically/justly punished.

 

[Steve76]

That's the problem, Steve, . . . there are those who are bible believing churches that state Hell AS literally burning forever. But that is a side note, and for another thread. But you said in your answer to my question about "scare tactics" that it was because "it is true". Yet, you can't know that it IS true, but must rely on your faith that it is, . . . same as the muslim believes on HIS faith that when he suicide bombs the infidel, he will be rewarded with a flock of virgins on the other side. It is a HUGE problem with "witnessing", and those who DO think the way, AAA and others here (myself included), are not being dishonest, . . . and that can't be a claim that can be morally/ethically/justly punished.

We are to work it out ourselves...
Here is what I used to think! I was very confused. I used to think like an evolutionist in fact and admired UFOs and pondered the possibility that they may be playing games with us.. I was put off God because of the life I had gone through when I was younger, and I saw Churches/Religions as just clubs after money and power...some of that was true.

Scare tactics and doom and gloom do not work but also, there is no point in pulling cotton wool over the eyes..
I have some anger in me now, since I was saved. I am angry with those who put me off God! They came from Churches and scare tactics about hell. I have to forgive them and deal with my anger so I turn to my heart (not mind) and ask my God to guide me in the truth that is so apparent to me now in scripture.
My conviction is so strong you would not believe. If you could experience what I did in April this year and the things that came after it then I am sure you would be writing in a similar context as I am.

All I did was put sincere faith in Jesus for about 10 mins whilst I prayed for Him to come and save me from a demon that was haunting me, but I did not expect anything like what was to happen. My anger is real and it is a problem. I have anger towards those who have perverted the Passion of my Christ and who scare the unbelievers of my Christ with hell...

I would really like to expose them and my blog is just the beginning.. ;)

 

[AAA]

You won't get your good evidence and I believe that God makes it that way, that is why His inspired Word/Scripture in the Bible bangs on about FAITH sooo much!

Steve67,

I certainly don't mean for this thread to be hijacked by a discussion abut the nature of hell, but I cannot let it slide that the infallible bible you refer to above gives some very clear descriptions of hell. Perhaps there can be debate about the extent of the flames, or how unquenchable the thirst will be, or how violent the gnashing of teeth will be, but I think that there can be no doubt that it will be an eternal torment.

If you want to start a separate thread on this topic, be my guest. I am sure you will find many fellow Christians who will gladly dispute your personal Christian interpretation over there.

I would like to get back to the intent of the original discussion: how is the Christian god detected, and if he cannot be reliably detected, then why does anybody believe in him?

 

[Steve76]

You won't get your good evidence and I believe that God makes it that way, that is why His inspired Word/Scripture in the Bible bangs on about FAITH sooo much!

Steve67,

I certainly don't mean for this thread to be hijacked by a discussion abut the nature of hell, but I cannot let it slide that the infallible bible you refer to above gives some very clear descriptions of hell. Perhaps there can be debate about the extent of the flames, or how unquenchable the thirst will be, or how violent the gnashing of teeth will be, but I think that there can be no doubt that it will be an eternal torment.

If you want to start a separate thread on this topic, be my guest. I am sure you will find many fellow Christians who will gladly dispute your personal Christian interpretation over there.

I would like to get back to the intent of the original discussion: how is the Christian god detected, and if he cannot be reliably detected, then why does anybody believe in him?

Nah, I'll leave it here but if others want to discuss how false descriptions of hell puts unbelievers off then I would be more than happy to discuss it. I know my beliefs on the matter and it's mis-interpretations. The thirst, the gnashing etc.. are true!
but not in the way you may think.
It is endless sorrow in hell... and then, the lake of fire, not eternity.

Proof of a Christian God? I truly believe that you already know that whatever anyone posts here, out of the goodness of their hearts to try to inevitably help you, you will just have to deny, undermine, ridicule, mock, etc etc... I see proof of God in this thread, through believers sharing their experiences, opening their hearts only to be ridiculed.
And don't say you don't....you do!

What is the point?

You won't get proof, I gave you my advice, so, stick it on your list and keep searching!
;)

 

[Godfrey]

I won't be responding anymore to this line of reasoning.

I respect that, and will desist from posting about Muller. However, I will just add this. In chapter 8 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins tells a touching story of an old biology professor who, resolutely set against the existence of something called the Golgi mechanism, attended a lecture by a visiting speaker of opposing views - and changed his mind.

Would it were always thus, but you know and I know that in the real world of science, people are not always as open to the truth. Ever since reading Lee Smolin's The Trouble With Physics, I've been a fascinated observer of the controversy surrounding string theory (not least because I think I detect similarities between the string community and the New Atheism ). As far as I could see, the string theorists reacted almost unanimously with closed minds. I recall only one (Polchinski) actually engaging with Smolin's physics. Some (e.g. Distler) even refused to read the book; and at least one (Motl) appears to have engaged in a hate campaign. Smolin's book's point was actually that physics is in trouble because physicists have become unscientific, and it looks like the string theorists have made his point for him.

Which leads, longwindedly, to my point: of the many atheists I've engaged with over the years, the ones who have insisted on "evidence" or "proof", who bang on about "science", are exactly the ones who behave like the string community. Thank heavens I've not yet met a Motl; but neither have I met an old professor, who was willing to go and examine the evidence in depth, and change his mind accordingly if necessary.

 

[Barbarian]

We are to work it out ourselves...
Here is what I used to think! I was very confused. I used to think like an evolutionist in fact and admired UFOs and pondered the possibility that they may be playing games with us..

I know prominent creationists who think that way, but I don't know of any prominent scientists who do. Just saying.

 

[nadab]

There are four fundamental forces that binds the universe together, (1) gravity, (2) electromagnetism, (3) weak nuclear force, and (4) strong nuclear force. Because of being precision tuned in relation to each other, life exists. How is this known ?

Elements vital for our life (particularly carbon, oxygen, and iron) could not exist were it not for the fine-tuning of the four forces evident in the universe, such as gravity. Another is the electromagnetic force. If it were significantly weaker, electrons would not be held around the nucleus of an atom. ‘Would that be serious?’ some might wonder. Yes, because atoms could not combine to form molecules. Conversely, if this force were much stronger, electrons would be trapped on the nucleus of an atom. There could be no chemical reactions between atoms—meaning no life. Even from this standpoint, it is clear that our existence and life depend on the fine-tuning of the electromagnetic force.

And consider the cosmic scale: A slight difference in the electromagnetic force would affect the sun and thus alter the light reaching the earth, making photosynthesis in plants difficult or impossible. It could also rob water of its unique properties, which are vital for life. So again, the precise tuning of the electromagnetic force determines whether we live or not.

Equally vital is the intensity of the electromagnetic force in relation to the other three. For example, some physicists figure this force to be 10,000,- 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (1040) times that of gravity. It might seem a small change to that number to add one more zero (1041). Yet that would mean that gravity is proportionally weaker, and Dr. Reinhard Breuer comments on the resulting situation: “With lower gravity the stars would be smaller, and the pressure of gravity in their interiors would not drive the temperature high enough for nuclear fusion reactions to get under way: the sun would be unable to shine.â€

What if gravity were stronger proportionately, so that the number had only 39 zeros (1039)? “With just this tiny adjustment,†continues Breuer, “a star like the sun would find its life expectancy sharply reduced.†And other scientists consider the fine-tuning to be even more precise.

Indeed, two remarkable qualities of our sun and other stars are long-term efficiency and stability. Consider a simple illustration. We know that to run efficiently, an automobile engine needs a critical ratio between fuel and air; engineers design complex mechanical and computer systems to optimize performance. If that is so with a mere engine, what of the efficiently “burning†stars such as our sun? The key forces involved are precisely tuned, optimized for life. Did that precision just happen? The ancient man Job was asked: “Did you proclaim the rules that govern the heavens, or determine the laws of nature on earth?†(Job 38:33, The New English Bible) No human did. So from where does the precision come ?

Proverbs 3:19 says that "Jehovah himself in wisdom founded the earth. He solidly fixed the heavens in discernment."

 

[AAA]

Thank heavens I've not yet met a Motl; but neither have I met an old professor, who was willing to go and examine the evidence in depth, and change his mind accordingly if necessary.

I seems to me that that shoe is worn equally well by either foot.

Or maybe its not so equal after all?

"The latest statistics show that a lack of religious identity increased in every US state between 1990 and 2008." [http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-03-09-ARIS-faith-survey_N.htm]

"In the United Kingdom, religious adherence rates have been falling for some time while the proportion of people who self-classify as having no religion has been increasing." ["Religion by Year". British Social Attitudes Surveys. 2007. Retrieved 2009-05-24]