The Fine Tuning in the Universe

[Guest]

Hello Quath. I would like you to read the following. I was just wondering what atheists like yourself think about this. Surely there must be a God. Surely we have been created for a reason.

The Fine Tuning in the Universe.

The British astrophysicist Professor George F. Ellis refers to this fine-tuning in these terms:

Amazing fine tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word “miraculous†without taking a stand as to the ontological status of the word.

(Paul Davies, Superforce: The Search for a Grand Unified Theory of Nature, 1984, 184. )

Gravity:

- If gravity were stronger, excessive ammonia and methane would collect in the Earth’s atmosphere, which would have a most damaging effect on life.
- If it were weaker, the Earth’s atmosphere would lose excessive quantities of water, making life impossible.

The Earth’s Distance from the Sun:

- If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age.
- If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth’s atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible.

The Thickness of the Earth’s Crust:

- If the crust were any thicker, then an excessive amount of oxygen would be transferred to it from the atmosphere.
- If it were any thinner, the resulting amount of volcanic activity would make life impossible.

The Speed at which the Earth Revolves:

- If this were any slower, the temperature difference between day and night would grow enormously.
- If it were any faster, then atmospheric winds would reach enormous speeds, and cyclones and storms would make life impossible.

The Earth’s Magnetic Field:

- If this were any more powerful, very strong electromagnetic storms would arise.
- If it were any weaker, then the Earth would lose its protection against the harmful particles given off by the Sun and known as solar winds. Both situations would make life impossible.

The Albedo Effect (Ratio between the amount of light the Earth reflects and the amount of light that is absorbed):

- If this were any greater, an ice-age would rapidly result.
- If it were any less, the greenhouse effect would lead to excessive warming. The Earth would first be flooded with the melting of the glaciers, and would then burn up.

The Proportion of Oxygen and Nitrogen in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, vital functions would be adversely accelerated.
- If it were any less, vital functions would adversely slow down.

The Proportion of Carbon Dioxide and Water in the Atmosphere:

- If this were any greater, the atmosphere would overheat.
- If it were any less, the temperature of the atmosphere would fall.

The Thickness of the Ozone Layer:

- If this were any greater, the Earth’s temperature would fall enormously.
- If it were any less, the Earth would overheat and be defenceless against the harmful ultraviolet rays emitted by the Sun.

Seismic Activity (Earthquakes):

- If this were any greater, there would be constant upheaval for living things.
- If it were any less, the nutrients at the sea bottom would fail to spread into the water. This would have a damaging effect on life in the seas and oceans and all living things on Earth.

The Earth’s Angle of Tilt:

The Earth has a 23 degree angle of inclination to its orbit. It is this inclination that gives rise to the seasons. If this angle were any greater or any less than it is now, the temperature difference between the seasons would reach extreme dimensions, with unbearably hot summers and bitterly cold winters.

The Size of the Sun:

A smaller star than the Sun would mean the Earth would freeze and a larger star would lead to its burning up.

The Attraction between the Earth and the Moon:

- If this were any greater, the powerful attraction of the Moon would have extremely serious effects on atmospheric conditions, the speed at which the Earth revolves around its own axis and on the ocean tides.

- If it were any less, this would lead to extreme climate changes.

 

[Quath]

There are a few ways to look at this. Let me just look at one example which probably represents a lot of these examples:

The Earth’s Distance from the Sun:

- If this were any greater, the planet would grow very cold, the water cycle in the atmosphere would be affected, and the planet would enter an ice-age.
- If the Earth were any closer to the Sun, plants would burn up, the water cycle in the Earth’s atmosphere would be irreparably damaged, and life would become impossible.

Earth is about 93 million miles away from the sun. However, its is an elitpical orbit so that the different in the closest and furthest is about 3 million miles. So we know that the Earth could be further or closer by 3 million miles. Maybe it could get a lot closer. With a less thick atmosphere it could get closer. With a denser atmosphere, it could get further. So this is not really fine tuned.

But say that we were a lot closer to the sun. Then life would evolve to fit this new type of Earth. Maybe it stays at a microscopic level. Maybe it evolves faster. Things would be different, but it would not mean that life would be impossible.

But say it is so close that life is impossible. Well, then how many other Earth like planets are there? With billions of galaxies in the observable universe and billions of stars in each one, Earth doesn't have to be unique. Life could evolve on one of these other planets that is better situated. Every Earth like planet would have to be removed from the universe to use these arguments.

So in summary, fine-tuning arguments about the Earth and Sun only work if there are no other sun/planets similar to Earth in the universe. From the planets and stars we have detected so far, it seems likely that Earth is not unique.

-------------------------------------------

But there is another category of fine tuned arguments that deal with physics. (Ratio of strong force to gravity and the like.) There are a couple of ways we can deal with this. One is just assume this is the only viable universe. Or in other words we are just lucky that the universe just happens to support life. This is similar to the idea that we are just lucky that a deity exists that just so happens to like to make universes that support life (as opposed to a deity that could care less about creating universes).

Other ideas are based on multiple univeses with different parameters. Our universe may be cyclic. Or there could be an infinite number of universes with different rules.

-------------------------------------------

I think the basic premise is also wrong. If you assume that life requires a reason to live or a creator to make it, then you have just complicated the problem. For example, if God is alive, then he too must have been created for a purpose and have a creator. If God does not require a creator or a purpose, then why do we need one?

 

[peace4all]

however...

Pending if the Universe is infinite (some say yes, some say no.. we just don't know) if it is, there are an infinite number of possibilities for things to occur. so there would be a planet that was 4 miles closer to the sun, there would be one with a thicker crust, and there would be one where dinosaurs never died out (along with an infinite number of other solutions going from large changes to something as small as one breed of grass being a slightly darker shade)

 

[Rick W]

however...

Pending if the Universe is infinite (some say yes, some say no.. we just don't know) if it is, there are an infinite number of possibilities for things to occur.

OK, so there's a place where yellow canoes fall from the sky on a daily basis, their wheels fall off and form pancakes with holes all over the place.

:-D

 

[Quath]

OK, so there's a place where yellow canoes fall from the sky on a daily basis, their wheels fall off and form pancakes with holes all over the place.

An infinite size universe justsays that if there is some possible way for life to happen, it must occur. So if you say that generation of life is a 1 in 10^1000000000000 shot, then we can conclude that life does occur. Only if you can prove that life can never form, or (1 in 0 shot), do you require a God-like fix. (Even then, there are less complex solutions that do not require God.)

 

[Rick W]

I would think the odds are much better that God does exist. Through the span of mankind, all men since the world was new, there are those who claim to have experienced or witnessed His presence. If even one, just one, of those testimonies is true then God exists.
We are so much more willing to conclude that life exists elsewhere on much slimmer evidence than the evidence given that God exists. For us just finding water is enough for us to believe life must exist someplace and water is not life. Yes, water may be required but that's just one of the odds that must be satisfied among many other circumstances, each with it's own set of odds of occurring.
If I were a true betting man, an open-minded universal gambler, I'd put my money down that the odds of man finding God are much better than man finding extraterrestrial life. And rejecting the possibilty of finding life elsewhere is as biased, closed-minded and intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others as rejecting the possibility that God exists.

If or when we do find life in the future (if none is found on Mars which I seriously doubt any will be and if man exists that long) doesn't disprove God for one could then ask, "Why did God see fit to put life there?" If or when we do find life we will find another facet of God's nature and will. Nor does proving God exists mean there will be no life elsewhere. He's God, He can create life anywhere He wants. I just don't understand why the concepts of God and the concepts of extraterrestrial life elsewhere can't mix. Finding life doesn't disprove God anymore than finding God disproves life.

Why haven't we yet found life? Maybe God doesn't think we're ready.

At any rate you stand a much better chance of finding God if you are truly playing the odds. And I believe everyone will anyway ... sooner or later.

 

[peace4all]

OK, so there's a place where yellow canoes fall from the sky on a daily basis, their wheels fall off and form pancakes with holes all over the place.

:-D

pretty much.

sort of like the show "sliders" or the simpsons haloween episode where homer makes the toaster time machine and he keeps going back in the past and accidentally killing a dinosaur or something, and each time he comes back, either his family has snake tongues, he is the size of a bug, or he is filthy rich, but thinks that donuts don't exist (and right after he leaves, it begins to rain donuts)

 

[Rick W]

pretty much.

sort of like the show "sliders" or the simpsons haloween episode where homer makes the toaster time machine and he keeps going back in the past and accidentally killing a dinosaur or something, and each time he comes back, either his family has snake tongues, he is the size of a bug, or he is filthy rich, but thinks that donuts don't exist (and right after he leaves, it begins to rain donuts)

Does your view of "pretty much" exclude the possibilty that God exists?

 

[peace4all]

Does your view of "pretty much" exclude the possibilty that God exists?

No I agree that their is the possibility that God exists. However, I do not believe at all that it is the Christian God, or the muslim God, or any other religions God. However, since Science cannot explain exactly how everything started, it could be a "God- like" presence or being.

I see scientific explanations to be more rational and logical than religous explanations for the same thing. However, Science can't figure out how exactly everything was created. But stating that "God" did it, especially the Christian God, just makes you question who created God, and then who created whoever created God?

I always hear that God Created man, however I find it more likely that Man created God (or at least mainstream interpretations of God.

ut I also believe that in an infinite set of universes, that many will have a God like person (and oen fitting oru exact perception) that is doing everything.

It all is an endless infinite loop of who created what first, there is no beginning and no end, so I don't worry about it, and I won't give credit to anyone for it.

 

[Rick W]

On Science:

Science can prove some things, such as the reactions between things that can be reproduced in the laboratory. But there is another part of science other than that which can be reproduced in a lab. And this is where science takes on another dimension, that of conclusion. Most confuse conclusion with science thinking the conclusion is science or scientific when in fact the only thing scientific is the process by which data is revealed and nothing more. The rest is conclusion based on the views and assumptions of a man. A scientist is no less or any more than a priest in that each has his/her own field of study making conclusions from what is presented and what they believe to be evidence of what they propose.
Science produces the data, the scientist generates the conclusion. Granted, there are things that are irrefutable, like reactions when specific compounds/chemicals are mixed, the orbits of mass reacting to gravity or the effect of rotating a coil inside a magnetic field. These can be reproduced over and over again just about anywhere. But there is that part of "science" where this does not hold true.
Science is the God-given gift to man that he may come to know God standing in ever-increasing awe of His power and glory. God is not against science, nor is science against God. But the conclusion of men drawn from the data reveled by scientific method in many cases relies heavily on the men making the conclusions.
"Scientific conclusion" is not science but simply the opinion based on the data presented.

In the beginning of any scientific endeavor assumptions are made. No way does anyone do anything for no reason at all. Whether those assumptions are true or not doesn't hinder the motive to do something. A defense attorney assumes his client is innocent, the prosecutor assumes he is guilty. Each uses scientific method, called forensics, to produce evidence that supports each others assumptions. One is not looking for evidence to support the other's view. Therefore evidence may be missed, ignored or overlooked by each that would not support that which they are trying to prove based on the assumptions from the start. It may not be intentional and in most cases isn't... the simple fact is each is looking for something different with a different focus. After the data is gathered each arranges their data and presents it to the jury. The jury makes the final conclusions based on the evidence presented and how it's presented.
The word "Science" can be wrongly used to include conclusion in an attempt to make it sound or appear irrefutable. But conclusion is not scientific since the conclusions drawn in many cases will differ time and time again. Yes, there are conclusions that are definitely irrefutable as I've stated but that definitely does not mean all conclusions are correct.
There's a big difference between "Science" and "Scientific Conclusion". Scientific conclusion lies somewhere between the ears of the man using science outside that realm to gather the data.

 

[peace4all]

I do agree. Thats why I am glad there is such a diverse group of scientists. every theory is worth testing to a point. ]


I think one of the only differences between your beliefs on science and mine, is that you believe that Science is part of God's will and plan, to help us along, where I believe that we do so with out the use of a higher power.

It all sort of goes back to the, do you believe or not?

 

[Rick W]

It all sort of goes back to the, do you believe or not?

And that is the whole idea and purpose of these forums. I don't see how one can expect God not to be included in everything here anymore than one can expect God to be excluded in everything on a secular forum. I just wish people would try more to understand that fact and include tolerance toward God and those that believe more than they do on this Christian forum.
But of course, that's my conclusion. :wink:

 

[Vic C.]

Nice conclusion, considering the name of the site is 123 Christian Forums. :wink:

 

[Rick W]

Nice conclusion, considering the name of the site is 123 Christian Forums. :wink:

Aw dear Watson! You learn quickly I see!
:-D

 

[peace4all]

And that is the whole idea and purpose of these forums. I don't see how one can expect God not to be included in everything here anymore than one can expect God to be excluded in everything on a secular forum. I just wish people would try more to understand that fact and include tolerance toward God and those that believe more than they do on this Christian forum.
But of course, that's my conclusion. :wink:

Yes.. but as I have stated, I don't deny the possibility of a God existing.. However, you believe 100% (im assuming here) in God. So when you include your God, in legislation or public displays, it says that anyone that doesn't believe in your particular God is wrong, however, when you have something secular, it says that any god may be correct.

nice touch vic :-P

 

[Rick W]

Yes.. but as I have stated, I don't deny the possibility of a God existing.. However, you believe 100% (im assuming here) in God. So when you include your God, in legislation or public displays, it says that anyone that doesn't believe in your particular God is wrong, however, when you have something secular, it says that any god may be correct.

nice touch vic :-P

I vote as I believe a candidate will serve me best. If he/she believes in God and makes decisions that include God whether in legislation or public displays then that is exactly what I voted for. If however, if a candidate you vote for is elected who does not believe in God and does not include God in his/her decisions then that is exactly what you voted for.

I cannot and will not be obligated to explain my voting decision to anyone regardless of why I vote as I do. Nor can you be expected to explain yourself as to how or why you vote as you do. Face it, peace4all, there are those who do not want God eliminated from legislation or public display and will vote accordingly, against your wishes. When the presidential election comes in 2008 I'll vote for the one who I feel will serve my wants/needs the best. And that includes God.

So unless my right to vote is revoked because I'm a christian you're going to see voting that puts christian ideals in office. No way around that.

 

[Guest]

Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, Pluto. for reference.

If you think that life would still be possible if we were closer then why don’t you try living on Venus or Mercury? There closer! The reply your probably thinking of now is but the surface etc is different on these planets. Well your right. That is why we are in the right distance away from the Sun to have life.

Man was not created to know everything. There is a limit to what people could achieve. Anyway it talks about in the Quran that the universe is expanding, which is now confirmed by science. You talk about there being so many galaxies, but lets work with facts as this leads to the truth. We know of 9 planets to date right. Out of all of these planets, Earth is the only one with life on it out of these planets. It is also the only one with billions of people living on it. Why isn’t there life on other planets? So yes it is unique but also significant.

You also touched on gravity. Well for this subject I will leave it to the experts. Look at the quotes below.

"The most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion on an intelligent and powerful Being." (Isaac Newton).

Although the laws of motion and universal gravitation became Newton's best-known discoveries, he warned against using them to view the universe as a mere machine, as if akin to a great clock. He said, "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done." Tiner, J.H. (1975). Isaac Newton: Inventor, Scientist and Teacher. Milford, Michigan, U.S.: Mott Media.

Isaac Newton the one who discovered gravity also believes in God. Don’t tell me you know more about him in this subject. If I were you I would take his word for it.

The last thing you talked about was about God and premise being wrong. I’m sorry but I know we have been created and we have a purpose in life! But this is a larger subject and this is only one drop of evidence for it. Lastly when evolutionists, atheist etc talk about science they call it a theory. For example ‘the evolution theory’. When we talk about religion we don’t call it a theory we say it is a fact it is the truth!

 

[peace4all]

I vote as I believe a candidate will serve me best. If he/she believes in God and makes decisions that include God whether in legislation or public displays then that is exactly what I voted for. If however, if a candidate you vote for is elected who does not believe in God and does not include God in his/her decisions then that is exactly what you voted for.

I cannot and will not be obligated to explain my voting decision to anyone regardless of why I vote as I do. Nor can you be expected to explain yourself as to how or why you vote as you do. Face it, peace4all, there are those who do not want God eliminated from legislation or public display and will vote accordingly, against your wishes. When the presidential election comes in 2008 I'll vote for the one who I feel will serve my wants/needs the best. And that includes God.

So unless my right to vote is revoked because I'm a christian you're going to see voting that puts christian ideals in office. No way around that.

But just because the voters vote on it, doesn't always make it right.

Allowing slavery, denying women the right to vote, and many places barring atheists from public office until recently, are all things that everyone agreed with and voted on, but are wrong and oppressive.

Sure, voting for a person that follows the same morals as you is what you should do, However, when those morals interfere with other peoples freedoms, is when they should be questioned.

You and I might disagree on this for most candidates, but I am pretty sure both of us would agree that a candidate that was pro KKK, or an avid Nazi party member, would be inappropriate, and wrong for our government.

We just have some small, fine tunning issues between us :-P

 

[Rick W]

Yes.. but as I have stated, I don't deny the possibility of a God existing.. However, you believe 100% (im assuming here) in God. So when you include your God, in legislation or public displays, it says that anyone that doesn't believe in your particular God is wrong, however, when you have something secular, it says that any god may be correct.

nice touch vic :-P

That's why you vote for the secular candidates and I don't. You may feel you're right but I think you're wrong. I may feel I'm right but you think I'm wrong. See, there are going to be those that oppose your opinion no matter what your opinion is or how you feel about it. The only way to eliminate your opposition is to eliminate the freedoms within which that opposition operates. Thing is, that's a double-edged sword. By eliminating mine you eliminate yours also.
You claim equal rights for all, but do you really? Is that only if those rights guarantee the opposition to your opinion will not be heard or exercised? Want to eliminate freedom of expression for NON-secular people but not for the secular people?
You want everything homogenized, pulverized, normalized and standardized into a milky, creamy social blend.... without lumps. Well, you're not going to prevent the propensity of people to congeal into groups, organizations, cultures based on beliefs, ideals, opinions, convictions or expectations which just might oppose your point of view.

The people have a right to express themselves, their beliefs and their ideals into a government for the people and BY the people. The government or the legislation thereof is not a separate entity onto it's own apart from the people. It's the representation of a free people who by the grace of God have the freedom and liberty to make legislation and government their own. For the people and by the people means just that. And how is that done? By open ballot, freedom to contact representatives to voice an opinion without fear of repercussion, the right to assembly, the right to free speech and the right to freedom of expression. The people do not serve the government, the government serves the people. And that by the terms the people have chosen to support whether it be by your views of secularization or not.

This isn't Burger King. You can't always have it your way.

 

[christian_soldier]

But say that we were a lot closer to the sun. Then life would evolve to fit this new type of Earth. Maybe it stays at a microscopic level. Maybe it evolves faster. Things would be different, but it would not mean that life would be impossible.

The best argument against evolution is the continued existence of stupid people.

:-D

(Didn't I already say that?)